mll Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Where's Wellwood said: We can just LTIR Ferland if it doesn't work out. Why waste a buy out? 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. Edited March 24, 2020 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ryan Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 If only one buyout, it has to be Eriksson. If a second...I'd go for Beagle. We get some return with Roussel, and Sutter has only one more year anyway. That would be a quick $9M saved! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post aGENT Posted March 24, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, Father Ryan said: If only one buyout, it has to be Eriksson. If a second...I'd go for Beagle. Baer...? Beagle is our faceoff dominating 4C. Baer is in the AHL. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruilin96 Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, aGENT said: Baer...? Beagle is our faceoff dominating 4C. Baer is in the AHL. I disagree with Beagle. But Baer only as 1 year left, would rather use it on someone with more term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, ruilin96 said: I disagree with Beagle. But Baer only as 1 year left, would rather use it on someone with more term. Like? Only other guy it might make sense to drop instead, is Ferland. And they'd have to be pretty certain he wasn't going to recover in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruilin96 Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 1 minute ago, aGENT said: Like? Only other guy it might make sense to drop instead, is Ferland. And they'd have to be pretty certain he wasn't going to recover in that case. Don't have to use 2 buyouts right away, you can save one when the time is right to use it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 If the Canucks want to clear the maximum amount of money through these buyouts I'd reckon you buyout: Loui Eriksson Brandon Sutter That'll clear 10.375 mill off the books. What I expect to happen if this becomes real: Loui Eriksson Sven Baertschi Sutter and Baertschi both have contracts that expire next year. Sutter can still play in the NHL whereas Baertschi can only return to the NHL if he's on a minimum deal somewhere. There was a rumor that Baer was being targeted by CBJ. And I suspect other NHL teams would give him a chance if he was signed to a deal that was less than 2 mill a year. As it stands now, Baer's contract is worth 3.366 mill annually. If you want to really save yourself from headaches down the line you'd buyout: Loui Eriksson Tyler Myers Myers contract will age badly in years 4 & 5, I suppose. Get out now before you have to deal with that headache. This won't happen. Also, I don't expect Ferland to be a Compliance guy. He seems destined to be an LTIR guy whose contract gets dealt around in the next few years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 1 minute ago, ruilin96 said: Don't have to use 2 buyouts right away, you can save one when the time is right to use it again. It might be pretty limited in time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 1 hour ago, gurn said: "but in the end they'd be saving a couple overpaid guys on every team " They would be fighting to preserve the collective agreement that both sides signed. "agree the owners/GM's would probably start mass demotions to the AH" As long as they comply with the collective agreement, otherwise the league would likely lose and "unfair bargaining" lawsuit and a ton of money in settlement costs. Like I indicated, the PA could justifiably oppose any unilateral changes to the CBA and likey win easily - it is, as you say, a mutually agreed binding contract, but doing so would have some seriously negative consequences for their own members - not the least of which would be their most vulnerable, lower-compensated short-career members. The PA recognized there was an issue last time they agreed to contravene the CBA for the compliance buyouts, this current situation is no different imo - speaking strictly financially that is. I'm not saying the PA would be wrong in opposing any changes in the CBA, just that if they chose that option they'd be hurting many of their own members. There's a 'workaround' with precedence that they agreed to before, it has benefits for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Fanuck said: Like I indicated, the PA could justifiably oppose any unilateral changes to the CBA and likey win easily - it is, as you say, a mutually agreed binding contract, but doing so would have some seriously negative consequences for their own members - not the least of which would be their most vulnerable, lower-compensated short-career members. The PA recognized there was an issue last time they agreed to contravene the CBA for the compliance buyouts, this current situation is no different imo - speaking strictly financially that is. I'm not saying the PA would be wrong in opposing any changes in the CBA, just that if they chose that option they'd be hurting many of their own members. There's a 'workaround' with precedence that they agreed to before, it has benefits for both sides. The NHLPA would have no choice but to oppose changes to their collective agreement, if they just allow change then the players that just got shafted then have a lawsuit against the Players Association. Legally binding agreements are not just wave a hand and make it disappear stuff. Change is possible, but every body has to be taken care of, can't screw over anyone. Edited March 24, 2020 by gurn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, gurn said: The NHLPA would have no choice but to oppose changes to their collective agreement, if they just allow change then the players that just got shafted then have a lawsuit against the Players Association. Legally binding agreements are not just wave a hand and make it