Christian Ehrhoff

[joshjull]

Yeah if he stays on the team there is no reason to use a conventional buyout at any point. The recapture penalty would be less of a cap hit per year then a buyout.

It looks like Ehrhoff has a limited NMC so there is the potential for a trade. I have suggested having a gentlemen's agreement where the other team uses a compliance buyout to end the contract at the end of the season with a contingency where he gets bought out down the road if he gets injured.

There are only TWO WAYS to avoid the cap recapture penalty with Ehrhoff

1) He plays out the length of his contract (regardless of where)

2) WE buy him out with a compliance buyout this summer.

Thats it


As for your trade idea.....

Using Pegula bucks...something like

Ehrhoff+Cash(to help with Compliance buyout) for X(multiple draft pick and/or high quality prospect(s))

This trade cannot happen.

-Teams can't include cash outright in a trade. That was gotten rid of a CBA or two ago.

-We've already saved the 10mil against the cap with the first two seasons of Ehrhoff's deal. Once we trade him we will be hit with the cap recapture as soon as he stops playing under the terms of that contract. That could be retirement or a buyout. So another team buying him out in the summer does not eliminate the cap recapture. But it does greatly reduce its per year hit to roughly 1.5mil per for 7 years since the 10mil is spread out over what would have been the remaining 7 years of his deal. But the team doing the buying out is the only one that gets the compliance buyout benefit, not us.

-NHL has to sign off on every trade. I would be shocked if the league would sign off on a trade that includes a clause forcing the team acquiring the player to buy them out at a specific time.

But lets say for arguments sake that the NHL allows a trade like this to happen. Knowing cash isn't allowed in a trade. What team is going to trade for Ehrhoff's services for the roughly the remaining 30% of the season (and playoffs) knowing they will have to shell out 12mil to buy him out in the summer? And they are going to give us multiple picks and /or high quality prospects as well? Its absurd to think any team would do this even if it was allowed. If this scenario/trade happened it would be us receiving next to nothing from the other team or us sending picks/prospects their way just so they could get Ehrhoff off our books. Thus making the trade utterly pointless.

 

[ZeroPT*]

The return would have to be very very significant. A young forward with top 6 potential who's good defensively, a young top 4 D-man and a pick. Smith+weircoch+2nd+4th

 

[sabregoat]

Unless he finishes off the contract on another team, he will be a cap hit of a min of 3.0 mil. If he is on the team, he will be a 4.0 mil 6-7 dman(6-7 because of our strong pool pf d prospects). Buyout is 3.33 and recapture is anywhere between 3.0 and 10.0.

I say there is a 25% max chance he finishes off the contract. I hope he does.

If the Canucks offered a 1st + either Horvat or Shrinkaruk +, I would be willing to take the risk.

If there is a chance of a $10 hit in the last year, any good GM will be prepared for it by structuring any contacts with that in mind. Maybe he signs P Kane to a five year $40 mil contact that ends after 19-20 knowing he will get replaced by a younster. Any good business plan will be prepared for any events that could occur. If the cap is 80 mil, average pay is 3.47. So you are basically trading 2 third liners.

The whole premise is what you will receive in return and what you may have to give up if the worst case scenero happens. I expect to have a cup or two before this happens.

 

[joshjull]

Unless he finishes off the contract on another team, he will be a cap hit of a min of 3.0 mil. If he is on the team, he will be a 4.0 mil 6-7 dman(6-7 because of our strong pool pf d prospects). Buyout is 3.33 and recapture is anywhere between 3.0 and 10.0.

I say there is a 25% max chance he finishes off the contract. I hope he does.

If the Canucks offered a 1st + either Horvat or Shrinkaruk +, I would be willing to take the risk.

If there is a chance of a $10 hit in the last year, any good GM will be prepared for it by structuring any contacts with that in mind. Maybe he signs P Kane to a five year $40 mil contact that ends after 19-20 knowing he will get replaced by a younster. Any good business plan will be prepared for any events that could occur. If the cap is 80 mil, average pay is 3.47. So you are basically trading 2 third liners.

The whole premise is what you will receive in return and what you may have to give up if the worst case scenero happens. I expect to have a cup or two before this happens.

