[Discussion] Cap Dump Swap/ Creative Maneuvering

[Phil_314]

Hi everyone,

This idea came to me on the heels of Sven Baertschi speaking out this morning about wanting to be on an NHL team in the near future with the closure of the AHL.  Of course, fans here recognize that, to varying degrees, there are several players who would qualify as fellow dud contracts (Sutter, Ferland, Beagle, Myers, Roussel, not to mention Loui "Elephant-in-the-Room" Eriksson). 

However, it got me thinking that, besides teams like the well-managed Blues or Bruins (who somehow managed to worm their way out of the Backes contract and get back Ondrej Kase), would there be other teams that had salvageable duds that we could use?  Presuming Loui either walks or gets demoted or compliance bought-out, who could be some players that we could trade for with these high-price tag veterans that could still potentially help us (as an alternative to dumping picks and prospects to shed them, or, *gulp*, keeping them)?

Would be interested to hear of any creative proposals that you guys might have in this, and a brief explanation of who/ which team and why it would work would be great.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by Phil_314

[Fanuck]

From this list, it sounds absurd, but I think I'd stick with LE.  At least he's 'serviceable' and won't directly hurt the team on the ice or off:

 

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1799729

[Nuxfanabroad]

Deal I've suggested prev, is w/Ottawa. On HF today, even saw one of their posters suggesting acquiring Baertschi.

 

There are many moving parts here. Basically, they need a #1 C(or 2) in their system. Everyone knows they'll get a shot(or 2!) at some top talent, this draft. Will it be Byfield, or maybe Stutzle? After draft, some vet fwds would prob be useful for that org

 

Then they might wanna move Colin White(option for a cheap 'under 26' buyout, if he didn't rediscover his excellent 21 yr form..had a bad season, injuries). Only have to pay 1/3rd his AAV, over twice the seasons.

 

OTT & Van are excellent matches for a big summer deal! Opposite needs/assets. I owner who'll spend; one that dumpster-dives.

 

- They have a surplus of talented youth with ELC's; we have a stash of front-loaded, vets w/character, to help shepherd kids

- They have excess picks. We could use a few.

- We've done biz before(recently; Burrows, Nilsson, etc.)

[VegasCanuck]

2 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

Hi everyone,

This idea came to me on the heels of Sven Baertschi speaking out this morning about wanting to be on an NHL team in the near future with the closure of the AHL.  Of course, fans here recognize that, to varying degrees, there are several players who would qualify as fellow dud contracts (Sutter, Ferland, Beagle, Myers, Roussel, not to mention Loui "Elephant-in-the-Room" Eriksson). 

However, it got me thinking that, besides teams like the well-managed Blues or Bruins (who somehow managed to worm their way out of the Backes contract and get back Ondrej Kase), would there be other teams that had salvageable duds that we could use?  Presuming Loui either walks or gets demoted or compliance bought-out, who could be some players that we could trade for with these high-price tag veterans that could still potentially help us (as an alternative to dumping picks and prospects to shed them, or, *gulp*, keeping them)?

Would be interested to hear of any creative proposals that you guys might have in this, and a brief explanation of who/ which team and why it would work would be great.  

There's no reason to do anything or move anyone until we know how much the cap is going to fall by. 

 

Things people need to keep in mind;

1. The CBA is a binding agreement that sets the cap, based on league revenue. The NHL has already lost well over 1 billion in revenue through this stoppage, the cap WILL come down, its a question of how far. My guess is to 50 - 60 million range.

2. It is highly likely that the league will need to provide teams with 1 - 2 compliance buyouts to get cap compliant, even with players likely being forced to take wage roll backs or 40 - 50% escrow payments.

3. Although I really believe that the NHL will find a way to play out the rest of this season, it is very possible that either next season gets cancelled, or they find a way to roll back salaries enough that teams can afford to play in empty buildings and just work off TV and sponsorship revenue.

 

Its going to be more than another 12 months before anything becomes remotely close to normal again.

