Buyout clause - Do we use it?

[y2kcanucks]

Wait... what? You're planning to hold onto Lu through 13/14 now? Jesus.

If we have to, or at least get something good in return for him which likely will come with some salary. Highly doubtful we end up with a cheap impact player, and I'm NOT interested in dumping Luongo for some third liners like you or others are.

 

[Scottrockztheworld*]

Wait... what? You're planning to hold onto Lu through 13/14 now? Jesus.

Pretty sure thats been his plan all along... not sure why this is a surprise to you.

 

[Tiranis]

I find it hilarious that there's actually a serious discussion about the possibility of buying out DiPietro or Lecavalier. That will never happen. They MIGHT be willing to buy out a guy that has $10m left on his contract, but that's probably the top range of what they'll pay.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I find it hilarious that there's actually a serious discussion about the possibility of buying out DiPietro or Lecavalier. That will never happen. They MIGHT be willing to buy out a guy that has $10m left on his contract, but that's probably the top range of what they'll pay.

Agreed. It's shocking how people have no concept of actual dollars, and show a complete lack of common cents.

Owners are not going to want to pay out $20M+ for players to get off their roster. Instead they will make cuts to other areas of their payroll. This isn't like NHL13 where you can buy a player out and all you have to deal with is the buy-out cap hit (or no cap hit in the case of an amnesty buy-out).

 

[Scurr]

If we have to, or at least get something good in return for him which likely will come with some salary. Highly doubtful we end up with a cheap impact player, and I'm NOT interested in dumping Luongo for some third liners like you or others are.

You're talking about letting Higgins go after Lu has been on the block for a year and a half so you could hold onto this imaginary value? It won't come to that but at some point you'd have to admit he just didn't have the value you thought he did.

Higgins is a better player and a much better bargain than Lupul.

 

[Proto]

I find it hilarious that there's actually a serious discussion about the possibility of buying out DiPietro or Lecavalier. That will never happen. They MIGHT be willing to buy out a guy that has $10m left on his contract, but that's probably the top range of what they'll pay.

Which is why the Canucks would have an opportunity to possibly parlay a large amount of cash into serious assets. Would Aquilini be willing to pay 20-30 million dollars for two 1st round picks and a prospect? I don't know. But it would be a unique opportunity -- sort of the NHL equivalent of paying for a player in European football leagues.

 

[Wisp]

I love Scurr


Anyone think Philly buys out Bryzgalov?

 

[Canucker]

I love Scurr


Anyone think Philly buys out Bryzgalov?

Bryzgalov might be hopeful he gets bought out....who knows, maybe he'll even try to help them come to that conclusion this season. He could take a big bundle of money back to Russia and go play in the KHL.

 

[Archangel]

Brent > Keith!

Paulina beats them both

 

[Wilch]

There should be a rule preventing players re-signing with the team that bought them out.

Otherwise every cash rich team would just do this with their highest paid players and re-sign them for pennies.

 

[opendoor]

I find it hilarious that there's actually a serious discussion about the possibility of buying out DiPietro or Lecavalier. That will never happen. They MIGHT be willing to buy out a guy that has $10m left on his contract, but that's probably the top range of what they'll pay.

Not only is the idea silly, it's also likely impossible. Just like in 2005, I expect rules will be put into place so that any compliance buyout is only to be used for players already on the team. Maybe if a guy was traded and played the whole 12-13 season on a new team he'd be eligible, but I'd be shocked if guys could be traded for and bought out without putting in time with their new team.

 

[Luck 6]

I can't believe we're considering buying out Booth. The guy was pretty damn good for us, but kept getting injured when he started to roll. Plus, he was playing on a team where all of our core offensive players essentially had terrible years, yet he's somehow expected to have a career high? Booth gets another season, that's for sure.

 

[Wisp]

Not only is the idea silly, it's also likely impossible. Just like in 2005, I expect rules will be put into place so that any compliance buyout is only to be used for players already on the team. Maybe if a guy was traded and played the whole 12-13 season on a new team he'd be eligible, but I'd be shocked if guys could be traded for and bought out without putting in time with their new team.

Why would the League put rules in place that hurt struggling teams weighed down by bad contracts on them? Why would the PA be opposed to more salary cap space opening up?

Each team gets one player to amnesty in the current proposal and Vancouver is one of the few rich teams who is in a position where they wouldn't have to use theirs. We're likely the only team capable of executing this scenario.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You're talking about letting Higgins go after Lu has been on the block for a year and a half so you could hold onto this imaginary value? It won't come to that but at some point you'd have to admit he just didn't have the value you thought he did.

Higgins is a better player and a much better bargain than Lupul.

If Luongo's value to the Canucks exceeds his trade value then it makes no sense to trade him. If someone offers us a package that matches or exceeds his value to the Canucks then he should be traded. What about this don't you understand?

