Sign in to follow this  
Battlemonger

[Speculation] Could Coronavirus Lead to the Return of Compliance Buyouts?

Recommended Posts

Some of the candidates around the league could look like this: 

 

Seabrook (wouldn't mind this in a bottom pairing)

Eriksson

Lucic ( wouldn't mind Lucic in a bottom six role, for like 2-3 mill) 

Neal

Jamie Benn (contract is horrendous, owner doesn't like him)

Carey Price ( contract is horrendous) 

Stepan

Okposo or Skinner

James Van Riemsdyk

Hornqvist

Bryan Little

Dustin Brown

Parise 

Jordan Staal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compliance buyout is a real possbility. Teams are operating with the assumption that the cap is going to be in 80plus mill range, and then with the lost revenue because of uncontrollable circumstances, that cap lowers by a lot so teams get screwed. Its just like a business during these hard times, you have to cut ties with an employee or few because of the sudden drop in revenue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 6:00 PM, aGENT said:

Is it though? It's pretty much Eriksson and then Luongo if we're able, Baer if we're not.

 

Maybe an argument for Ferland but if he's healthy, he's a useful and valuable. If he's not, I don't think we can buy him out (IIRC).

 

Anybody suggesting anyone else has been spending too much time smoking herb in their self isolation :lol: 

Pretty much this.

 

I think there’s a real argument for Myers, and the case can easily be made, at least  as a pure hypothetical. But in the real world, there’s just no way JB pulls the trigger on a compliance buyout for a player he just acquired as the centrepiece of his 2019 free agency moves.


The Myers contract will likely prove itself a costly mistake by the time we get into years 4-5 (and I honestly question the value for money for this player even today), but it’s a decision that the Canucks made with their eyes wide open, and I don’t think they feel much differently about the contract today than they did on the day they signed it. For better or worse, Myers isn’t going anywhere (except maybe Seattle?).

 

Roussel is a useful player who was just having an off year due to his struggles coming back from an injury. We’ve seen better from him (last year), and we will again. I’m still a big believer in his value as a complimentary piece on this roster, and a player who plays a much needed role, and can actually be quite a difference maker, when he’s on his game.

 

Ferland is similar. If he’s healthy and able to play his game (or even one with less physicality but still retaining his skill), he remains a useful piece in an NHL lineup. And if he’s not healthy, he’s sent to Robidas Island for the duration, or he just simply retires.

 

Sutter and Beagle probably aren’t worth their contracts any more at this point in time (and certainly moving forward), at least looking results based and as pure roster pieces (versus younger/cheaper options that could fill similar on-ice roles). But they are still very useful players and both of them offer significant “value added” in the room and as key members of the “greybeard” leadership group that helps guide the young core.

 

So that leaves the obvious, in Eriksson, and the practical, in Baertschi.


Eriksson is clearly wasted money and clearing his contract would be a godsend. Not much more to say. Shoot him into the sun and put everyone out of their misery.

 

Baertschi, for right or wrong, is never going to get the chance to play any kind of significant NHL role in Vancouver, so we might as well save the money, if given the opportunity to shed his salary. It’s not going to be a huge savings, but it’s better than just wasting money on a guy who’s never getting out of the AHL doghouse until he gets himself clear of this organization.

 

I would argue that Baertschi is not really the best “bang for buck” option for a second compliance buyout. But while there might be “smarter” options, from a pure “asset management” perspective, none of them seem realistic for the specific conditions of this team and its management/ownership group.

 

As you note, if the Luongo penalty could somehow be converted to a buyout, that’s an obvious win and I’d be all over that option. However, I don’t see the league doing us any favours, so I doubt that one is in the cards.

 

So that leaves us with Eriksson and Baertschi.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

So that leaves us with Eriksson and Baertschi.

at the risk of drawing @aGENT 's ire again, I think you need to consider the possibility of Sutter and Eriksson. I know BS is a useful player, and I'm not arguing that at all. 

 

But - if for some reason that extra 1 mil in salary is still needed after every other possible move is made then I still think we might see it. E.g., if we can't use a compliance buyout for Loui's recapture and if the cap actually goes down, depending on how negotiations go with other players things could be very very tight cap wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, qwijibo said:

So explain this to me. The nhl will make money by paying players to not play for them, and then spending the money on other players who might be better?  How is that making the owners money? 

Huh?  What a weird question or statement. 

 

The billionaire owners are the ones paying the overpaid plugs like Ericksson. The NHL isn't paying plug players anything.

The billionaire owners are the ones that would pay money to buy out the plugs allowing them to sign more young exciting players. A buyout allows the Canucks to ditch Ericksson and sign Toffoli.

 

The NHL does not lose anything but it gains dumping a bunch of bums and allows teams to become more exciting and increase fan support and fan spending on teams.

 

Fans don't want to watch OVERPAID plugs like Loui Ericksson, Boychuk, Ryan, Abdelkader, Alzner, Okposo, Ladd, Lucic and Seabrook.

 

Your question or statement or whatever does not make sense at all.

Edited by Kanukfanatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Huh?  What a weird question. 

 

The billionaire owners are the ones paying the overpaid plugs like Ericksson. The billionaire owners are the ones that would pay money to buy out the plugs allowing them to sign more young exciting players. A buyout allows the Canucks to ditch Ericksson and sign Toffoli.

 

The NHL does not lose anything but it gains dumping a bunch of bums and allows teams to become more exciting and increase fan support and fan spending on teams.

 

Fans don't want to watch OVERPAID plugs like Loui Ericksson, Boychuk, Ryan, Abdelkader, Alzner, Okposo, Ladd, Lucic and Seabrook.

