Amnesty Buyouts

[Sevanston]

Brian Lawton ‏@brianlawton9
Of course everyone knows that re-entry waivers is going away with the advent of cap counting those deals that are $375,000 above the minimum

Looks like Rusty is getting bought out after all

 

[BronYrAur]

Even if Hossa retires after he is traded, it will count against our cap.

I'm starting to think the Hawks will buy him out not this summer, but next, especially if he runs into injury problems again.

Using the amnesty buy-out on Hossa this summer would be the perfect way to get that deal off the books. I don't see Rocky giving a guy $31m to go to the FA market and then reallocate that $5m/year on another player, however.

But that deal is going to kill us in a few years.

 

[RomersWorld*]

So what is the official cap number for this season? If we can't buy these guys out until summer then Olesz is on the team.

Is the bonus cushion in effect this year?

Looks like Leddy is either in the AHL or we are carrying 8 defensemen..and are probably over the cap because of it. Man that Oduya signing was so stupid.

Unless we put Montador on LTIR... and the cap is 64 mil or higher then we might be okay. Otherwise we have to trade Frolik or Montador or Olesz I think this year to be under the cap.

 

[Happyhary9]

This post is laughable. Are you seriously comparing the Hossa situation to Crosby?

One is the best player in the NHL signed through age 37.

The other is maybe one of the top-20 forwards in the league, already 34, signed through age 42.

People who think it is ridiculous to buy-out Hossa are being extremely short-sighted. Yeah he might be decent for the next four seasons. But do you really think he is going to play out the last 4-5 years of that contract in his last-30's early 40's when making $1m a year?

At that point we'll be allocating a $5+ million chunk of our cap to a guy not on the team. For 4-5 seasons.

You make no point but making an great argument why you don't buy him out. All he needs to be is good for 4 more years just like you said. Once he is at 1 mil a year he is gone unless he is still playing at a 5 mil a year type player. If not he would be so easy to trade to a team that does not like to spend a lot of money. Say even if Hossa at that time is a 30-40 point player and plays solid D, you can't sign a guy like that for a mil a year, which is all that matters to a owner that won't spend money anyway cause cap space is not relevant at that point just pure money. He would still be a big time bargain to a team that has an internal budget. How can some people just not grasp how this long term front-loaded contracts will play out.

As for the last part how would Hossa cost us 5 mil of cap space if he is not on the Hawks? If we trade him, he costs us nothing or he retires (which could be highly likely instead of taking the NHL abuse for a mil a year) and his cap hit is still gone.

 

[Happyhary9]

So what is the official cap number for this season? If we can't buy these guys out until summer then Olesz is on the team.

Is the bonus cushion in effect this year?

Looks like Leddy is either in the AHL or we are carrying 8 defensemen..and are probably over the cap because of it. Man that Oduya signing was so stupid.

Unless we put Montador on LTIR... and the cap is 64 mil or higher then we might be okay. Otherwise we have to trade Frolik or Montador or Olesz I think this year to be under the cap.

You have to be under 70.2 for this year I believe. Hawks are at 64.5 so they are fine even with Rusty.

 

[RomersWorld*]

You have to be under 70.2 for this year I believe. Hawks are at 64.5 so they are fine even with Rusty.

Oh, good news. I thought I read the cap was like 64.5 mil this year...but that might be next year.

 

[BronYrAur]

You make no point but making an great argument why you don't buy him out. All he needs to be is good for 4 more years just like you said. Once he is at 1 mil a year he is gone unless he is still playing at a 5 mil a year type player. If not he would be so easy to trade to a team that does not like to spend a lot of money. Say even if Hossa at that time is a 30-40 point player and plays solid D, you can't sign a guy like that for a mil a year, which is all that matters to a owner that won't spend money anyway cause cap space is not relevant at that point just pure money. He would still be a big time bargain to a team that has an internal budget. How can some people just not grasp how this long term front-loaded contracts will play out.

As for the last part how would Hossa cost us 5 mil of cap space if he is not on the Hawks? If we trade him, he costs us nothing or he retires (which could be highly likely instead of taking the NHL abuse for a mil a year) and his cap hit is still gone.

It looks like if he retires we still get dinged with the cap hit.

Hossa has four years at the end of the deal where he gets paid $1m. Highly doubt he's playing in any of those seasons. You can't trade a retired player, and even the teams who barely reach the cap floor aren't going to trade for 5 years of a player who is going to be retired in 4 of them. If you hold on to him too long you could be stuck with that cap hit.

