Speculation: Amnesty buyouts as trade currency?

headwire

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
464
0
Toronto
With the reduction in cap for the 2013-2014 season, there may be some teams that need to unload some salary, but can't afford to pay out the contract. Might it be possible for Nonis to use the Leafs remaining amnesty buyouts as trade currency? ie. Leafs take buyout candidate to help our trading partner, and get some other assets as compensation?

MLSE can certainly afford it. Thoughts?
 

carlyle

Registered User
Feb 20, 2013
99
0
With the reduction in cap for the 2013-2014 season, there may be some teams that need to unload some salary, but can't afford to pay out the contract. Might it be possible for Nonis to use the Leafs remaining amnesty buyouts as trade currency? ie. Leafs take buyout candidate to help our trading partner, and get some other assets as compensation?

MLSE can certainly afford it. Thoughts?

Its possible, but I think they will want to save the buyouts.
 

headwire

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
464
0
Toronto
Its possible, but I think they will want to save the buyouts.

Possibly. I could see them considering Liles, Komisarek, and Grabovski as buyout candidates. Perhaps they'll wait to see how everyone performs down the stretch and in the playoffs before making any decisions.

However, assuming that we only use 1 of our 2 buyouts, is the remaining buyout enough of a carrot to get a team to give us other assets for cash/cap relief?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
With the reduction in cap for the 2013-2014 season, there may be some teams that need to unload some salary, but can't afford to pay out the contract. Might it be possible for Nonis to use the Leafs remaining amnesty buyouts as trade currency? ie. Leafs take buyout candidate to help our trading partner, and get some other assets as compensation?

MLSE can certainly afford it. Thoughts?

Do you believe MLSE has interest in buying and paying out other teams mistakes?
 

Erndog

Registered User
Jul 17, 2007
4,092
1,525
Unless you're getting a 1st round pick back, I don't see MLSE paying, let's say $4M (just throwing a number out there) for a 2nd or 3rd round pick.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
I doubt very much MLSE wants to throw away money for another Teams mistake.
 

Pi

Registered User
Nov 16, 2010
48,856
13,830
Toronto
I doubt very much MLSE wants to throw away money for another Teams mistake.

I know this is not a realistic scenario but:

Let's say the Islanders give us Tavares but we have to buy out DiPietro and give them our 1st round pick.

I think MLSE would easily take that deal to get Tavares.
 

Ricky Bobby

Registered User
Aug 31, 2008
8,456
312
The team get 2 total amnesty buyouts to be used this summer or next.

Komisarek looks like he'll be 1 of those 2 buyouts.

So I'm betting Nonis saves the other one for next summer to retain lots of roster movement options but I could see him getting something between a 2nd to 4th rounder for helping a team out by taking on a bad contract much like how Lombardi netted us Franson or Kolzig netted us a 4th.
 

613Leafer

Registered User
May 26, 2008
12,818
3,641
You'd have to get a really good return...

If you're looking at a ~15 million $ buyout for example. What is that worth? MLSE won't want to cough up 15M just for a 2nd round pick? No, not at all. I don't know where the cutoff in value is, but what does 15M get you?
 

headwire

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
464
0
Toronto
Define "great enough".

That's a tough question, as I'm neither an NHL GM, nor do I make decisions at MLSE. You can certainly create some far-fetched scenarios (Tavares, as the poster above me mentioned) that would qualify as "great enough". However, to be more realistic, would a 1st or prospect B-level prospect be enough?

Edit: "Great enough" would also have to balanced with the size of the buyout. Again, a tough question.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
I know this is not a realistic scenario but:

Let's say the Islanders give us Tavares but we have to buy out DiPietro and give them our 1st round pick.

I think MLSE would easily take that deal to get Tavares.

They'd be all over that but it would never happen. Any Team losing a big name player, it will cost them more in the long run than any buyout savings.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Maybe. If the return is great enough. It's a backdoor way of flexing the financial might of MLSE.

Why not spend money on players that will actually help your team, as that would be money better spent, NO?.

Not sure if its even possibly under the rules of the CBA to trade amnesty buyout players as the Cap exemption was put in place for Cap strapped teams to make adjustments for the lower cap next year and not for poor\budget teams to dump salary.

Besides it looks like Komisarek is earmarked for one of Leafs buyouts one of their own mistakes. So at best its one potential opportunity here. But to me its not a move a team that is trying to win does as it wreaks of desperation really. IMO
 

notdoneyet

Registered User
Jun 19, 2006
4,189
1,810
Saint John,N.B.
liles does not need to be bought out.

Ifwe dont need him we can trade him at next years deadline.

Komi will be bought out. we need his cap space and we will not be
able to trade him

grabo can be traded
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
That's a tough question, as I'm neither an NHL GM, nor do I make decisions at MLSE. You can certainly create some far-fetched scenarios (Tavares, as the poster above me mentioned) that would qualify as "great enough". However, to be more realistic, would a 1st or prospect B-level prospect be enough?

Edit: "Great enough" would also have to balanced with the size of the buyout. Again, a tough question.

Too many variables.

