Sign in to follow this  
Nicklas Bo Hunter

(proposal) My Vancouver offseason

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, qwijibo said:

The problem is all your “what if’s” are ignoring some actual facts.  
 

The fact is that after inciting massive losses, owners don’t want compliance buyouts. Compliance buyouts mean massive outlays of lump sums to players who won’t even be playing for you.  It’s throwing good money after bad in a financial landscape where the pocketbooks have already taken a big hit. 
 

Players won’t want compliance buyouts because it will negatively effect escrow even more. Lowering every players cheque

 

The only people who want compliance buyouts are GM’s who want a blank cheque to erase a screwup (and sign other contracts), and fans who think they’re GM’s lol. 
 

No matter how the league chooses to deal with the losses they’re taking/going to take.  I can   Pretty much guarantee it won’t result in a magic bullet that magically creates a bunch of cap space for a team that was in so trouble before.  There’s an ebb and flow to teams dealing with the cap.  Teams being up against it and having important players to re-sign is nothing new. How do you think the Canucks got Miller out of Tampa?  He was a cap casualty. Some teams will be in trouble cap wise. Other teams will be well positioned to take advantage. 
 

Yes. We’re in new territory. But remember that we lost a whole season so the owners could impose a cap system to limit. spending.  We lost another half season so players could get what they considered a fair split.  The system is in place. GM’s will need to deal with it as it comes.  Neither the owners nor the players are going to give up ground that was hard won and contractually guaranteed by the CBA. 

 

It’s going to be interesting for sure. But there are a lot of things that are known amongst the chaos.  

Hi Q..

good points

 

A couple of thoughts

 

#1............Although a cap ceiling has somewhat controlled teams spending, it has not done it completely

                Case in point Tampa Bay, Toronto or our very own Canucks, all of which are in some type of cap hell

                There are many more teams in the same boat as well, so it has not completely controlled GM spending

 

#2............I question the difference between Cap buyouts and Compliance buyout

                They are for the most part the same..........except regular buyouts cost against the cap

                The extra cost to the owners is the same, and there are 3 regular buyouts,,,,,,,,,,with no limits

                again they do have a prohibitive nature by going against the cap.......but as you know, not totally

                2/3 over 2x as long, in most cases...........so they are carried forward to some degree

 

                 So really, it is not as black and white as you say, nor does it save any money for the owners

                 Incidentally, regular buyouts also go against escrow also

 

                 So, IMO, I think that is a mute point, in regards to what you say, except of course, it goes against cap

 

                 Really, it has not stopped anything, really, and we complain about it all the time

 

What I get a kick out of people on here, is thinking that everything is etched in stone, where nothing in the NHL is really etched in stone

aka the Luongo penalty and the Canucks vs New Jersey and how the penalty was changed.............then there is the retroactive penalty itself

 

Then there is the blatant cap circumvention by some teams, who collect LTIR for extra cap.....and in the case of the Leafs, Robitaille Island

(or what ever they call it)

 

As a long term poster here, I know you could think of many more examples....................

 

So, no, I don't buy your argument completely.............sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Hi Q..

good points

 

A couple of thoughts

 

#1............Although a cap ceiling has somewhat controlled teams spending, it has not done it completely

                Case in point Tampa Bay, Toronto or our very own Canucks, all of which are in some type of cap hell

                There are many more teams in the same boat as well, so it has not completely controlled GM spending

 

#2............I question the difference between Cap buyouts and Compliance buyout

                They are for the most part the same..........except regular buyouts cost against the cap

                The extra cost to the owners is the same, and there are 3 regular buyouts,,,,,,,,,,with no limits

                again they do have a prohibitive nature by going against the cap.......but as you know, not totally

                2/3 over 2x as long, in most cases...........so they are carried forward to some degree

 

                 So really, it is not as black and white as you say, nor does it save any money for the owners

                 Incidentally, regular buyouts also go against escrow also

 

                 So, IMO, I think that is a mute point, in regards to what you say, except of course, it goes against cap

 

                 Really, it has not stopped anything, really, and we complain about it all the time

 

What I get a kick out of people on here, is thinking that everything is etched in stone, where nothing in the NHL is really etched in stone

aka the Luongo penalty and the Canucks vs New Jersey and how the penalty was changed.............then there is the retroactive penalty itself

 

Then there is the blatant cap circumvention by some teams, who collect LTIR for extra cap.....and in the case of the Leafs, Robitaille Island

(or what ever they call it)

 

As a long term poster here, I know you could think of many more examples....................

 

So, no, I don't buy your argument completely.............sorry!

Here’s the thing about compliance buyouts vs a standard buyout.  The compliance buyout erases the cap completely, so it frees the GM to turn around and spend the money again.  A standard buyout only clears a portion of the cap, so the GM is forced to exercise restraint.  You’re right, the cap hadn’t completely reined in spending. That’s because it’s a function of revenue (plus the escrow inflator). So as the cap has gone up, so has spending.  Regardless of that, there’s still a ceiling that prevents rich teams from going completely nuts. I remember the pre-cap era when the Rangers were constantly trying to buy a cup.  St Louis and Dallas were bad for it too. 
 

getting back to the current situation, the owners have made it clear they don’t want compliance buyouts, the players are already going to take it on the nose with escrow. So they’re not going to want anything that raises escrow even more.  
 