 

[mll]

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

There's no reason to do anything or move anyone until we know how much the cap is going to fall by. 

 

Things people need to keep in mind;

1. The CBA is a binding agreement that sets the cap, based on league revenue. The NHL has already lost well over 1 billion in revenue through this stoppage, the cap WILL come down, its a question of how far. My guess is to 50 - 60 million range.

2. It is highly likely that the league will need to provide teams with 1 - 2 compliance buyouts to get cap compliant, even with players likely being forced to take wage roll backs or 40 - 50% escrow payments.

3. Although I really believe that the NHL will find a way to play out the rest of this season, it is very possible that either next season gets cancelled, or they find a way to roll back salaries enough that teams can afford to play in empty buildings and just work off TV and sponsorship revenue.

 

Its going to be more than another 12 months before anything becomes remotely close to normal again.

 

 

The league is already operating on an artifically increased cap - that's why there is escrow.  The CBA foresees that revenue is split equally between players and owners.  With the salary cap being higher than 50% of revenue players have been paying back money to owners through escrow.  They are talking of around 30% in escrow - not 40/50%.  

 

They are more likely to keep the salary cap somewhat flat for several years and make up for the loss over time rather than dramatically reduce the cap.  

 

Allowing for compliance buyouts would increase escrow.  Friedman in last week's 31 thoughts wrote that an increasing number of executives are saying that owners are against compliance buyouts because they don't want the extra cost.

 

[VegasCanuck]

20 minutes ago, mll said:

 

The league is already operating on an artifically increased cap - that's why there is escrow.  The CBA foresees that revenue is split equally between players and owners.  With the salary cap being higher than 50% of revenue players have been paying back money to owners through escrow.  They are talking of around 30% in escrow - not 40/50%.  

 

They are more likely to keep the salary cap somewhat flat for several years and make up for the loss over time rather than dramatically reduce the cap.  

 

Allowing for compliance buyouts would increase escrow.  Friedman in last week's 31 thoughts wrote that an increasing number of executives are saying that owners are against compliance buyouts because they don't want the extra cost.

 

Can't see that happening, based on how the CBA is worded

[NHL'er]

Think Myers and Ferland aren't necessarily top priority on the "bad contracts" to get rid of list. 

[mll]

12 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Can't see that happening, based on how the CBA is worded

Which article?

 

The NHL and NHLPA are working together to find a reasonable solution.  Collaboration has apparently never been as good.

 

Here's Dreger this week talking about how the salary cap could stay somewhat flat - around the 8 minute mark.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by mll

[VegasCanuck]

4 hours ago, mll said:

Which article?

 

The NHL and NHLPA are working together to find a reasonable solution.  Collaboration has apparently never been as good.

 

Here's Dreger this week talking about how the salary cap could stay somewhat flat - around the 8 minute mark.

 

They are collaborating, but the CBA is based on 50/50 revenue share, which is why escrow exists. 

 

So, there is no guarantee on how this plays out, but my point is, if they can't put fans back in buildings for 18 months (realistic possibility), and they are only running on TV revenue,  that's a huge hit to NHL revenue.  So, do you see the owners suddenly saying that for a few seasons, they are okay with massive losses and giving player 75 or 80% of revenue share?

 

Personally, I don't see that happening, based on how hard the owners had to battle to get to 50 / 50 split.

 

I think we will see temporary contract value rollbacks to make the new math work.

 

That's just my opinion, but that's how I see this playing out unless someone has an idea on how to replace attendance based revenue. 

