KKnight Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 On 4/3/2020 at 4:09 PM, qwijibo said: There’s not a chance in hell that Montreal buys out Price. Alzner. Sure. But Price is as safe as you can be Doesn't take away from the fact that contract is going to be horrendous. No goalie should be making over 7 million per. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, KKnight said: Doesn't take away from the fact that contract is going to be horrendous. No goalie should be making over 7 million per. Regardless of your opinion of his contract. There is zero chance Montreal buys him out. Here’s why The 2/3rds formula only applies to salary, not signing bonus. $45m of the remaining $55m owed to Price is signing bonus. So they save 2/3 of $10m. They end up paying him roughly $51 of $55m despite no longer having his services. Plus they have to pay a new starting goalie. Which more than eats up the meagre savings they get from buying him out. Those are real dollars. Do you think Geoff Molson (or any owner) would be cool with paying someone $51m to not play for them? Especially a goalie who is still near the top of the league. (When healthy) Edited April 6, 2020 by qwijibo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKnight Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) On 4/5/2020 at 3:53 PM, qwijibo said: Regardless of your opinion of his contract. There is zero chance Montreal buys him out. Here’s why The 2/3rds formula only applies to salary, not signing bonus. $45m of the remaining $55m owed to Price is signing bonus. So they save 2/3 of $10m. They end up paying him roughly $51 of $55m despite no longer having his services. Plus they have to pay a new starting goalie. Which more than eats up the meagre savings they get from buying him out. Those are real dollars. Do you think Geoff Molson (or any owner) would be cool with paying someone $51m to not play for them? Especially a goalie who is still near the top of the league. (When healthy) No definitely not. It's just a thought bruv. I think Carey Price is a fantastic goalie, when he is on. I'm just of the opinion that anything over 7 million is a waste for a goalie and those dollars could be allocated better for increased depth on your defence. Edited April 8, 2020 by KKnight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 On 4/5/2020 at 3:53 PM, qwijibo said: Regardless of your opinion of his contract. There is zero chance Montreal buys him out. Here’s why The 2/3rds formula only applies to salary, not signing bonus. $45m of the remaining $55m owed to Price is signing bonus. So they save 2/3 of $10m. They end up paying him roughly $51 of $55m despite no longer having his services. Plus they have to pay a new starting goalie. Which more than eats up the meagre savings they get from buying him out. Those are real dollars. Do you think Geoff Molson (or any owner) would be cool with paying someone $51m to not play for them? Especially a goalie who is still near the top of the league. (When healthy) We don’t know what the rules for compliance buyouts will be... compliance buyouts are their own separately negotiated entity and have nothing to do with any clauses in the CBA and the rules of normal buyouts. We have no idea of the parameters at all. That doesn’t mean Price will be bought out, just that it would be for other arguments. The Hans would really have to do a gut check and decide if now was the time to exit from one of their huge long term contracts of either Price or Weber. Both are solid players, but the team has already missed the window of winning in the most productive years of those contracts. They have some long term pain coming with the later years of those contracts... and they will for sure be considering that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 38 minutes ago, Provost said: We don’t know what the rules for compliance buyouts will be... compliance buyouts are their own separately negotiated entity and have nothing to do with any clauses in the CBA and the rules of normal buyouts. We have no idea of the parameters at all. That doesn’t mean Price will be bought out, just that it would be for other arguments. The Hans would really have to do a gut check and decide if now was the time to exit from one of their huge long term contracts of either Price or Weber. Both are solid players, but the team has already missed the window of winning in the most productive years of those contracts. They have some long term pain coming with the later years of those contracts... and they will for sure be considering that. I think Price could still be had in a trade especially if Montreal would retain some of his cap hit. Imagine what he’d do for an elite young team like Colorado or Carolina? Weber they probably hold on to since he still has a couple good years left in him imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Pears said: I think Price could still be had in a trade especially if Montreal would retain some of his cap hit. Imagine what he’d do for an elite young team like Colorado or Carolina? Weber they probably hold on to since he still has a couple good years left in him imo. I ultimately think they will end up keeping the guys because those are huge dollars to eat for getting rid of players who are still useful... and they can have the hope they medically retire before they become huge drags on the roster. It is absolutely something that they are going to kick around as an idea though. If the cap stays flat, even with compliance buyouts, UFA salaries this offseason may be more modest than normal. They could replace Price with a good player for half the cost and bank the difference for another roster player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Provost said: We don’t know what the rules for compliance buyouts will be... compliance buyouts are their own separately negotiated entity and have nothing to do with any clauses in the CBA and the rules of normal buyouts. We have no idea of the parameters at all. That doesn’t mean Price will be bought out, just that it would be for other arguments. The Hans would really have to do a gut check and decide if now was the time to exit from one of their huge long term contracts of either Price or Weber. Both are solid players, but the team has already missed the window of winning in the most productive years of those contracts. They have some long term pain coming with the later years of those contracts... and they will for sure be considering that. Right. The NHLPA has to agree to the