Waived: Booth Compliance Buyout (per Bob Mckenzie)

[dave babych returns]

I'm not certain that we have - which would lead me to believe that we're not privy to something here since it seems like such an easy way for rich teams to gain a competitive edge.

I don't think we have either. I guess right now you could make the argument that last year the big money teams wanted to keep their options open - but if that's the case then we'd probably be hearing more noise now less than two weeks before 7/1.

I'd guess that the cost of improving your team for 'just' money via this method is just too high. Even if the reward is a 1st round pick and a good prospect, are we going to see any organization that wants to spend $20m on that?

I'd love for the Canucks to do that but unless we see another organization step up and do it I won't be mad. To me it's just a shame we couldn't CBO Booth last offseason.

 

[putridgasbag]

A few years ago. Right now, in the travel easy schedule of the Panthers, his body can't even hold up. What's the point of acquiring a guy well past his due date - in a *significantly* heavier travelling team like the Canucks? To keep the infirmary full? $800,000 ain't nearly enough in salary retention.

Mainly joking but if he was a part of the price of moving up draft, you stick him in the 8 spot/ assistant coach roll. Heck if he doesn't like it he can retire and the cap cost is the same.

 

[biturbo19]

I'm still thinking about this. Why buy Booth out now, instead of later? They can't use the buyout to help facilitate a deal. Why take that option away?

My best guess: Behind the scenes, the NHL has clamped down on things that can be construed as circumvention. The spirit or intent of compliance buyouts as to help teams get out poor contracts while the NHL adopted a new CBA. Taking on another team's buyout does not serve the spirit of that rule - and so can be considered a circumvention of those rules.

I'll be curious to see if FLA does in fact trade Jovo to another team...

Yeah. It's not as though the NHL hasn't shown in the recent past that they're completely willing to slap teams with harsh penalties and long-term repercussions for attempts at sneaky borderline "cap circumvention". ie. The Kovalchuk fiasco, The Cap Recapture Penalties...both cooked up after the fact and applied to teams for pushing through loopholes in the CBA.

Wouldn't surprise me to see the NHL saddle any team trying to use their "compliance buyouts" as trade bargaining chips, with some harsh penalties and consequences. Would really be playing with fire on that, and that isn't something i think a brand new first time GM would want to be trying out as the guinea pig to find out what the NHL would do about it.

 

[me2]

I'm still thinking about this. Why buy Booth out now, instead of later? They can't use the buyout to help facilitate a deal. Why take that option away?

My best guess: Behind the scenes, the NHL has clamped down on things that can be construed as circumvention. The spirit or intent of compliance buyouts as to help teams get out poor contracts while the NHL adopted a new CBA. Taking on another team's buyout does not serve the spirit of that rule - and so can be considered a circumvention of those rules.

I'll be curious to see if FLA does in fact trade Jovo to another team...

I'm pretty sure the player has to be on your team for X amount of time to qualify for a compliance buyout, which killed the trade and buyout scams before they could happen. Compliance buyouts were initially intended to allow teams to fit under the reduced to $64m cap/adjust to the new CBA not make a profit scamming the league, so it is no surprise the said "Lol no" when asked.