A new twist on the buyouts

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by RangerBoy, Jul 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,136
    Likes Received:
    1,486
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
  2. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jesus christ, now we know why it took so long...That doesn't make much sense for either side.
     
  3. The Mighty Duck Man

    The Mighty Duck Man R-E-L-A-X

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    25,588
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Saskatoon
    Home Page:
    Probably half or so. If true, it'll make buy-outs alot more difficult for teams wanting more cap room. Might see a trade or two where a guy with a high salary is sent to a team that'll challenge to make the cap floor. Salary may be covered, and that guy could get bought out anyway, where cash may be involved. Either way, it's really a benefit for both teams involved, especially the teams struggling to make the floor, as they could go into more of a rebuilding mode if they want to.

    Also, for those asking "why would a team acquire a player so they can pay him not to play", well, I'd say it's obvious the former team would cover most or all costs, and if necessary, other players could be involved.
     
  4. X8oD

    X8oD Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    *********orial Engineer
    Location:
    612 Warf Ave.
    sure it does, for the players.

    Players signed long term deals for a reason. If an Owner signed the player long term, knowing what could come of the lock out, they deserve it.

    I mean, how else should it count? If a guy has a 2 year deal, If hes bought out, The hit should be spread out over 2 years, as thats the length of the contract.

    IM sure its going to be something like, if hes bought out for 8 mil on a 12 mil deal over 2 years [2/3rds] 4 mil year 1, 4 mil year 2. Or in this situation, It would be just 4 mil year 2, as teams are getting a 1 year break for this coming year to help them get in line for the cap.
     
  5. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    I would imagine the cap hit is spread over the duration of the actual payout of the buyout amount (in the past CBA twice the duration of the bought out portion - this CBA, who knows?).
     
  6. So does this go with the "unlimited buyout" period, or is this a whole different thing?
     
  7. bcrt2000

    bcrt2000 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i think Ken Campbell's report is erroneous-- he's probably mixing up the fact that buyouts will initially not count against the cap vs. buyouts counting against the cap after the unrestricted buyout period of 10 days
     
  8. Traitor8

    Traitor8 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,921
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    if that's true then we might see trades such as LeClair + 1st for 2nd.
     
  9. FlyersProspect2

    FlyersProspect2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Occupation:
    Playmaker
    Location:
    Chicopee, Ma
    I think LeClair just has one year left anyway. Amonte is a different story I believe.
     
  10. AH

    AH Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Woodbridge, ON
    Well, at least this makes up partly for the stupid buyout rule. I hate the buyout rule. Teams that will have to buy out players to manage their payrolls initially are reposnsible for their actions. They knew a cap was coming, but teams like Philly, Toronto, Detroit kept loading up. They were warned. If I was negotiating, TOO BAD.

    At least now, the buyout of contracts extending beyond one year will "partly" count towards the cap. How much partly, we dont know, but at least it's something.
     
  11. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,432
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Canada
    has this been confirmed elsewhere ?
     
  12. ArtG

    ArtG Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,803
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Sucks to be the Islanders...
     
  13. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    You can only go to arbitration once a contract is at an end. There is no need to go to arbitration, then, if both sides "agree."

    It is not "restructuring" to agree to a new contract after the old one has expired.
     
  14. Dat1guy

    Dat1guy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sucks, but pays.
    Location:
    Around the corner
    You are completely forgetting that contracts cannot be restructured. Arbitration is inconsequential when someone is actually under contract.
     
  15. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    No, this is wrong. You can't take a player to arbitration while under contract! That would be ridiculous. And if you could, players would certainly be able to do the same thing after a good year.

    Enabling a team to take a player to arb as an RFA makes perfect sense. Many players hold out (see Martin St. Louis) rather than choose arbitration because they feel they can exert more pressure on their team and gain a better salary than in arbitration. Now, players don't have that leverage, with teams being able to force arbitration.
     
  16. Montrealer

    Montrealer What, me worry?

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3,764
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    142
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Chambly QC
    Who Cares?

    If these teams feel like tossing millions of dollars out the window, let them! I personally think it's hilarious.
     
  17. Ronald Pagan

    Ronald Pagan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    86
    What else is new?
     
  18. Lobstertainment

    Lobstertainment Oh no, my brains.

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    11,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Burger Flipper
    Location:
    Toronto
    I should probably check but I think Nolan got an extra year tacked on because of the lockout so buying him out might not make sense anymore.
     
  19. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    Correct. There is always the chance neither team nor player wants to go to arbitration. In such case, the player is a holdout until he is presented with an offer sheet from another team or they come to terms.

    We don't know all the details yet, but this would still make some sense. For example, if the team wants to retain Yashin at $1m, it can ask for it. But if Yashin says no, it's fair game, and the team can take Yashin to arb and come in at any level. Presumably, the arbitrator would not be allowed to consider that Yashin was qualified. It's sort of a without prejudice offer.

    Not necessarily, as we don't know all the details. Perhaps a team can opt for arbitration prior to having to qualify the player? In any case, it still is a weapon for teams that they did not have in the past.

    No way in hell this would happen.

    One or two seasons doesn't show up well in arbitration, because the comparables need to have similar histories. You can't compare St. Louis to Jagr, for example. The reason St. Louis holds out is because he would not win as much in arbitration as he is worth in the present time, based on last year, or to the Lightning. The Lightning would love to go to arb with St. Louis, because they would be sure to get him for less than "market value."
     
  20. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    Yeah, that would do it.

    Nonis: "Hey, he came to us and asked us to pay him less because he's got a great condo here."

    Bettman: "Oh, well, why didn't you say so in the first place? In that case, S.123 ss.12(b) stating that no player contract can be renegotiated by either party doesn't apply. Any other players planning to ask you as well?"
     
  21. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    There will be no renegotiation of contracts... were a player able to approach a team but not vice versa, there would still be a pressure on theplayer to do so. I am sure this was a bone tossed to the PA.
     
  22. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    Don't discourage the Messenger from trying, though.

    There's got to be some way to get around all these silly rules. How much stuff can you really put into 600 pages, and what to lawyers know anyways?

    Besides, it's highly unlikely that there will, within the 600 page document, be a "spirit" clause allowing the league to overule a transaction based on the fact that it is going against the spirit of the CBA, in order to deal with all the loopholes that are obviously going to be in place once all is said and done.
     
  23. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    But this is a possibility under the current system as well... a team comes in low, a player high, they battle it out, and on many occasions there are hard feelings. The difference now is that a team can actually come in under the QO.
     
  24. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    You're giving me a headache.

    Explain the scenario again. Yashin wants to play in a different league, and therefore wants his 10m contract torn up? Because the Russkies are paying him, what 12m a year for 20 years?

    What?
     
  25. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    A player can always retire from the NHL and move elsewhere. What he can't do is dishonour his contract or otherwise attempt to re-work it, at least right now. No one knows if this bar against renegotiation is a one-time deal or not.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"