disappear stuff. Change is possible, but every body has to be taken care of, can't screw over anyone. not so sure about that jimmy can provide better information likely but seems to me this intervening coronavirus issue might be adequate to support an argument that the nhlpa collective agreement has been frustrated as i understand it, there is an intervening unforeseen event, that has made the carrying out of the contract in its contemplated terms impossible but i leave that to the experts on this issue (if this is correct, the nhlpa might not be enforceable) otherwise, when the government shuts down non essential businesses what happens to all the contractual obligations that these non essentials are required to perform? you think they will all be successfully sued when the government made them shut down for medical reasons Edited March 24, 2020 by coastal.view 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 Why are people wanting to buyout Myers? Who are you replacing him with? Pietrangelo isn't going to hit UFA (especially if St Louis can clear out cap space with compliance buyouts). Barrie will be looking at who pays him the most and he will be more of a liability on defense than Myers (Barrie is better offensively, but not needed at his price tag IMO). Then there's a drop off of players basically around Myers' level anyway. If we are looking to trade, then it's not going to be cheap. Myers fill a top 4 RD spot that we have been desperately needing for years. If we clear out cap and re-sign Tanev and add Tryamkin, that's a formidable RD group. With maybe Stecher and/or Rafferty as depth. Loui is the no brainier option. Baertschi IMO is the other no brainier option. He's 2+ million of dead cap right now. No one wants him at his price tag and we don't want to give up assets to move him. Give him an opportunity to sign a cheap deal with another team to try and re-establish himself rather than bury his career (he's been relatively good to us even though he's been demoted, so he's deserving of the chance). Sutter, Beagle (PK centers, with the hopeful development of Michaelis to replace Sutter in a year) and Roussel still provide value to the team (Roussel is tradable value if needed). Ferland may not be able to be bought out of he's injured and if he is then he goes on LTIR, but if he can get back on track, he could still hold value. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 21 minutes ago, gurn said: The NHLPA would have no choice but to oppose changes to their collective agreement, if they just allow change then the players that just got shafted then have a lawsuit against the Players Association. Legally binding agreements are not just wave a hand and make it disappear stuff. Change is possible, but every body has to be taken care of, can't screw over anyone. I hear you, but then how did the compliance buyouts work last time then.....players got screwed as you put it and nobody, to my knowledge, successfully sued the PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goog16 Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 (edited) My 2 would be Loui and Sutter...I'm beyond sick of seeing Sutter on this team!!! Gaudette is a better 3rd center option and Beagle is a better 4th so no room for this floater!! Edited March 24, 2020 by goog16 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 Another interesting issue is compensation for the TDL moves- teams like the Canucks who gave up assets to get into/play in the playoffs have a fair argument as far as they got robbed of the time/opportunity they paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 49 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said: Another interesting issue is compensation for the TDL moves- teams like the Canucks who gave up assets to get into/play in the playoffs have a fair argument as far as they got robbed of the time/opportunity they paid for. I also wonder if teams like Detroit are going to get robbed to because technically there were no playoffs, and therefore the lottery draft odds may be stretched to the whole league based on standings. Where do you make the cut off for the draft lottery? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 Eriksson and Sutter. Clear out as much dead cap as possible. Baertschi can remain in the AHL, or be a trade chip. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 5 hours ago, Chickenspear said: 1st buyout: Eriksson 2nd buyout: Baer Good chunk of change right there Ferland would make more sense over Baer unless he plans on retiring. Baer has one year left Ferland has like 3 years and the same health concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 1 minute ago, N7Nucks said: Ferland would make more sense over Baer unless he plans on retiring. Baer has one year left Ferland has like 3 years and the same health concerns. That's a good point, had considered it, and went with Baer eating up nhl cap in the AHL, and Ferland could go on ltir if need be. @mll makes a solid point against that, with call up eligibility, bonus overages etc... but because Ferland's injured, it might not be allowed under the cba. I feel that if he comes back next season and has to go on ltir again, I think that'll be it for him and he'll likely call it a career. Not sure if the cap hit goes away or not though, anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 I could see this happening if the salary cap drops due to this virus. Not sure if they would add it if the cap was to stay the same tho. Also believe it would be 1 buyout only not 2. We can pray for 2 tho!! Would never happen but I would like to free up 12m with LoserSSon and Myers gone. If it was 2 it would be LoserSSon for sure and then likely Sven, but I agree with another poster I would hold on to Sven for 1 year and consider someone with more term for the 2nd buyout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now