I'd think for a Team to give something up, the buyout would have to be substantial to them, say > 4 mil/yr. For 1 year that may be acceptable to MLSE for a 1st, for multi years I can't see it.

Now say a Team has a star player who is on his last year of his contract and they know he won't re-sign. That may be enticing as you have a year to exclusively negotiate and worth paying a larger buyout.
 

headwire

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
464
0
Toronto
Why not spend money on players that will actually help your team, as that would be money better spent, NO?.

Not sure if its even possibly under the rules of the CBA to trade amnesty buyout players as the Cap exemption was put in place for Cap strapped teams to make adjustments for the lower cap next year and not for poor\budget teams to dump salary.

Besides it looks like Komisarek is earmarked for one of Leafs buyouts one of their own mistakes. So at best its one potential opportunity here. But to me its not a move a team that is trying to win does as it wreaks of desperation really. IMO

Clearly, if the opportunity is there to spend money on players that will help now then do it. I'm trying to create scenarios where MLSE, in a salary cap league, can use its strong financial position for the benefit of the team. This is similar to picking up Cody Franson in exchange for taking Lombardi off of Nashville's books. It doesn't really reek of desperation, but it does seem a little underhanded. Somewhat like the cap-circumventing contracts for Luongo and Kovalchuk.

I also hadn't considered that it might be against the rules of the CBA to trade for a player, only to use your amnesty buyout immediately. It does seem to go against the spirit of the amnesty buyout, but we know that GMs have found loopholes in the past, and used them to their advantage.
 

KuleminFan41

Registered User
Jan 5, 2009
5,845
614
Is there a rule about moving a player then doing an amnesty buyout? I'd think the NHLPA wouldn't be happy no? Seems pretty obvious they'd have that in the new CBA but then again I haven't read the rules so IDK
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
Is there a rule about moving a player then doing an amnesty buyout? I'd think the NHLPA wouldn't be happy no? Seems pretty obvious they'd have that in the new CBA but then again I haven't read the rules so IDK

Why would the PA care? The player will get his money.

I think the league can veto a trade if it is too one sided though.
 

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
That's a tough question, as I'm neither an NHL GM, nor do I make decisions at MLSE. You can certainly create some far-fetched scenarios (Tavares, as the poster above me mentioned) that would qualify as "great enough". However, to be more realistic, would a 1st or prospect B-level prospect be enough?

Edit: "Great enough" would also have to balanced with the size of the buyout. Again, a tough question.

^ This is the correct answer.

There is also the option of us trading Komi for another amnesty buy out and depending on the $ valuation, other compensation maybe added.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Clearly, if the opportunity is there to spend money on players that will help now then do it. I'm trying to create scenarios where MLSE, in a salary cap league, can use its strong financial position for the benefit of the team. This is similar to picking up Cody Franson in exchange for taking Lombardi off of Nashville's books. It doesn't really reek of desperation, but it does seem a little underhanded. Somewhat like the cap-circumventing contracts for Luongo and Kovalchuk.

I also hadn't considered that it might be against the rules of the CBA to trade for a player, only to use your amnesty buyout immediately. It does seem to go against the spirit of the amnesty buyout, but we know that GMs have found loopholes in the past, and used them to their advantage.

What I was getting at was the way the money is utilized where you only address the acquisition potential.

Hypothetically say the Leafs take on a $6 mil player as a amnesty buyout and get a younger player in addition that can play say making $1.5 mil.

The buyout is 2/3rds of $6 mil, so that is $4 mil actual payout to get rid of him.. Essentially that makes the young player making $5.5 mil in actuality when you add his contract + the buyout amount. While an amnesty would avoid the cap consequences, but not the wasted money aspect.

So couldn't a team like the Leafs rather spend that actual $5.5 mil (opportunity cost and actual MLSE $$) proactively on a much better player, like say offering it to David Clarkson as a UFA this summer?

If I was an owner and my GM was picking between picking up other teams mistakes to spend my money getting rid of them, or actively pursuing top end talent and investing my money on that player I know which option I would chose. :)
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
They were willing to absorb Lombardi to get Franson. But, that kind of situation is pretty rare, don't see it happening again.

They did dump Lebda though.

Maybe something around trading a player the Leafs may amnesty like Komisarek for a Player that may cost more to buyout + an asset.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,080
38,132
What I was getting at was the way the money is utilized where you only address the acquisition potential.

Hypothetically say the Leafs take on a $6 mil player as a amnesty buyout and get a younger player in addition that can play say making $1.5 mil.

The buyout is 2/3rds of $6 mil, so that is $4 mil actual payout to get rid of him.. Essentially that makes the young player making $5.5 mil in actuality when you add his contract + the buyout amount. While an amnesty would avoid the cap consequences, but not the wasted money aspect.

So couldn't a team like the Leafs rather spend that actual $5.5 mil (opportunity cost and actual MLSE $$) proactively on a much better player, like say offering it to David Clarkson as a UFA this summer?

If I was an owner and my GM was picking between picking up other teams mistakes to spend my money getting rid of them, or actively pursuing top end talent and investing my money on that player I know which option I would chose. :)

I believe the thought is to Amnesty and still spend on UFA, not Amnesty or spend on UFA.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->