Thats absurd. The GM wouldn't know if that hit was going to happen until the summer prior to that season. Do you actually expect the GM to start planning now for a 10mil hole in the lineup because it might happen? Actually jettisoning players and their contracts by either not re-signing them or trading them. All to make sure we don't have contracts tying up that cap space based on a maybe? How exactly can the GM magically satisfy whatever contract demands come up in the future which are unknown at this time, keep emerging youth signed, attempt to build a winner and all while intentionally handicapping himself by removing 10mil from the pot?

If Hoff gets traded its because the team feels whatever they get in return is worth the risk of the cap recapture. If they get hit with the 10mil penalty, then they will have to scramble before that season to address it. My question would be, why would a team put themselves into a situation where a time bomb like that could be looming?

Hoff is a perfect all situations minute eating vet to keep around so the young defensive studs can develop slowly and properly below him. By the later years of his contract he would become a depth bottom pairing dman. The value of him staying IMO outweighs moving him.

 

[threeVo]

Here is the breakdown for different scenarios:

If Christian Ehrhoff retires or defects in the 2020 off-season (age 37 as of July 1 that year), and was traded to the Edmonton Oilers in the 2014 off-season, following is an estimated breakdown of the recapture penalties for the involved teams.

Team Benefit Cap benefit the team received (total salary payment less total cap hit) while the player was on the team prior to retirement. Teams do not receive a credit for seasons with negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary). Penalty Cap penalty charged to the team each season following retirement until the end year of the contract. Penalties do not apply to teams which traded a player prior to the new CBA agreement in 2012.

Buffalo Sabres (2020-21 through 2020-21) (Savings)$10,000,000 (Penalty)$10,000,000

If Christian Ehrhoff retires or defects in the 2019 off-season (age 36 as of July 1 that year), and was traded to the Edmonton Oilers in the 2014 off-season, following is an estimated breakdown of the recapture penalties for the involved teams.

Team Benefit Cap benefit the team received (total salary payment less total cap hit) while the player was on the team prior to retirement. Teams do not receive a credit for seasons with negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary). Penalty Cap penalty charged to the team each season following retirement until the end year of the contract. Penalties do not apply to teams which traded a player prior to the new CBA agreement in 2012.

Buffalo Sabres (2019-20 through 2020-21) (Savings) $10,000,000 (Penalty)$5,000,000
Edmonton Oilers (2019-20 through 2020-21) -$4,000,000 $0

If Christian Ehrhoff retires or defects in the 2018 off-season (age 35 as of July 1 that year), and was traded to the Edmonton Oilers in the 2014 off-season, following is an estimated breakdown of the recapture penalties for the involved teams.

Team Benefit Cap benefit the team received (total salary payment less total cap hit) while the player was on the team prior to retirement. Teams do not receive a credit for seasons with negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary). Penalty Cap penalty charged to the team each season following retirement until the end year of the contract. Penalties do not apply to teams which traded a player prior to the new CBA agreement in 2012.

Buffalo Sabres (2018-19 through 2020-21) $10,000,000 $3,333,333
Edmonton Oilers (2018-19 through 2020-21) -$1,000,000 $0

 

[MessierII]

Ill take him in Edmonton any time.

 

[Djp]

This trade cannot happen.

-Teams can't include cash outright in a trade. That was gotten rid of a CBA or two ago.



-NHL has to sign off on every trade. I would be shocked if the league would sign off on a trade that includes a clause forcing the team acquiring the player to buy them out at a specific time.

But lets say for arguments sake that the NHL allows a trade like this to happen. Knowing cash isn't allowed in a trade. What team is going to trade for Ehrhoff's services for the roughly the remaining 30% of the season (and playoffs) knowing they will have to shell out 12mil to buy him out in the summer? And they are going to give us multiple picks and /or high quality prospects as well? Its absurd to think any team would do this even if it was allowed. If this scenario/trade happened it would be us receiving next to nothing from the other team or us sending picks/prospects their way just so they could get Ehrhoff off our books. Thus making the trade utterly pointless.

What they can do is require the new team to buy him out(if he hasnt retired by then) by September 15, 2018, otherwise a 2019 1st round pick goes to Buffalo.

As far as the money piece goes that can easily be replaced by a player being sent back who is a cap dump.