buyouts. Currently y they get 100% of signing bonus money in a buyout. Do you honestly think they’d be willing to accept a buyout clause where the signing bonus pays out less than 100%? No chance. As far as Weber goes. He’s owed very little real money after the next two seasons. Montreal hasn’t been a cap team for 3 years. I don’t think Weber is a concern to the Montreal brass at all. Nashville? That’s a different story. They probably have a reoccurring nightmare about Weber retiring early. ps. Just for the heck of it, let’s say all of Price’s contract was subject to being bought out. It would still cost Molson over $36 million to buy him out. That’s not a reasonable ask of an owner l, especially when the player is still a top performer Edited April 7, 2020 by qwijibo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, qwijibo said: Right. The NHLPA has to agree to the buyouts. Currently y they get 100% of signing bonus money in a buyout. Do you honestly think they’d be willing to accept a buyout clause where the signing bonus pays out less than 100%? No chance. As far as Weber goes. He’s owed very little real money after the next two seasons. Montreal hasn’t been a cap team for 3 years. I don’t think Weber is a concern to the Montreal brass at all. Nashville? That’s a different story. They probably have a reoccurring nightmare about Weber retiring early. ps. Just for the heck of it, let’s say all of Price’s contract was subject to being bought out. It would still cost Molson over $36 million to buy him out. That’s not a reasonable ask of an owner l, especially when the player is still a top performer The NHPLA is going to have to decide which crappy pill to swallow.... compliance buyouts are their best option and they aren't going to get to dictate all the terms like you suggest. If compliance buyouts don't happen, then escrow is going to be massive AND this year's UFAs aren't going to be able to find work since there will be no money to pay them. The NHLPA is going to be the side wanting compliance buyouts since it gets more money overall put into their players pockets as it would be above their share of HRR. The NHLPA is going to be VERY motivated to make a compliance buyout system work, paying out 2/3rds of salaries (including signing bonuses) still gives most of those players the chance to earn more money again to make up that difference. No compliance buyouts are money lost for all their players that will never be recovered. During labour negotiations (I have done these) each side figures out what is called a BATNA, which is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement... it is what position you are in if you can't come to a negotiated agreement. It also helps you decide when to walk away. In this case, the PA has a crappy BATNA... and the NHL has a good one. It is easier and better for the league overall to not have compliance buyouts (some individual teams might want them... but the league as a bargaining agent would rather not). With status quo and no negotiated agreement to deal with this unique circumstance... the regular CBA applies. With the regular CBA rules, players with existing contracts right now are going to have to write cheques to the teams to repay money for what would be 30-40% escrow this season and the cap will drop substantially for next year, meaning pretty much every UFA will have to sign for close to league minimum or not get work... on some teams, bunches of veteran players will have to get demoted to save to $1 million plus cap space and be replaced by AHL talent making $650k just to be able to fit under a lower cap... it would be chaos. Letting a few buyouts take pressure off that chaos is obviously in the PA's best interest and affects the fewest number of their members in only a modest way. Montreal isn't worried about Weber retiring early... they have to be worried about him continuing to play. I mentioned in another thread, there is even a possibility that Montreal could leverage something from Nashville in the situation to grease the wheels for a buyout. Edited April 8, 2020 by Provost 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Provost said: al isn't worried about Weber retiring early... they have to be worried about him continuing to play. I mentioned in another thread, there is even a possibility that Montreal could leverage something from Nashville in the situation to grease the wheels for a buyout. this would be a smart move by Nashville.... but that assuming Bettman would decimate a US team, which we all know he won't. He'll make up an excuse as to why Nashville won't have to be hit with the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Provost said: The NHPLA is going to have to decide which crappy pill to swallow.... compliance buyouts are their best option and they aren't going to get to dictate all the terms like you suggest. If compliance buyouts don't happen, then escrow is going to be massive AND this year's UFAs aren't going to be able to find work since there will be no money to pay them. The NHLPA is going to be the side wanting compliance buyouts since it gets more money overall put into their players pockets as it would be above their share of HRR. The NHLPA is going to be VERY motivated to make a compliance buyout system work, paying out 2/3rds of salaries (including signing bonuses) still gives most of those players the chance to earn more money again to make up that difference. No compliance buyouts are money lost for all their players that will never be recovered. During labour negotiations (I have done these) each side figures out what is called a BATNA, which is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Settlement... it is what position you are in if you can't come to a negotiated agreement. It also helps you decide when to walk away. In this case, the PA has a crappy BATNA... and the NHL has a good one. It is easier and better for the league overall to not have compliance buyouts (some individual teams might want them... but the league as a bargaining agent would rather not). With status quo and no negotiated agreement to deal with this unique circumstance... the regular CBA applies. With the regular CBA rules, players with existing contracts right now are going to have to write cheques to the teams to repay money for what would be 30-40% escrow this season and the cap will drop substantially for next year, meaning pretty much every UFA will have to sign for close to league minimum or not get work... on some teams, bunches of veteran