A new twist on the buyouts

[RangerBoy]

If a player has just the 2005-06 season remaining on his contract, he can be bought out at two-thirds of his salary without it counting against the cap. If his contract extends beyond next season, a portion of the buyout in subsequent years will go against the cap.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968867503640&col=970081593064&t=TS_Home

How much is a portion?

Click to read more...

 

[Pepper]

Jesus christ, now we know why it took so long...That doesn't make much sense for either side.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

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.

 

[X8oD]

Jesus christ, now we know why it took so long...That doesn't make much sense for either side.

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.

 

[GSC2k2*]

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?).

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

So does this go with the "unlimited buyout" period, or is this a whole different thing?

 

[bcrt2000]

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

 

[Traitor8]

if that's true then we might see trades such as LeClair + 1st for 2nd.

 

[FlyersProspect2]

if that's true then we might see trades such as LeClair + 1st for 2nd.

I think LeClair just has one year left anyway. Amonte is a different story I believe.

 

[AH]

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.

 

[Isles72]

has this been confirmed elsewhere ?

 

[ArtG]

Sucks to be the Islanders...

 

[Jobu]

You guys are completely forgetting about the 2-way arbitration rule ..

Under the new CBA a team can take a play to arbitration ..

The player say Leclair or Nolan or someone that wants to stay with his team and was willing to restructure but can't could go together to arbitration and present the new contract amount .. If both sides agree then its a no brainer for the arbitrator and its a way around a buyout that you can't resign or restructure ..

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.

 

[Dat1guy]

You guys are completely forgetting about the 2-way arbitration rule ..

Under the new CBA a team can take a play to arbitration ..

The player say Leclair or Nolan or someone that wants to stay with his team and was willing to restructure but can't could go together to arbitration and present the new contract amount .. If both sides agree then its a no brainer for the arbitrator and its a way around a buyout that you can't resign or restructure ..

You are completely forgetting that contracts cannot be restructured. Arbitration is inconsequential when someone is actually under contract.

 

[Jobu]

From a players point of view correct he can use arbitration to get a new deal from the team that is better then his qualifying offer ..

From the team standpoint I understood it that they can take a player under contact say Yashin and have his contract reset to a new lower number if they win their case .. If the players is a RFA and has no contract how does it make sense from a team point of view. They could just offer him a lower amount you don't need an arbitrator to do that ..

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.

 

[Montrealer]

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.

Who Cares?

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

 

[Ronald Pagan]

Sucks to be the Islanders...

What else is new?

 

[Lobstertainment]

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.

 

[Jobu]

Arbitration period and whether you decide to use it is only for a short period of time .. Team Arbitration wouldn't happen in December ..

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.

The confusing part is you have to offer a RFA a Qualifying offer by June 30th .. So if a team qualifies a player say like Yashin at his old rate (assuming the leaks are correct that offers above $1 mil is 100%) and he is a RFA now. .. Then after giving Yashin that offer you take him to arbitration to reduce it ?? That is a bit strange ..

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.

It works only under your example of a top player holding out where the qualifing offer is far less then the real contract would be ..

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.

I saw it as a tool for a GM to correct a mistake and bad contract, but you see it only as a tool to get a player under contract ..

No way in hell this would happen.

The team could lose here though .. If TB took Martin St. Louis to Arb to get him signed then the Marty agent will ask for quite a bit as the leagues MVP and the team could end up paying more then they are offering in fact if the Player win here , the whole reason he was holding out in the first place because the team offer was too low ..

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."

 

[Timmy]

If the 2 way arbitration is not a tool that would work here then ..

New twist here .. They say a team can't renegotiate a contract under this new CBA ..


If an owner can't ask .. but can a play ask ?? ..

Could Nolan approach the Leafs and say I will tear up my contract if you agree, if you will offer me a 2 year deal at 2.5 mil as an example ..

Just like two-way arb .. Is there such a thing as two way renegotiating I wonder.??

It seems strange that there would not be a CBA clause that would permit a team and player stay together if that is their wishes ..

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?"

 

[Jobu]

If the 2 way arbitration is not a tool that would work here then ..

New twist here .. They say a team can't renegotiate a contract under this new CBA ..


If an owner can't ask .. but can a play ask ?? ..

Could Nolan approach the Leafs and say I will tear up my contract if you agree, if you will offer me a 2 year deal at 2.5 mil as an example ..

Just like two-way arb .. Is there such a thing as two way renegotiating I wonder.??

It seems strange that there would not be a CBA clause that would permit a team and player stay together if that is their wishes ..

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.

 

[Timmy]

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.

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.

 

[Jobu]

However the one downfall I would see is that this would tick off St. Louis in the example if he was awarded less then he wanted or though he was worth .

If he gets a 1 year which is the norm then he is a UFA next season and absolutely goon if pissed off ..

So how often would a team used this against a top player and face consequesnces in the future as a result ..

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.

 

[Timmy]

So If Yashin came up to NYI's and said tear up my contract I want to play in RSL .. The NHL would not allow that .??

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?

 

[Jobu]

But this would favour the team and the NHL .. I am guessing the NHLPA would be against a player approaching a team.

To prevent a buyout payment where the player gets free money and walks away to get a new contract is not as good and the suggestion I made of a player willing to renegotiate ..

But just to make it clean the league has written the no renegotiating rule, mainly to take pressure off players from owners and fans to renegotiate.

So If Yashin came up to NYI's and said tear up my contract I want to play in RSL .. The NHL would not allow that .??

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.