Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

mll

Members
  • Posts

    19,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mll

  1. Would be surprised if they allow for compliance buyouts. It increases escrow which is already a major issue for players. Not sure owners want to fund buyouts either. They are losing money too. Some teams have already asked their personnel to take a pay cut. Wouldn't be surprised if some teams are asked to cut back salary and operate below the cap until better times. Renaud Lavoie this week in french: https://www.tvasports.ca/2020/04/16/la-lnh-a-huis-clos-est-ce-vraiment-possible The NHL's TV revenue is about 650M vs 5 billion for the NFL, 4.3 billion for MLB and 2.7 billion for the NBA. League revenue before the pandemic was roughly 5 billion but only 650 million is covered by TV rights. The vast majority comes from gate revenue. He asks (google translate): 'And admitting that the revenues for the next season are 3 billion instead of 5 billion, how will it be possible to ask players to place more than half of their wages in escrow to ensure that the league gets half of its income?' How long until hockey arenas can bring back fans and have them spending. The corporates that are downsizing might not feel it's appropriate to retain their season tickets. Attending hockey games might not be high on households' priority list. League revenue is going to be uncertain for a while. If the cap stays flat or increases slightly by ~1M how many teams really need a compliance buyout? There are some obvious ones - Vancouver, SJS (Jones), NYR (Lundqvist). Chicago has Seabrook but players on IR can't be bought out so they might not even have use for one. There are some teams close to the cap but they'll likely find their cap space by trading players away - eg Toronto. Some teams have buyout candidates like Anaheim with Backes but don't really need the cap space - a regular buyout works for them too. Teams that have cap space or are rebuilding might not see much use for one - could even use the situation to their advantage. Teams might have to trade some pretty good players or move bad contracts with an asset that could help a team accelerate their rebuild. If there are no compliance buyouts coveted free agents might sign with lesser teams who have cap space. The league could see this as an opportunity to bring more parity which should increase competitiveness. The Board of Governors will be voting on the measures and will probably want close to unanimity before a formal vote. The measures are probably voted as a package so they likely don't need 16 owners on 31 desperate for a buyout. If only a few teams need one not sure it would be part of the proposed measures though, especially if they keep the cap flat or increase it slightly. Not convinced the players would be in favour of them either. Compliance buyouts compounds the escrow issue as it increases the commitments to the players' side and their gap to 50% of HRR.
  2. Nashville matched an offer sheet. They were not the ones to structure that contract. They didn't even have any need for the cap advantage - they could have fit his 14M salary under the cap. Very doubtful that the league would enforce it as is - they aren't looking to sink a franchise. LeBrun mentioned that they could cap the annual penalty and increase the number of years it would be spread over.
  3. Mike Richards in LA was the 1st - still on their books. Luongo could have gone on LTIR but elected to retire - was apparently encouraged by Florida to retire. Vancouver lost a say in the decision by trading him. Sounds like Hossa wanted to retire but Chicago convinced him to go on LTIR because of that penalty.
  4. Last time the rules were the same as a regular buyouts with the buyout cap hit simply not appearing on the books. They are part of the players' share though and that affects escrow. Article 50.9 (i) (ii): [...] Such Compliance Buy-Outs shall be effectuated on the same terms as are set forth in Paragraph 13 of the SPC, except that (i) there shall be no charge against the Club's Averaged Club Salary in any League Year on account of a Compliance Buy-Out and (ii) any amounts paid pursuant to a Compliance Buy-Out shall be counted against the Players' Share in the League Years in which they are paid. Compliance buyouts are treated like regular buyouts and are included in the players' share of HRR as the amounts they receive through a buyout is considered player salary. The league is already operating on an artificially increased cap where the commitment to players' is more than 50% of HRR. The more there is committed towards players, the wider the gap to 50% of HRR and the more they have to pay back to the league.
  5. How can Montreal leverage anything from Nashville? They would be trying to circumvent the CBA. Don't you think Vancouver would have faced serious penalties if they tried to convince Florida to keep Luongo on LTIR? The Canucks were informed a few months ahead that he could retire. If I recall it was LeBrun that mentioned a few months ago that there were some discussions about capping the annual penalty and increasing the years the overall amount would be spread over. I think some owners will be against compliance buyouts. Per Friedman ownership asked Tallon to cut salary - it's part of why they moved Trocheck. I doubt ownership wants to be in the situation where they are pressured by the fanbase to buyout Bobrovsky.