Another option is leiu of cash is they could do a salary retention on the contract that equates to $500K over the next 4 years which would equal the $2M needed to buy him out in 2018.

 

[dotcommunism]

What they can do is require the new team to buy him out(if he hasnt retired by then) by September 15, 2018, otherwise a 2019 1st round pick goes to Buffalo.

As far as the money piece goes that can easily be replaced by a player being sent back who is a cap dump.

Another option is leiu of cash is they could do a salary retention on the contract that equates to $500K over the next 4 years which would equal the $2M needed to buy him out in 2018.

Can you please stop with this idea that the Sabres can make the other team in a trade buy him out unless you can actually somewhat substantiate that this is remotely allowed?

 

[Ruckus007]

Thats absurd. The GM wouldn't know if that hit was going to happen until the summer prior to that season. Do you actually expect the GM to start planning now for a 10mil hole in the lineup because it might happen? Actually jettisoning players and their contracts by either not re-signing them or trading them. All to make sure we don't have contracts tying up that cap space based on a maybe? How exactly can the GM magically satisfy whatever contract demands come up in the future which are unknown at this time, keep emerging youth signed, attempt to build a winner and all while intentionally handicapping himself by removing 10mil from the pot?

If Hoff gets traded its because the team feels whatever they get in return is worth the risk of the cap recapture. If they get hit with the 10mil penalty, then they will have to scramble before that season to address it. My question would be, why would a team put themselves into a situation where a time bomb like that could be looming?

Hoff is a perfect all situations minute eating vet to keep around so the young defensive studs can develop slowly and properly below him. By the later years of his contract he would become a depth bottom pairing dman. The value of him staying IMO outweighs moving him.

Sure, why not?

 

[Paxon]

What they can do is require the new team to buy him out(if he hasnt retired by then) by September 15, 2018, otherwise a 2019 1st round pick goes to Buffalo.

As far as the money piece goes that can easily be replaced by a player being sent back who is a cap dump.

Another option is leiu of cash is they could do a salary retention on the contract that equates to $500K over the next 4 years which would equal the $2M needed to buy him out in 2018.

What good does the acquiring team buying him out do for the Sabres? It does no good whatsoever. Nevermind that you can't include such terms in a trade.

 

[wunderpanda]

A couple random thoughts about buying him out:

-would he have to officially retire for the recapture to kick in? or just not be on a roster? I only ask because Kovalchuk had to sign actual retirement papers and I don't recall if the Devils had a recapture penalty from that. Other players seem to wait a year or 2 before they announce a retirement. Just thinking there would be a loophole somewhere.

-isn't there a chance the CBA expires before his contract ends? There is an opt-out clause after year 7, we are already in year 2, so the recapture could be rewritten before it would be an issue.

-there is a chance that, if we trade him, he ends up on waivers some time before the contract expires, we could simply claim him as a healthy scratch/7th d-man. Also a chance he gets injured and put on LTIR like Pronger.

I'm not a fan of buying him out (or Leino), the cap could go up 6-10 million every year throughout the CBA, at some point Ehrhoff recapture could assist the team getting to the cap floor (if the cap is 71, 77, 83, 89, 95, 101 in consecutive seasons). Something would be dreadfully wrong if we can't fit a 10 million recapture penalty into a 100 million cap.

 

[Paxon]

A couple random thoughts about buying him out:

-would he have to officially retire for the recapture to kick in? or just not be on a roster? I only ask because Kovalchuk had to sign actual retirement papers and I don't recall if the Devils had a recapture penalty from that. Other players seem to wait a year or 2 before they announce a retirement. Just thinking there would be a loophole somewhere.

-isn't there a chance the CBA expires before his contract ends? There is an opt-out clause after year 7, we are already in year 2, so the recapture could be rewritten before it would be an issue.

-there is a chance that, if we trade him, he ends up on waivers some time before the contract expires, we could simply claim him as a healthy scratch/7th d-man. Also a chance he gets injured and put on LTIR like Pronger.

I'm not a fan of buying him out (or Leino), the cap could go up 6-10 million every year throughout the CBA, at some point Ehrhoff recapture could assist the team getting to the cap floor (if the cap is 71, 77, 83, 89, 95, 101 in consecutive seasons). Something would be dreadfully wrong if we can't fit a 10 million recapture penalty into a 100 million cap.

