Speculation: Buyout Parise, yes or no?

[MuckOG]

Sounds like if we trade him and another team buys him out we would still get hit with recapture if he retires early. I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to give up a lot of assets and still get hit with essentially the same cap hit. Mind as well buy him out.

This is what I think also. Its not ideal, but for me it comes down to cost certainty. If we trade him, we still have the worry about potential cap recapture biting us in the butt. Better for us (and Parise) to control what happens and buy him out now. It's going to sting for a couple of years, but better to rip the band-aid off now and deal with it.

 

[Bazeek]

Sounds like if we trade him and another team buys him out we would still get hit with recapture if he retires early. I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to give up a lot of assets and still get hit with essentially the same cap hit. Mind as well buy him out.

We can only speculate because the NHL refuses to give a straight answer, likely because they don't actually have one. The Wild should get some clarification from the league on that regardless of what they end up doing, because it can still affect things later on. It'd be pretty shameful of the league to duck a direct question about their own rules.

I still don't understand what justification there would be for hitting us with a recapture penalty if he was bought out by another team. I understand that the rules have been written so haphazardly that they could be applied that way, but the original spirit of the rule was to make sure teams don't wriggle off the hook for these 13 year contracts that are actually 8 or 9 year contracts. Does a buyout not effectively make the contract "whole?"

If the actual point of the recapture rules is to just punish teams for signing deals that the league approved of at the time but found embarrassing in retrospect they should have just levied those penalties 10 years ago when they capped contracts at 8 years. Setting up a Rube Goldberg Punishment Engine that no one in the league understands well enough to answer questions about is ridiculous.

 

[grimmel95]

We can only speculate because the NHL refuses to give a straight answer, likely because they don't actually have one. The Wild should get some clarification from the league on that regardless of what they end up doing, because it can still affect things later on. It'd be pretty shameful of the league to duck a direct question about their own rules.

I still don't understand what justification there would be for hitting us with a recapture penalty if he was bought out by another team. I understand that the rules have been written so haphazardly that they could be applied that way, but the original spirit of the rule was to make sure teams don't wriggle off the hook for these 13 year contracts that are actually 8 or 9 year contracts. Does a buyout not effectively make the contract "whole?"

If the actual point of the recapture rules is to just punish teams for signing deals that the league approved of at the time but found embarrassing in retrospect they should have just levied those penalties 10 years ago when they capped contracts at 8 years. Setting up a Rube Goldberg Punishment Engine that no one in the league understands well enough to answer questions about is ridiculous.

The NHL and all their rules are ridiculous. If a player has a NMC and waives it to be traded to say Edmonton that NMC clause goes to Edmonton with the player. If a player like Parise is traded and then retires early the league says hang on a minute -- we're not going to hammer the new team that traded for Parise we're going after the team that originally signed him to that contract. It sure feels like the league only cares about punishing the Wild for a contract that was legal and approved by the league.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I still don't understand what justification there would be for hitting us with a recapture penalty if he was bought out by another team.

Speculation is two fold; (1) Minnesota benefited the most from a questionable deal. I feel like these deals were the equivalency of a parent telling a kid he can do something, but it's going to be on him if it didn't turn out okay and that they would have to deal with the repercussions down the road. Yes, you can do that, but you shouldn't sort of thing to get around the rules we put in place to make the NHL competitive. and (2) More so, it's going to look mighty suspicious to the NHL if the Wild trade Parise to a team that needs a cap hit, can take on low salary and buys him out immediately to hit the cap floor. This is another thing that the NHL is starting to frown upon as well. If Minnesota traded Parise to say - New York and they bought him out after playing a year, I could see the argument there that Minnesota shouldn't be on the hook as it was a legitimate trade that didn't work out.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

We can only speculate because the NHL refuses to give a straight answer, likely because they don't actually have one. The Wild should get some clarification from the league on that regardless of what they end up doing, because it can still affect things later on. It'd be pretty shameful of the league to duck a direct question about their own rules.