  6. Ray Shero got fired with ownership commenting that they made the playoffs only once in 5 years and how they had assets they could use to improve their team. Interim GM Fitzgerald talks of packaging picks to bring in roster players while still building around Hischier, Hughes, Blackwood. Fitzgerald gave as example the trades they made to get Palmieri and Johansson - they packaged picks for them. Seems like NJD wants to find their own JT Miller and the likes - not washed down veterans or bad contracts but players who are entering/still in their prime and can help the team get into the playoffs. NJD already has Miles Woods and believe Foote can turn into a top-6 power-forward, so not sure they'd see much interest in adding Virtanen vs keeping a young D on a good contract. Virtanen is in the right age group but would see them offering picks if they wanted him, like they did for Palmieri/Johansson, and keep Severson and avoid taking a bad contract. NJD's weakness is their D-corps and Severson is young enough to grow with Hischier/Hughes. Vatanen was an upcoming UFA and they probably didn't think it made much sense to spend on someone already turning 29. They moved Coleman because his next contract would be too expensive/long and his age didn't fit their young core. Don't see them interested in taking a bad contract given ownership and Fitzgerald's comments. Didn't Friedman think that NJD turned down Juolevi + Baertschi for Simmonds (who ended up going for a 5th) or was that just speculation by him. Ownership also wanted to cut wages with the pandemic but rolled it back given the resistance - still don't think they want to spend unnecessarily on bad contracts.
  7. Luongo is a penalty and not a contract - only contracts can be traded or bought out.
  8. From yesterday: "Four additional members of the Ottawa Senators organization who travelled to California before the NHL season pause tested positive for COVID-19. Members of the team and staff self-isolated on Friday, March 13, and are all doing well. All test results have now been received, and all those who tested positive have recovered."
  9. Canucks tried to move Baertschi instead of Schaller's expiring contract in the Toffoli deal but LA wasn't interested.
  10. Weber is Montreal property and Nashville has no say on what they do with him - just like the Canucks had no say on Luongo. Would think that either team could face serious penalties for collusion. Can't imagine it would have been allowed for Florida to contact Vancouver and suggest a made-up trade to have Luongo go on LTIR instead of retiring. Doubt the league would enforce it as it is - they'll likely find another formula to spread out the amount due over more years. Think it was LeBrun that mentioned it. For example cap the recapture at say 4M per year at most and then calculate the number of years it needs to be spread over. The lowest end of season cap projection is NJD at 72.8M per CapFriendly. Don't see the league asking a team to try and operate 12 or 24M under the cap. Doubt the NHLPA would want that either - it's money not put into salary.
  11. I also wonder if owners really want compliance buyouts. Arena workers are not all paid, teams are asking employees to take pay cuts and then somehow they find the money to spend on a compliance buyout. Some might not be doing too well with their other businesses either. The cost of those buyouts could be money used to keep people employed. Some owners might be more focused on their social responsibility than just spending for their hockey team. Who knows if there will even be people attending games initially and how long there will be revenue uncertainty.
  12. The Board of Governors would need to approve the measure. Could come down to how influential the different owners are. As chairman of the Board would Jacobs even want to promote a compliance buyout. If the cap stays flat the Bruins might not have any use for one, and they've just paid a 1st round pick to off-load Backes.
  13. 2nd Avalanche player tested positive. Their statement: The Colorado Avalanche were advised late last night that a second player has tested positive for COVID-19. The player is in self-isolation. All other Avalanche players, staff and others who might have had close contact with the player have been informed and remain isolated as per prior League direction and are monitoring their health and will be in touch with Club medical staff as necessary. No other Avalanche player or staff member has shown symptoms at this time.
  14. Horvat has played more NHL minutes in his career than Beagle and Miller. Virtanen is will be in his draft+7 next season - he is nearing 300 NHL games. Some GMs/scouts say at around 300 NHL games you know what a player is about. Weisbrod uses 300 games as threshold for a successful NHL career - in last year's pre-draft video he was saying that in any draft there are less than 30 players who reach 300 NHL games.
  15. Their statement says that they were only advised today. So everyone in contact with him only know now that they might have been infected? From their statement: The Colorado Avalanche were advised today that a player has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. The player has been at home in isolation since the first symptoms appeared, has recovered and is back to normal. The Avalanche have notified anyone who has had known close contact with the athlete.
  16. He was on Minnesota's KFAN radio earlier this week.
  17. LTIR limits a team's flexibility. It's challenging to deal with when the team has several players on ELCs. LTIR doesn't allow to bank cap space and creates bonus overages. It also limits who can be recalled. The Canucks are expected to continue to integrate ELC players. It's also for planning purposes. Ferland expects to play next season and they might not know whether he can before the start of next season. Canucks can't just assume he will go on LTIR and use up his cap space. In the off-season they are going to have to assume he is healthy to play. If he can't go they must have an AHL option to replace him. If they buy him out then they have clarity and can build a roster using his 3.5M and without the uncertainty on whether he will play or not. Teams can't buy out an injured player so that might not even be an option.
×
×
  • Create New...