players will have to get demoted to save to $1 million plus cap space and be replaced by AHL talent making $650k just to be able to fit under a lower cap... it would be chaos. Letting a few buyouts take pressure off that chaos is obviously in the PA's best interest and affects the fewest number of their members in only a modest way. Montreal isn't worried about Weber retiring early... they have to be worried about him continuing to play. I mentioned in another thread, there is even a possibility that Montreal could leverage something from Nashville in the situation to grease the wheels for a buyout. The NHLPA gave up an entire season fighting the cap coming in. Then another half season when the owners wanted to limit the percentage of hrr the players are entitled too. Do you think they’ll happily give up a huge concession like bonus money being 100% guaranteed? I’m dubious at best. But If they did, it would still cost Molson over $36m to buy Price out. I very much doubt any owner would be on board with paying $36m to buy out one of their top players. As far as Weber goes. I don’t think there’s a concern about him playing out his contract. His actual salary drops to $1m after the next 3 seasons. ($6m, $6m, $3m, $1m). If his health isn’t there or he’s not playing well at that point I doubt he plays long at $1m a season. (Ask Luongo about playing for $1m a season) Edited April 7, 2020 by qwijibo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR7 Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 NHL and NHLPA should be using this time to come up with a solution that works for both parties, as well as an extension to the CBA so us fans can be guaranteed no hockey stoppages in the near future. Baring another pandemic that is I think it would look something like flat cap for 2020/2021 with up to 25% of players money going into escrow to make up the difference of lost revenue from the end of this season. 189 games are lost, all the merchandise sales will be down, no concessions, but a bigger TV deal so who knows, may options to be talked about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 2 hours ago, CR7 said: NHL and NHLPA should be using this time to come up with a solution that works for both parties, as well as an extension to the CBA so us fans can be guaranteed no hockey stoppages in the near future. Baring another pandemic that is I think it would look something like flat cap for 2020/2021 with up to 25% of players money going into escrow to make up the difference of lost revenue from the end of this season. 189 games are lost, all the merchandise sales will be down, no concessions, but a bigger TV deal so who knows, may options to be talked about Both the NHL and the NHLPA had a window to reopen the CBA thus past summer and both declined. I do t believe there’s another window to do it until it expires after the 21/22 season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR7 Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 1 minute ago, qwijibo said: Both the NHL and the NHLPA had a window to reopen the CBA thus past summer and both declined. I do t believe there’s another window to do it until it expires after the 21/22 season I just meant get together and discuss extending past the 2 years the current CBA has left, fix the issues now while they have time instead of waiting until too late they go on strike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 1 hour ago, qwijibo said: Both the NHL and the NHLPA had a window to reopen the CBA thus past summer and both declined. I do t believe there’s another window to do it until it expires after the 21/22 season They can change the contact by mutual agreement anytime. There is no window for that. The window only applies to one party being able to unilaterally re-open it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 14 minutes ago, Provost said: They can change the contact by mutual agreement anytime. There is no window for that. The window only applies to one party being able to unilaterally re-open it. Source? I’ve been searching online for confirmation of that. But I can’t find anything. Everything I see says that because neither side reopened the CBA it will run until September 2022. Yes. They can have talked, but I don’t believe the document itself can be altered before that. im not trying to be a crap disturber. I’d genuinely like to see a source that indicates I’m wrong. I’d be happy to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 On 4/7/2020 at 11:50 PM, Jimmy McGill said: this would be a smart move by Nashville.... but that assuming Bettman would decimate a US team, which we all know he won't. He'll make up an excuse as to why Nashville won't have to be hit with the penalty. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, mll said: 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. If Bergevin initiated the idea of a trade, why would it be circumvention? Nothing wrong with a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, qwijibo said: Source? I’ve been searching online for confirmation of that. But I can’t find anything. Everything I see says that because neither side reopened the CBA it will run until September 2022. Yes. They can have talked, but I don’t believe the document itself can be altered before that. im not trying to be a crap disturber. I’d genuinely like to see a source that indicates I’m wrong. I’d be happy to be wrong. It is generic labour relations and contract law. Any contract can be terminated by mutual, voluntary agreement. They also get amended all the time during their lifespans. The window only referred to an extra ability for just one side to re-open it. You can read some basics here but it includes that tidbit a few paragraphs in. https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/what-is-a-collective-agreement/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 12 minutes ago, Provost said: It is generic labour relations and contract law. Any contract can be terminated by mutual, voluntary agreement. They also get amended all the time during their lifespans. The window only referred to an extra ability for just one side to re-open it. You can read some basics here but it includes that tidbit a few paragraphs in. https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/what-is-a-collective-agreement/ Cool. Thanks. That seems pretty clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 Anything to get rid of that plug Loui Ericksson. 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