The New CBA - will there be a 1 time only buy out clause (discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

Hi all

 

So what does everybody think? Will there be a one time only buy out clause like at the beginning of the last CBA

 

- Will there be 1 slot

- Will there 2 slots

 

I can't remember, how many there was last time...…..but I know who get ours if it is there

 

Just thought I would put it out there......any other CBA ideas can be put in here too...…………...just wanted a place to discuss it...…..

 

Any thoughts?

[xereau]

They need to go full NFL style buyouts.  If you do not perform, or the team needs room, you are gone, no strings attached.  The current state of things is ridiculous, being saddled with anchor contracts, teams trading around dead weight contracts like Hossa's just to get to the cap basement, its crazy.  Perform and get paid, its pretty simple.

[goalie13]

35 minutes ago, xereau said:

They need to go full NFL style buyouts.  If you do not perform, or the team needs room, you are gone, no strings attached.  The current state of things is ridiculous, being saddled with anchor contracts, teams trading around dead weight contracts like Hossa's just to get to the cap basement, its crazy.  Perform and get paid, its pretty simple.

In order to facilitate something like that, I think they would have to ditch the idea of averaging the cap hit over the term of the contract.  Otherwise, they could just front-load a contract and then cut the guy when his salary dives.  They should just count the cap hit as whatever he earns that season + bonuses.

 

Trading around dead weight contracts might still happen, because, unless I am mistaken, you can't cut a guy for being injured.

[Lancaster]

I would have assumed the NHLPA would be happy with having more buyouts available for teams.  

Just have all buyouts be the player getting 50%+ of the remaining amount over however many years and have it not count against the cap.  It would totally allow the high revenue teams to "weaponize" the cap, something like maybe for example the TML getting Tanev plus Eriksson's contract and them buying LE out.  

 

But this just basically means more money into the pockets of the NHLPA and their members.  It's guaranteed money for LE regardless of whether he wishes to continue to play.  He could also get a new contract at say 4 million per year, thus he actually gets a raise.  Then the buyout team will have roster space and available cap to sign another player thus more money for that player and the PA.  

[Where's Wellwood]

There was two last time but only because the Salary Cap dropped a ton.

 

If there is a lockout but the salary cap amount stays relatively constant, they might not provide any compliance buyouts.

 

If we get two, Eriksson would be a good option. Hopefully, we could use one to get us out of the cap recapture on Luongo. That's kind of like a buyout.

[coolboarder]

I prefer the unguaranteed contract on the CBA for all players who are over 25 years old.   If you are cut at the end of the training camp, teams should have this options: send him to the minors at the NHL salary or release you so that you are free to seek a team that would be willing to take you.  Waivers should be taken out of CBA as a part of this solution. It allows for freedom on which team players can seek but with the risk of shut out of a team altogether.  Once you make the team, your contract becomes guaranteed for the duration of the year.   Players can ask for guaranteed contract on their signings after 30 but for up to 3 seasons in their long term contract.    This would ensure that the young players who is signed at a long term contract performs to the best ability that he has.  

[Ghostsof1915]

NHLPA will have a long lockout if the league tries to get rid of guaranteed contracts. 

[YEGCanuck]

Increase fines for players to a meaningful level; and raise the age of draft eligibility.

[Alflives]

Bye bye Loui!  Or is it buy buy Loui?  

[peaches5]

I always have wanted the cap to be more like the NFL with non guaranteed contracts.  NHPLA might lean that way with how rookies are being paid so much money. I also like the idea if lose talent you get compensatory draft picks.

[goalie13]

1 hour ago, YEGCanuck said:

Increase fines for players to a meaningful level; and raise the age of draft eligibility.

Agreed.  Fine limits should be a percentage of the player's salary, not a dollar amount.  That way it impacts players equally.

 

I also agree on the draft age.  I thought the league missed the perfect opportunity for that when they cancelled an entire season.  That would have been the ideal time to raise the draft age.  But if memory serves correct, that was also the year of Crosby's draft, so they never would have had the guts to do it.

[J.I.A.H.N]

on the age limit issue......

 

I have always thought that moving the draft age by 3 months each year for 4 years, would be an effective way to move the age up

 

I also feel there should be an exceptional player status as part of it, I also feel there should be an large payment to the junior team that is loosing him......

 

Large as in 1/2 a Million....not sure if there is anything right now (I think there is something ???)

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, YEGCanuck said:

Increase fines for players to a meaningful level; and raise the age of draft eligibility.

 

11 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

I also agree on the draft age.  I thought the league missed the perfect opportunity for that when they cancelled an entire season.  That would have been the ideal time to raise the draft age.

Draft age is almost non changeable, the courts got involved when Ken Linseman challenged the draft back in 1977--- 18 is old enough to be an adult, an older draft is an infringement on constitutional rights.

http://www.originalhockeyhalloffame.com/news-events/linseman.html

"What’s the appropriate age for hockey players to turn pro? Back in 1977, Kingston’s Ken Linseman challenged the WHA/NHL’s rule that players had to be 20 years old to be drafted. He filed a lawsuit that was eventually dropped when he signed with the World Hockey Association’s Birmingham Bulls at the age of 19"

 

 

"On the financial side, if a young player is considered ready to play and a team wants to draft him in the first rounds I feel he should have that right. He could have a bad year or get injured staying another year in junior or college and have lost a great financial opportunity. At age 18 we are considered adults and can be drafted into the military or go to jail if we commit a crime. We should have the right to work/play hockey if somebody is willing to pay us.”

[timberz21]

IMO there shouldn't be any buyout allowed.

 

First CBA they allowed it because the cap was something new and teams couldn't be penalized for decision made under a non-cap era.  The 2nd lockout i'm not sure why they allowed it, but I guess to allow team some flexibility too.

 

Now, teams have been in this cap-era for a while and every contract made, they should just live with it.    It's funny how the NHL and teams are complaining and trying to find new fix every CBA, while it's the teams and their GM themselves who keeps creating loophole and bad contracts.   Nobody should get a free pass this time.

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, timberz21 said:

IMO there shouldn't be any buyout allowed.

 

First CBA they allowed it because the cap was something new and teams couldn't be penalized for decision made under a non-cap era.  The 2nd lockout i'm not sure why they allowed it, but I guess to allow team some flexibility too.

 

Now, teams have been in this cap-era for a while and every contract made, they should just live with it.    It's funny how the NHL and teams are complaining and trying to find new fix every CBA, while it's the teams and their GM themselves who keeps creating loophole and bad contracts.   Nobody should get a free pass this time.

Agreed.  It's all part of the game of hockey.  Franchise managements make a mistake (UFA signing or even RFAs that don't prove to be worthy of their contracts) it's on them.  Every team makes mistakes; but some at the expense of chances at the SC.

[Russ]

On 12/1/2018 at 12:40 AM, Where's Wellwood said:

There was two last time but only because the Salary Cap dropped a ton.

 

If there is a lockout but the salary cap amount stays relatively constant, they might not provide any compliance buyouts.

 

If we get two, Eriksson would be a good option. Hopefully, we could use one to get us out of the cap recapture on Luongo. That's kind of like a buyout.

Cap Recapture is never going to hit the Canucks.  Luongo will just go on LTIR his last couple years or whatever and collect his millions left if he ever decided his body was too beat up.