I still don't understand what justification there would be for hitting us with a recapture penalty if he was bought out by another team. I understand that the rules have been written so haphazardly that they could be applied that way, but the original spirit of the rule was to make sure teams don't wriggle off the hook for these 13 year contracts that are actually 8 or 9 year contracts. Does a buyout not effectively make the contract "whole?"

If the actual point of the recapture rules is to just punish teams for signing deals that the league approved of at the time but found embarrassing in retrospect they should have just levied those penalties 10 years ago when they capped contracts at 8 years. Setting up a Rube Goldberg Punishment Engine that no one in the league understands well enough to answer questions about is ridiculous.

However, a league source said that[Another team buying out Parise] would not get the Wild out of potential cap recapture penalties if he retires before the end of 2024-25. The cap recapture would be applicable in the context of any trade for any reason, the source said.

Untangling the Wild offseason: How the expansion draft impacts the rest of Minnesota's moves

 

[Bazeek]

Untangling the Wild offseason: How the expansion draft impacts the rest of Minnesota's moves

Oh ffs. So the contract we signed him to is bought out, but somehow the specter of cap recapture is still there? What the **** is the point?

If that's true it makes a buyout pointless. This league is run by monkeys.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

Oh ffs. So the contract we signed him to is bought out, but somehow the specter of cap recapture is still there? What the **** is the point?

If that's true it makes a buyout pointless. This league is run by monkeys.

If we buy him out the recapture is voided is my understanding. But, part of the cap recapture rule was to prevent us from getting out of the cap hit via trade, so if we trade him at all, the cap recapture sticks.

 

[thestonedkoala]

If we buy him out the recapture is voided is my understanding. But, part of the cap recapture rule was to prevent us from getting out of the cap hit via trade, so if we trade him at all, the cap recapture sticks.

That makes sense; I'd push a buyout next season or even the season after that.

 

[grimmel95]

If we buy him out the recapture is voided is my understanding. But, part of the cap recapture rule was to prevent us from getting out of the cap hit via trade, so if we trade him at all, the cap recapture sticks.

whether Parise is traded and bought out by the other team or is bought out by the Wild shouldn't matter -- the contract was made whole because of the buy out. That's all that should matter but the league needs teams to think they have the proverbially hammer to hold over them all.

 

[BagHead]

Oh ffs. So the contract we signed him to is bought out, but somehow the specter of cap recapture is still there? What the **** is the point?

If that's true it makes a buyout pointless. This league is run by monkeys.

Yeah, that would make me change my answer to "No, he should not be bought out." My yes was a conditional one.

 

[Bazeek]

If we buy him out the recapture is voided is my understanding. But, part of the cap recapture rule was to prevent us from getting out of the cap hit via trade, so if we trade him at all, the cap recapture sticks.

Aah, I gotcha. So we're still good if we do the buying out.

That's still ridiculous, though. With a trade the cost of the buyout (which the league seems to think negates the recapture penalty) is wrapped into the price paid to the other team to take Parise. Minnesota still pays the price, it's just paying in the form of assets instead of cap space. It's not like another teams takes a bullet for us just to be nice.

 

[Prior]

Certainly cemented that the Wild buying him out makes the most sense.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

Aah, I gotcha. So we're still good if we do the buying out.

That's still ridiculous, though. With a trade the cost of the buyout (which the league seems to think negates the recapture penalty) is wrapped into the price paid to the other team to take Parise. Minnesota still pays the price, it's just paying in the form of assets instead of cap space. It's not like another teams takes a bullet for us just to be nice.

Yes, I don’t understand think the NHL did a good job with their logic either. But, I could be wrong in my understanding as well. We now know for sure that a trade would still hit us with recapture though even if he’s bought out, so I’d think that would probably take that off the table given the assets we’d have to give up to get it done. Can you imagine two teams eating that much cap?

 

[MuckOG]

If Parise is going to be bought out this summer, it makes sense to do it before the expansion lists are due this weekend, correct? No sense in protecting a player you are buying out.