 

Your question or statement or whatever does not make sense at all.

You clearly have no concept of business.  The owners insisted on a salary cap to begin with to reign in GM’s spending.  They want their GM’s to be responsible with their money.  Do you think Florida’s ownership would be happy to pay Bobrovsky $40m to buy him out 1 year into a 7 year contract, then have the GM turn around and spend that $10m a season trying to find another goalie?   If you do you’re fooling yourself. The NHL is a business, and haphazardly blowing hundreds of millions Of dollars buying out underperforming players makes no sense, especially when you consider it won’t save them any money. It’s just compounding the losses 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

 The owners insisted on a salary cap to begin with to reign in GM’s spending.  They want their GM’s to be responsible with their money.  

Haha .... no they didn't.

 

The league wanted parity so more teams fans think their teams are actually half decent and continue spending money on their crap teams late into the year to maximize revenue. The NHL could not care less if the billionaire owners blow a bunch of money.

 

And you say I don't understand how the NHL does business?  Sure pal......

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Haha .... no they didn't.

 

The league wanted parity so more teams fans think their teams are actually half decent and continue spending money on their crap teams late into the year to maximize revenue. The NHL could not care less if the billionaire owners blow a bunch of money.

 

And you say I don't understand how the NHL does business?  Sure pal......

 

:ph34r:

Ok kid, whatever you say 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

at the risk of drawing @aGENT 's ire again, I think you need to consider the possibility of Sutter and Eriksson. I know BS is a useful player, and I'm not arguing that at all. 

 

But - if for some reason that extra 1 mil in salary is still needed after every other possible move is made then I still think we might see it. E.g., if we can't use a compliance buyout for Loui's recapture and if the cap actually goes down, depending on how negotiations go with other players things could be very very tight cap wise. 

Because then, at worst, you retain 50% while trading him and get actual assets back. While clearing an additional $2m+ instead of the one you seem to think is a problem.

 

You don't use buyouts on useful players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, aGENT said:

Because then, at worst, you retain 50% while trading him and get actual assets back. While clearing an additional $2m+ instead of the one you seem to think is a problem.

 

You don't use buyouts on useful players.

 

most of the time, yes. You're assuming a trade market will be there for Sutter or Roussel, I'm not so sure GMs will be in a mood to make any significant moves. I guess we can always throw too much prospect value along with a guy but I'd rather see the buyout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

most of the time, yes. You're assuming a trade market will be there for Sutter or Roussel, I'm not so sure GMs will be in a mood to make any significant moves. I guess we can always throw too much prospect value along with a guy but I'd rather see the buyout. 

Useful players always have value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Useful players always have value.

remember when we thought we could move Loui? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

remember when we thought we could move Loui? :lol:

We did? I've been hopeful we might be able to dump him by retaining salary and adding assets and taking a contract/salary back.

 

That's hardly the same thing.

 

Both Sutter and Roussel have actual player value. Sutter is bit overpriced and we'd likely need to retain but 1 year of Sutter at $2.15 is quite manageable and would be a solid add for a team in need of a 3C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We did? I've been hopeful we might be able to dump him by retaining salary and adding assets and taking a contract/salary back.

 

That's hardly the same thing.

 

Both Sutter and Roussel have actual player value. Sutter is bit overpriced and we'd likely need to retain but 1 year of Sutter at $2.15 is quite manageable and would be a solid add for a team in need of a 3C.

yeah we were pretty sure that the back 1/2 of his deal would be movable :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah we were pretty sure that the back 1/2 of his deal would be movable :rolleyes:

I've always been hopeful and certainly invested in trying to figure out ways to make it potentially happen but I've never been 'sure' of anything. 

 

Are you actually trying to equate Eriksson and his contract to Sutter and his? :blink:

 

Eriksson has negative trade value. He would likely require not just retention but the addition of assets and possibly taking salary back as well. With no real trade return.

 

Sutter, while a touch overpaid still has positive trade value. And while he'd likely require retention to make cap work (especially given current cap restraints), would actually return some level of trade asset(s).

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Are you actually trying to equate Eriksson and his contract to Sutter and his? :blink:

of course not. All I've every tried to say is that its a possibility given the several ways the Canucks might get screwed on next years cap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well if the season and playoffs are lost the pundits are predicting that league revenues could be down by as much as $1 Billion + and the players will be on the hook for a 50% portion as they split revenues 50/50 with the league. Could mean some heavy claw back/escrow potential.

 

This would appear to make the players paid "bonus" money prior to the season as opposed to player salary be even more pleased - see John Tavares / Auston Matthews / Mitch Marner.  Dubas is an idiot.   (Not sure if bonuses are treated the same as salaries under escrow/revenue sharing especially with work stoppages due to natural disaster). 

 

This could get interesting.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-could-cost-nhl-players-a-ton-of-money/   

Edited by Borvat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 12:04 AM, KKnight said:

Some of the candidates around the league could look like this: 

 

Seabrook (wouldn't mind this in a bottom pairing)

Eriksson

Lucic ( wouldn't mind Lucic in a bottom six role, for like 2-3 mill) 

Neal

Jamie Benn (contract is horrendous, owner doesn't like him)

Carey Price ( contract is horrendous) 

Stepan

Okposo or Skinner

James Van Riemsdyk

Hornqvist

Bryan Little

Dustin Brown

Parise 

Jordan Staal

 

There’s not a chance in hell that Montreal buys out Price.  Alzner. Sure. But Price is as safe as you can be 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

We could probably buy out Lu if we traded something for his rights.

Loungo retired, there is no trade for rights to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.