 

[Happyhary9]

It looks like if he retires we still get dinged with the cap hit.

Hossa has four years at the end of the deal where he gets paid $1m. Highly doubt he's playing in any of those seasons. You can't trade a retired player, and even the teams who barely reach the cap floor aren't going to trade for 5 years of a player who is going to be retired in 4 of them. If you hold on to him too long you could be stuck with that cap hit.

Nope we don't. Only contracts that were signed at the time of the player being 35 or older when the contract went into effect. Hossa can retire at any time and no cap hit for the Hawks.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

You make no point but making an great argument why you don't buy him out. All he needs to be is good for 4 more years just like you said. Once he is at 1 mil a year he is gone unless he is still playing at a 5 mil a year type player. If not he would be so easy to trade to a team that does not like to spend a lot of money. Say even if Hossa at that time is a 30-40 point player and plays solid D, you can't sign a guy like that for a mil a year, which is all that matters to a owner that won't spend money anyway cause cap space is not relevant at that point just pure money. He would still be a big time bargain to a team that has an internal budget. How can some people just not grasp how this long term front-loaded contracts will play out.

As for the last part how would Hossa cost us 5 mil of cap space if he is not on the Hawks? If we trade him, he costs us nothing or he retires (which could be highly likely instead of taking the NHL abuse for a mil a year) and his cap hit is still gone.

Supposedly there are going to be cap penalties for guys over 5 or 6 year contracts who retire with years remaining. I don't think it will be the full cap hit but the Hawks might have some cap space eaten up if Hossa does indeed retire with 4 years remaining on his deal as some have speculated.

 

[Espies333s]

Nope we don't. Only contracts that were signed at the time of the player being 35 or older when the contract went into effect. Hossa can retire at any time and no cap hit for the Hawks.

Where did you get this from? I've only read that if they retire on any contract then it would count against cap. It doesn't make too much sense because most of the problem was coming from 28 year old players being signed to 10+ year deals. If this is the case I don't know why they would even include anything about it in the CBA.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

This article references Luongo's contract. I'm sure someone here could do the calculations with Hossa's if they want to spend the time on it.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

 

[Happyhary9]

Supposedly there are going to be cap penalties for guys over 5 or 6 year contracts who retire with years remaining. I don't think it will be the full cap hit but the Hawks might have some cap space eaten up if Hossa does indeed retire with 4 years remaining on his deal as some have speculated.

I don't see that happening in Hossa's case as contract was involved with the first round on these deals. I think right after the Kovy deal the NHL reached a kind of agreement that these few would be grandfathered in to any new ruling but any signed after that point could face penalty's under the new CBA. Basically it was the NHL's way of saying yes we can't stop you from doing these type of deals because the CBA says you can but there could be punished later on.

Maybe I could be wrong but there were a few that were like this and Hossa's deal was one of them.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

I don't see that happening in Hossa's case as contract was involved with the first round on these deals. I think right after the Kovy deal the NHL reached a kind of agreement that these few would be grandfathered in to any new ruling but any signed after that point could face penalty's under the new CBA. Basically it was the NHL's way of saying yes we can't stop you from doing these type of deals because the CBA says you can but there could be punished later on.

Maybe I could be wrong but there were a few that were like this and Hossa's deal was one of them.

Take a look at the link I posted. It discusses Luongo, who signed his current contract one year after Hossa signed his. This is the NHL's way of punishing the teams who signed the long contracts. I'm shocked the players allowed this to be in the CBA.

 

[Happyhary9]

This article references Luongo's contract. I'm sure someone here could do the calculations with Hossa's if they want to spend the time on it.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

Lou's deal was signed after the NHL warning though I believe. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out and if the NHL honors the few that were told would be grandfathered in.

 

[Ace Rothstein]

Lou's deal was signed after the NHL warning though I believe. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out and if the NHL honors the few that were told would be grandfathered in.

Luongo actually signed his in Sept 2009, not long after Hossa signed with the Hawks. I believe this is for any contract over 6 years, no matter when it was signed.

 

[Happyhary9]

Take a look at the link I posted. It discusses Luongo, who signed his current contract one year after Hossa signed his. This is the NHL's way of punishing the teams who signed the long contracts. I'm shocked the players allowed this to be in the CBA.

As I said the NHLPA/NHL came to a basic gentalmans agreement which was after Hossa's deal but before Lou's basically that the one's that where already done will be allowed to be grandfather but any after that date did not have the same guarantee. Now whether they honored that in the new CBA I am not sure.