 

[Bazeek]

Yes, I don’t understand think the NHL did a good job with their logic either. But, I could be wrong in my understanding as well. We now know for sure that a trade would still hit us with recapture though even if he’s bought out, so I’d think that would probably take that off the table given the assets we’d have to give up to get it done. Can you imagine two teams eating that much cap?

No, I agree with your interpretation now that I've re-read Russo's article and that feels like exactly the sort of wrong I'd expect from the NHL. If that's the answer they're giving then a trade->buyout isn't really an option. I can 100% imagine the league sitting back and watching us give up like 3 1sts to move him, then having him retire in June of 2024 and still hitting us with the full $20m recapture penalty.

 

[Prior]

If Parise is going to be bought out this summer, it makes sense to do it before the expansion lists are due this weekend, correct? No sense in protecting a player you are buying out.

That would be logical. Guerin definitely hasn’t earned that distinction yet.

 

[MNNumbers]

I thought the 'recapture' was specifically so that teams couldn't sign back diving contracts, in which the total cap hit was a lot less than the salary paid early in the contract and then have the contract voided through early retirement.

If ANYONE buys out Parise, his entire cap hit is going to fall on someone, so there shouldn't be a cap recapture.

Now, you COULD argue something like this:
Parise: 9 years @ 7.54M/yr so far =69M already cap hit
Under a buyout after trade, the new team is going to pay about 27M in cap costs (less in salary).
That makes about 96M.

But, the whole contract was for 98M, so somewhere, 2M in cap costs was avoided, and Minnesota should be on the hook for that. But, only 2M.

Otherwise, it's a farce. After buyout, 96M of cap costs have been accrued. Assessing a 20M penalty to Minnesota means that his total cap hit EXCEEDS the contract. That's not right.

 

[Spurgeon]

Untangling the Wild offseason: How the expansion draft impacts the rest of Minnesota's moves

I think that league source is wrong. If you read through the wording of the CBA, there’s really no support for that. I think the Wild could argue the legality of that ruling and win pretty easily. Really wouldn’t make any sense for the Wild to be liable for cap recapture.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

I think that league source is wrong. If you read through the wording of the CBA, there’s really no support for that. I think the Wild could argue the legality of that ruling and win pretty easily. Really wouldn’t make any sense for the Wild to be liable for cap recapture.

That’s the Beautiful thing about the NHL. The CBA is up to their interpretation

 

[GuerinUp]

If Parise is going to be bought out this summer, it makes sense to do it before the expansion lists are due this weekend, correct? No sense in protecting a player you are buying out.

Ya youd think, but also theres the option that he may wait to see if we get eichel before buying him out first.

 

[57special]

Yes, I don’t understand think the NHL did a good job with their logic either. But, I could be wrong in my understanding as well. We now know for sure that a trade would still hit us with recapture though even if he’s bought out, so I’d think that would probably take that off the table given the assets we’d have to give up to get it done. Can you imagine two teams eating that much cap?

I always thought that would be the case. If the league was going to punish us for Parise retiring early, no matter what team he ended up on, why would they not do the same for a buyout?

So, following that thinking, it makes Parise easier and less expensive to trade if another team knows that they won't be hit with any(of very slight) cap recapture penalties. Any team that needs to hit the cap floor, but is cash poor(ie. OTT, ARI) can send a bigger contract to us(i.e. Schmaltz 5x 5.85M), and we can send Parise + back, with the understanding that they buy him out. All it costs them is 6.66M- only 2.6M if they can wait a year. That's pretty attractive to them...not the greatest for us, as we'd have to fit in the Schmaltz contract AND Parise's cap recapture penalty in the next few years...ouch.

 

[HotDish]

does buying him out get the Wild out of cap recapture? For instance his cap hit will never be higher than $7,371,794 in years 3 & 4 ?

 

[MuckOG]

 

[57special]

does buying him out get the Wild out of cap recapture? For instance his cap hit will never be higher than $7,371,794 in years 3 & 4 ?

Yes.

 

[Bazeek]

I guess we lock this one.

****in' hell, Bill.