[Hockey God]

You have to really think outside of the box to make things work.  Here's an idea ... here in New Zealand, there are basically 0 cases of covid-19, with 0 local transmission.  If I were the NZ government, I'd be banging the drums saying to all sports to bring their players/support staff/families etc here, do the mandatory 14 days isolation, and then be free to play according to whatever schedule they determine in multiple venues.  For us here, the benefits would be huge; just think about the spend up on accommodation, food, supplies, etc.  But, for the NHL, there would alos be huge benefits:  all broadcasting would be the same, and in fact would be gaining an in with the crowd here in Australasia which is starved for entertainment; players can do their thing with their loved ones in a safe and healthy environment, with  no risk of infection (unless brought in from outside, hence the quarantine period), teams get the revenue from broadcasting and live attendance (supporting the salary cap), and the fan support would be massive given the novelty factor and strong expat community in this region.  Do it for the remainder of the year until things settle down in North America, and you may find that all sides benefit in such an arrangement.  even better, we're just entering winter, which means that hockey could be played in conditions which make it work better, not in slushy, summer conditions.  Couldn't be a long term solution, but it could definitely work short term.    

[qwijibo]

51 minutes ago, Hockey God said:

You have to really think outside of the box to make things work.  Here's an idea ... here in New Zealand, there are basically 0 cases of covid-19, with 0 local transmission.  If I were the NZ government, I'd be banging the drums saying to all sports to bring their players/support staff/families etc here, do the mandatory 14 days isolation, and then be free to play according to whatever schedule they determine in multiple venues.  For us here, the benefits would be huge; just think about the spend up on accommodation, food, supplies, etc.  But, for the NHL, there would alos be huge benefits:  all broadcasting would be the same, and in fact would be gaining an in with the crowd here in Australasia which is starved for entertainment; players can do their thing with their loved ones in a safe and healthy environment, with  no risk of infection (unless brought in from outside, hence the quarantine period), teams get the revenue from broadcasting and live attendance (supporting the salary cap), and the fan support would be massive given the novelty factor and strong expat community in this region.  Do it for the remainder of the year until things settle down in North America, and you may find that all sides benefit in such an arrangement.  even better, we're just entering winter, which means that hockey could be played in conditions which make it work better, not in slushy, summer conditions.  Couldn't be a long term solution, but it could definitely work short term.    

I think you’re ignoring the logistics needed.  The NHL our out a list of requirements for hub cities.  They want to play 3 games a day. They need an area with a modern ice facility for broadcast with quality ice. It needs to have at least four modern locker room  facilities to accommodate the teams.  There needs to be nhl quality practice facilities with at least 3 sheets of ice. 
there has to be enough luxury hotel accommodations for a number of teams and staff.  
 

There are only a handful of cities in North America that check all the boxes. Is there anywhere there that would even come close? (I’m genuinely asking) 

[Ghostsof1915]

From what I can find, TV revenue from Sportsnet and NBC combined is only $700 million per season. Sounds like a lot right? 

But divided by 31 teams that works out to only $22 million per team. The only way the salary cap will stay flat is they open arenas to fans. 

Otherwise, regardless of what owners want they are going to have to slash the salary cap, and provide compliance buyouts. 

 

Owners are going to have to hold their heads above water until the Seattle expansion money kicks in. 

I hope the owners kept their share of the $500 million Vegas expansion fees. Because they are going to need it. 

 

[IBatch]

On 5/13/2020 at 4:42 PM, Phil_314 said:

Hi everyone,

This idea came to me on the heels of Sven Baertschi speaking out this morning about wanting to be on an NHL team in the near future with the closure of the AHL.  Of course, fans here recognize that, to varying degrees, there are several players who would qualify as fellow dud contracts (Sutter, Ferland, Beagle, Myers, Roussel, not to mention Loui "Elephant-in-the-Room" Eriksson). 

However, it got me thinking that, besides teams like the well-managed Blues or Bruins (who somehow managed to worm their way out of the Backes contract and get back Ondrej Kase), would there be other teams that had salvageable duds that we could use?  Presuming Loui either walks or gets demoted or compliance bought-out, who could be some players that we could trade for with these high-price tag veterans that could still potentially help us (as an alternative to dumping picks and prospects to shed them, or, *gulp*, keeping them)?

Would be interested to hear of any creative proposals that you guys might have in this, and a brief explanation of who/ which team and why it would work would be great.  