 

[Happyhary9]

Luongo actually signed his in Sept 2009, not long after Hossa signed with the Hawks. I believe this is for any contract over 6 years, no matter when it was signed.

I believe that the articale about Lou's contract is going to end up be wrong as well once all the details of the CBA are out. Found the contracts that were garunteed granfather clause's it was Hossa, Kovy, and Lou's. So once all the details are out you may see that those will not count towards the new rule.

Here is an artical talking about the proposed to which was later agreed upon I believe.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2010/09/02/hossas-deal-could-be-in-jeopardy/

 

[CapitalistInfidel]

Where did you get this from? I've only read that if they retire on any contract then it would count against cap. It doesn't make too much sense because most of the problem was coming from 28 year old players being signed to 10+ year deals. If this is the case I don't know why they would even include anything about it in the CBA.

The CBA also contains a 35-and-over rule, sometimes referred to as the Mogilny rule.[8] This rule states that if a player signs a multi-year deal when the player is 35 or older, starting in the second year of the contract, that amount will count towards the team's salary cap regardless of whether the player is on the active roster or not. This is designed to keep teams from signing older players to lucrative front-loaded contracts, thus saving cap room, in which there is no expectation the player will actually play in the latter years.

You can read about the salary cap instituted during the last negotiation here

 

[x Tame Impala]

Very confused.

1) I thought the cap hit post-retirement was only in effect for players 36 and older (see Doan).

2) Hossa signed his Contract when he was 31is right? Wouldn't the Hawks be immune to his cap hit then? Even if he retires in 3 years?

 

[CapitalistInfidel]

Very confused.

1) I thought the cap hit post-retirement was only in effect for players 36 and older (see Doan).

2) Hossa signed his Contract when he was 31is right? Wouldn't the Hawks be immune to his cap hit then? Even if he retires in 3 years?

Yep, here is the relevant wording from the last CBA

The CBA also contains a 35-and-over rule, sometimes referred to as the Mogilny rule.[8] This rule states that if a player signs a multi-year deal when the player is 35 or older, starting in the second year of the contract, that amount will count towards the team's salary cap regardless of whether the player is on the active roster or not. This is designed to keep teams from signing older players to lucrative front-loaded contracts, thus saving cap room, in which there is no expectation the player will actually play in the latter years.

 

[Hawkaholic]

In the new CBA, ANY player who is currently signed to a deal that is 6 years or longer will be stuck with the cap hit if the player retires.

That's, Hossa, Keith, Luongo, Kovy, Parise, Suter, Weber, etc

 

[Happyhary9]

In the new CBA, ANY player who is currently signed to a deal that is 6 years or longer will be stuck with the cap hit if the player retires.

That's, Hossa, Keith, Luongo, Kovy, Parise, Suter, Weber, etc

I am still going to wait little until all details are know. Because the Hossa, Lou and Kovy deal were suppose to be grandfathered under an agreement by the NHL/NHLPA, maybe they did away with that agreement I guess we will wait and see.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Yikes, could be in pretty bad shape from 2017-2024. Parise and Suter could retire early and they'd still be on the hook for those huge contracts + cap hits + the cap hits of all their young studs that need to be re-signed.

 

[hockeydoug]

New details keep coming out.

Trading cap space changes everything. Teams can trade player and keep up to 50% of the cap hit and salary from what I understand

Salaries over 900k in AHL count against cap

Burying contracts is over.

All sorts of new fun rules, many undermine a hard cap system.

New rules look like they'll facilitate trades and gives wild gms like Holmgren plenty of wiggle room to get out of administrative screwups and poor market valuation.

I still don't believe they waited so long for this.

Anyway, LeBrun (after tweeting and reporting inaccurate information a few days ago) has more details. His stuff is easy enough to find, I'll wait until they start cleaning everything up over there. TSN and ESPN reporters did an absolutely horrid job covering the CBA compared to what we expected, they did a good job drumming up conversation though.

Kevin Allen has an entry with more information here.

I'm not the biggest Kevin Allen fan, but he's been more responsible than most of the popular guys when it comes to the specific details of the CBA (he seemed more interested in getting it right instead of getting it out first). He'll probably shatter my trust in him soon now that I posted that.

We still don't know all the details. I would imagine Hossa gets traded before being bought out in a couple years.

 

[Martini*]

Dan Bernstein had wonderful insight over the new CBA and stated Hossa was good as gone.

Now that new info trickles out, it looks like he was right all along.