 

[Scottrockztheworld*]

If Luongo's value to the Canucks exceeds his trade value then it makes no sense to trade him. If someone offers us a package that matches or exceeds his value to the Canucks then he should be traded. What about this don't you understand?

What about when his cap hit could be better spent on another player's raise or a player we need. I agree that we shouldn't trade him for crap but we can't keep him long term.

 

[Scurr]

If Luongo's value to the Canucks exceeds his trade value then it makes no sense to trade him. If someone offers us a package that matches or exceeds his value to the Canucks then he should be traded. What about this don't you understand?

It doesn't make sense to start dismantling the rest of the team to keep Lu around as a 5.3m backup. At that point it's way past time to cut our losses.

And, you know, it's time to move on.

 

[Outside99*]

Best Gillis transaction was getting Ehrhoff from a team with cap issues. Creating cap space, however accomplished, has a lot of value (potentially).

Kes was + 7 in 21 games when one of his linemates was out of the lineup...as a point of reference, Henrik was also +7 during the same 21 games.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

I can't believe we're considering buying out Booth. The guy was pretty damn good for us, but kept getting injured when he started to roll. Plus, he was playing on a team where all of our core offensive players essentially had terrible years, yet he's somehow expected to have a career high? Booth gets another season, that's for sure.

He'll always be getting injured, he'll probably have his career ended by injury the way he plays.

He also scored 1 goal in his last 20 or so games. Contract is too long and too risky given his stupidity.

 

[y2kcanucks]

It doesn't make sense to start dismantling the rest of the team to keep Lu around as a 5.3m backup. At that point it's way past time to cut our losses.

And, you know, it's time to move on.

Right. So lets just dump the reason this team got as far as they did in the 2011 playoffs, and a major reason we won the President's trophy in 2012 in order to keep pieces that didn't really contribute nearly as much as the piece we are getting rid of. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[y2kcanucks]

What about when his cap hit could be better spent on another player's raise or a player we need. I agree that we shouldn't trade him for crap but we can't keep him long term.

If there is a piece available that we need then let's deal with it then. But to pay for a players raise I would be very hard pressed to accept that. Especially if what you are referring to is an overpayment to re-sign Edler.

 

[thefeebster]

It doesn't make sense to start dismantling the rest of the team to keep Lu around as a 5.3m backup. At that point it's way past time to cut our losses.

And, you know, it's time to move on.

I agree, it was time to move on, at least 5 months ago. We can't continue spending $9.3M on goaltending past whatever this season becomes.

Dumping Higgins?! The guy carried us up front through our October and November coma and was a spark for whichever line he was put on during the season. I'd doubt he'd be asking for the moon and he fits great here.

 

[me2]

If he's getting a franchise player, the return on that investment he could be immense.

But nobody is going to throw in a franchise players.

"We'll take Dipietro's cap hit if you throw in Taveres."

 

[Wisp]

But nobody is going to throw in a franchise players.

"We'll take Dipietro's cap hit if you throw in Taveres."

I was thinking more along the lines of Strome. Longshot regardless.

 

[dave babych returns]

You don't think if you give a team the equivalent of 20-30 million dollars you won't get some premium assets along with that? I think some teams would be willing to pay to get out from under a contract (DiPietro...).

Well as has been mentioned I don't think anyone seriously considers trying to pay tens of millions of dollars in order to free up enough cap space to, what.. sign a second pairing defenseman? And even a Mickey Mouse franchise like the Islanders aren't going to see so little value in picks and prospects (that they have clearly been building around for years) as to throw away enough to justify a $20-30m investment from another team.

It would be great if the Canucks could pull something like this off but I just don't see it happening on the kind of scale that's being envisioned here. Maybe some team out there gets a first round pick but that's about as high as I see things going.

But hey, just for the hell of it.. what if these buyouts become a reality in addition to the idea of trading for cap space? The Canucks could trade for Rick Dipietro and an extra $10m of cap space over each year remaining in his contract, the Isles would be comfortably under the cap ceiling that whole time and the Canucks would have a monster advantage over other franchises.

It'd be pretty sweet if it were actually a possibility.

There should be a rule preventing players re-signing with the team that bought them out.

There almost certainly will be, and I believe there was one last time.

 

[ginner classic]

With the roster as it is now, Booth. Canucks have no depth on D other than Alberts. Whereas at forward, there are a number of candidates for the 3rd line, as well as a few prospects (Kassian, Schroeder, Jensen) who arguably, could replace Booth next year.

I agre with this. I think it'll be realtively easy to find a taker for Ballard. If Booth sucks, we are stuck with him. My vote is for Booth (if any).

In order of liklihood:

• Booth
• Ballard
• A player included in the trade return from Luongo
• Garrison
• Burrows

Nobody else is potentially overpaid