Rousell, Ferland (bad luck, Sutter (bad luck again - never had injury issues before) Myers - well guess what happens when you add a top four guy - Edler and Tanev don’t miss as many games - aren’t dead duck contracts.   People seem to think we can add Lind, Rathbone, Rafferty and OJ to the lineup and things will be better.   Guess what - they have to beat the vets to gain a spot and so far that hasn’t happened.   Without veteran support the players would be in trouble.  Sure some of these are bad (Bear and LE) and some of them are and luck...but it is what it is. 
 

And the funny thing is we’d just recycle these into overpaid UFAs and roll the dice again.  We have to have prospects that are NHL ready.  We don’t have many - have a couple worth looks maybe but that’s about it. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by IBatch

[J.I.A.H.N]

Well......no one knows what the heck is going to happen with the Cap. Except it will not go up.

 

But in terms of the Vancouver

 

I think there are some very good possibilities that we could get out of a couple of contract relatively cheap

 

#1. Loui Eriksson...…..After his July 15th Bonus, Loui's actual moneys for the next 2 years, will be relatively small, regarding actual money in his pocket

after receiving his $3,000,000 dollar bonus, he will be left with 5 million over 2 years, and after escrow, his actual take home will be, somewhere around 

3,000,000. Nothing to sneeze at by our standards, but looking at it from Loui's side and he will be in the position to mutually terminate, with a relatively

low financial hit. Taking into consideration that he could resign either here or in Sweden to finish his career, and I think he takes it. But he will not move

until he sees what the NHL has decided. Certainly not before his bonus payment. IMO, there is no need to buy him out, he is leaving on his own accord.

 

#2. Sven Baertschi...….After Sven's recent comments, I believe he will terminate his contract with the Canucks this summer. Sven is a good soldier and

IMO, he has run out of patience, and would like to play some hockey, whether that be in the NHL (doubtful) or in Europe (probable), I think he is gone. 

 

This will remove 8,291,000 from the cap, without any buyouts or hit towards our cap.

 

If there is any Compliance buyouts, then I think Sutter, Beagle and Roussel will be the only candidates, and may not be needed at this point.

 

So, I am not sure there will be a need for cap dumps.

 

IMO, the Covid-19 has change everything, and I will put dollars to donuts, that if/when the NHL comes back in the fall, a lot of teams will be wanting to shed cap, 

and a lot of European players will want to go home, if the escrow makes it not worth while playing here.

[J.I.A.H.N]

12 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Rousell, Ferland (bad luck, Sutter (bad luck again - never had injury issues before) Myers - well guess what happens when you add a top four guy - Edler and Tanev don’t miss as many games - aren’t dead duck contracts.   People seem to think we can add Lind, Rathbone, Rafferty and OJ to the lineup and things will be better.   Guess what - they have to beat the vets to gain a spot and so far that hasn’t happened.   Without veteran support the players would be in trouble.  Sure some of these are bad (Bear and LE) and some of them are and luck...but it is what it is. 
 

And the funny thing is we’d just recycle these into overpaid UFAs and roll the dice again.  We have to have prospects that are NHL ready.  We don’t have many - have a couple worth looks maybe but that’s about it. 

I think this Covid-19 is really going to change the landscape, IBatch. First of all, owners have not only taken a hit on their teams not playing, but have taken hits in other area's as well. It seems to me that they will be wanting to shed contracts, and I think you will find teams having 2 strong lines, then playing younger players, in the lesser rolls. I think this will be league wide...……...even "IF" teams have to buyout players, they will pay only 2/3 of the total salary, in most cases, and money saved is money earned.

 

I think it is the unknown that will spur this on...…...using an old adage...…."You can bank on it!"