You’re overlooking an important aspect to  the Recapture penalty.  The reason it was retroactive is the CBA of the time allowed for the contract. The NHL was aware of the loophole and warned teams not to circumvent the cap. They couldn’t actually stop it or punish it UNTIL the CBA expired and was reworked.  
 

The point here is the parties involved can’t make huge sweeping changes to the institution. The league and the players union want stability. Now more than ever.  There’s talk of extending the existing CBA.   So you can talk all you want about how covid will force a bunch of changes, but the system to deal with this is in place.  Some teams will thrive, some will suffer. But that would have happened even if the cap went up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

[...]

 

 

Then there is the blatant cap circumvention by some teams, who collect LTIR for extra cap.....and in the case of the Leafs, Robitaille Island

(or what ever they call it)

 

As a long term poster here, I know you could think of many more examples....................

 

So, no, I don't buy your argument completely.............sorry!

 

LTIR doesn't create cap space.  It's more of a limitation than anything else and limits a team's flexibility.  Teams often can't have an active roster up to the cap.  Also once a team goes in LTIR they can't accrue cap space which then forces any performance bonuses to next season.  A couple of years ago Toronto ended up with a bonus overage of more than 2.5M for using LTIR.

 

Canucks had to use LTIR this year and will have a cap penalty of some 1.7M next year for the bonuses of Pettersson and Hughes and there might be some more game played bonuses.  They already had a bonus overage when Dorsett went on LTIR where they ended up with a cap penalty of over 800K the following season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting OP.   Would suck to lose Demko for a second but it’s a realistic view - just not sure we’d be in a great position to make a Demko trade before the ED - at least not with some stellar play first (and then we’d want to keep him ha ha).  
 

LE isn’t going to Seattle for a second.   A first maybe.  I’d consider that a good trade as if he’s still around and wants to finish his contract that’s a better trade then the Marleau one for one year of play - because we wouldn’t lose Demko.  
 

Trading Sutter is a cap dump.  We’d have to add a second and or a prospect and maybe get a lesser pick back 4-5th rounder.   So that’s never going to happen.  
 

Think we need to put LE in the AHL, especially if we sign TT somehow.   
 

If we need cap space then Pearson is the more realistic trade.   His stock is high and a deal similar to the one we did with TT but lesser is a possibility.   A second and a prospect or maybe just a second.   That, plus not keeping Leivo, burying LE should be plenty enough to re-sign Markstrom, JV and McEwen.   If not Pearson then maybe Roussel.  We have enough depth in the AHL to make some adds next year - other then this our best move is to do just enough to keep as much of the team together- and let the cap shed naturally which it’s definitely going to do.  We probably can’t afford Pearson long term anyways.  

Share this post


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

The problem is all your “what if’s” are ignoring some actual facts.  
 

The fact is that after inciting massive losses, owners don’t want compliance buyouts. Compliance buyouts mean massive outlays of lump sums to players who won’t even be playing for you.  It’s throwing good money after bad in a financial landscape where the pocketbooks have already taken a big hit. 
 

Players won’t want compliance buyouts because it will negatively effect escrow even more. Lowering every players cheque

 

The only people who want compliance buyouts are GM’s who want a blank cheque to erase a screwup (and sign other contracts), and fans who think they’re GM’s lol. 
 

No matter how the league chooses to deal with the losses they’re taking/going to take.  I can   Pretty much guarantee it won’t result in a magic bullet that magically creates a bunch of cap space for a team that was in so trouble before.  There’s an ebb and flow to teams dealing with the cap.  Teams being up against it and having important players to re-sign is nothing new. How do you think the Canucks got Miller out of Tampa?  He was a cap casualty. Some teams will be in trouble cap wise. Other teams will be well positioned to take advantage. 
 

Yes. We’re in new territory. But remember that we lost a whole season so the owners could impose a cap system to limit. spending.  We lost another half season so players could get what they considered a fair split.  The system is in place. GM’s will need to deal with it as it comes.  Neither the owners nor the players are going to give up ground that was hard won and contractually guaranteed by the CBA. 

 

It’s going to be interesting for sure. But there are a lot of things that are known amongst the chaos.  

So, yes you are right....and I think I acknowledged the same things

But, using 3 regular buy outs can in some cases amount to getting rid of 6 million dollars, that are not against the cap

meaning that you are only penalized 2/3's and that is over 2x as many years..............so figuratively, you could get rid of 6 million off your cap

and spread the remaining amount over a wider time frame. (acknowledging that the greater share is still in the contract years) but 1/3 is not against the cap

 

I would like to see a team be able to use those regular caps (maybe all 3) as 1 compliance buyout, which would help in the case of a player that rapidly declines

over a quick period. No team signs a player with the understanding he will not perform, and the reality of today, is that to compete with other teams, overpayments

are pretty much the norm,. for all teams, as are whether bonus's are paid up front or at the end of a contract

 

So basically, all I am saying is that there is wiggle room and some presidence. and if you were to use my suggestion, is already in the calculation and CBA for the cap ceiling, and would just be applied differently.................

 

again the suggestion in total..........

 

1. use 2 or 3 regular buyouts in total to be applied as 1 compliance

2. compliance buyout would then be frozen, until the contract had run its course (just added)

 

It is just a thought and does help alot of teams

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut

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.