[Phil_314]

17 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Rousell, Ferland (bad luck, Sutter (bad luck again - never had injury issues before) Myers - well guess what happens when you add a top four guy - Edler and Tanev don’t miss as many games - aren’t dead duck contracts.   People seem to think we can add Lind, Rathbone, Rafferty and OJ to the lineup and things will be better.   Guess what - they have to beat the vets to gain a spot and so far that hasn’t happened.   Without veteran support the players would be in trouble.  Sure some of these are bad (Bear and LE) and some of them are and luck...but it is what it is. 
 

And the funny thing is we’d just recycle these into overpaid UFAs and roll the dice again.  We have to have prospects that are NHL ready.  We don’t have many - have a couple worth looks maybe but that’s about it. 

For most of these it's not that they're total dead weights -- they're definitely needed role players, and I never suggested shedding all of them.  
The problem is that there's too many of the same guy (e.g. 4th line center in Sutter/ Beagle, gritty winger in Ferland/ Roussel) and they're viewed as being expensive as their roles as they have been supplanted by younger, faster and/ or more talented players on cheaper deals.  At least from an efficiency perspective, it's not a good look to have so many overpriced cogs occupying lower positions (if there's no compliance buyout, we might have a $13 million 4th line) or not really doing their role as they were expected to (and I get it with injuries, but lack of durability is also not a good look).

[IBatch]

5 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I think this Covid-19 is really going to change the landscape, IBatch. First of all, owners have not only taken a hit on their teams not playing, but have taken hits in other area's as well. It seems to me that they will be wanting to shed contracts, and I think you will find teams having 2 strong lines, then playing younger players, in the lesser rolls. I think this will be league wide...……...even "IF" teams have to buyout players, they will pay only 2/3 of the total salary, in most cases, and money saved is money earned.

 

I think it is the unknown that will spur this on...…...using an old adage...…."You can bank on it!"

Every team has vets like Roussel, Ferland, Sutter, Bear, Beagle, LE etc - only a couple teams will be willing to trade for them as cap dumps ... and it the owners are taking these hits - which absolutely they are - why would they want to lose more money by buying them out and then replacing them?  I’m pretty sure Covid-19 will have a huge impact on the cap and things going forward- but not so sure we will be shedding payroll and improving our team like quite a few seem to think will happen. Roll-backs are more likely ... 

[mll]

19 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I think this Covid-19 is really going to change the landscape, IBatch. First of all, owners have not only taken a hit on their teams not playing, but have taken hits in other area's as well. It seems to me that they will be wanting to shed contracts, and I think you will find teams having 2 strong lines, then playing younger players, in the lesser rolls. I think this will be league wide...……...even "IF" teams have to buyout players, they will pay only 2/3 of the total salary, in most cases, and money saved is money earned.

 

I think it is the unknown that will spur this on...…...using an old adage...…."You can bank on it!"

 

Friedman in a recent 31 thoughts wrote that more and more executives are saying that owners are against compliance buyouts because they don't want the extra costs.  

 

Doubt players want them too - it would just increase escrow even more.  

[Hockey God]

16 hours ago, qwijibo said:

I think you’re ignoring the logistics needed.  The NHL our out a list of requirements for hub cities.  They want to play 3 games a day. They need an area with a modern ice facility for broadcast with quality ice. It needs to have at least four modern locker room  facilities to accommodate the teams.  There needs to be nhl quality practice facilities with at least 3 sheets of ice. 
there has to be enough luxury hotel accommodations for a number of teams and staff.  
 

There are only a handful of cities in North America that check all the boxes. Is there anywhere there that would even come close? (I’m genuinely asking) 

Yep, totally agree with what you are saying, I'm just putting it out there that, if they really want to get things rolling on a temporary basis in a safe way, in an environment which caters to the international tourist and is sports mad, you could do a lot worse.  In the current environment, it would just take one person to start a new outbreak, but with closed borders, geographic isolation and mandatory quarantine upon arrival and until fully cleared by medical staff, they could do a lot worse than New Zealand.  The NHL has to weigh what they want and need with what they can do safely, and it may be impossible to do what they want and need in North America without any risk, something which the union may be unwilling to compromise on.  Just an idea.