Kovalchuk's contract wasn't "in the red" by much, so the recapture was negligent spread out over all those years. There was no loophole as far as I know. His cap hit was 600k+ over his actual salary the first two years, and then last year his salary was about about 5 million above his hit, but that was only for half a season so cut it in half. Compare with Ehrhoff who off the top of my head I think we paid about 18 million to in his first two seasons which would have had a cumulative cap hit of 8 million. We have a big debt to pay off with him recapture-wise and it'll be several years before we start eating into that by paying him less than his cap hit.

"Something would be dreadfully wrong if we can't fit a 10 million recapture penalty into a 100 million cap." This thought process makes little sense to me. We have an owner who will be willing to spend to the cap, why would something have to be dreadfully wrong for us to be 10 million under the cap 7 or so years down the road? I certainly hope we're closer to the cap than that due to having many good players under contract whilst the team competes for a cup. Almost all the contracts of key players at that time would have been made in the future, meaning they'd be inflated in line with the inflating cap. Tomorrow's $100m is not today's by any stretch.

 

[joshjull]

Sure, why not?

Because it would be pretty daft for an organization thats trying to build a Cup champion and has unlimited resources to artificially handicap itself based on a maybe. They would build the team unfettered as they see fit and only deal with the cap recapture if it became an issue.

 

[Djp]

A couple random thoughts about buying him out:

-would he have to officially retire for the recapture to kick in? or just not be on a roster? I only ask because Kovalchuk had to sign actual retirement papers and I don't recall if the Devils had a recapture penalty from that. Other players seem to wait a year or 2 before they announce a retirement. Just thinking there would be a loophole somewhere.

The devils have a recapture penalty because of his retirement. The formula is the amount extra paid spread out over the years of the contract thus lowering it to a rather negligable amount of something like $350,000 per year.

If Ehrhoff was to retire this offseason the cap hit of the recapture is $10M spread evenly over the remaining contract yrs left. So $10M spread over 7 yrs is around $1.4M per year.


If he is bought out by Buffalo it also kicks in. Say they buy him out when he has 4 yrs left where he is due $6M. So the buy out would be $4M spread over 8 yrs or $500,000 per year. Along with this over the remaining 4 contract years is the recapture of $10M. It isnt spread evenly because of the accounting rules. It looks at the difference in cap hit vs salary. If they were to buy him out this offseason they wouldnt see the cap hit from this buy out until the years 7-10 in the contract. years 4-6 would only be the buy out amount while years 7-10 would be the buy out amount + recapture.

-isn't there a chance the CBA expires before his contract ends? There is an opt-out clause after year 7, we are already in year 2, so the recapture could be rewritten before it would be an issue.

The league would not allow cap circumvention around a new CBA.

-there is a chance that, if we trade him, he ends up on waivers some time before the contract expires, we could simply claim him as a healthy scratch/7th d-man. Also a chance he gets injured and put on LTIR like Pronger.

Once Buffalo trades him they lose the ability to have the recapture lower during the years where cap hit> salary (years 7-10). In year 7 the $10M drops to $9M, then the last 3 years it drops $3M each year.

LTIR still would not exempt Buffalo from the recapture penalty. Sure if you have him on LTIR thru the contract then you can dodge it but there are rules on LTIR that need to be followed.

I'm not a fan of buying him out (or Leino), the cap could go up 6-10 million every year throughout the CBA, at some point Ehrhoff recapture could assist the team getting to the cap floor (if the cap is 71, 77, 83, 89, 95, 101 in consecutive seasons). Something would be dreadfully wrong if we can't fit a 10 million recapture penalty into a 100 million cap.

I honestly do not see a $100M cap. I dont see the cap raising $6M per year. the cap is mainly driven by TV rights fees. In order for the cap to increase by $6M in one year the revenue would need to increase by about $360M in a year.


If Ehrhoff is retired or bought out the cap hit will be < $4M in year 10. If they trade him and he retires or is bought out prior to the last year of the contract the recapture is $10M. that is $6.5M lost of cap space. That $6.5M is enouggh space for 1-2 players to fill out the roster.

With the group drafted from 2011-2015 and they develop, around 2020 is when they would be due their 2nd or 3rd contracts which would be higher salaries. Its hard to plan or budget for the chance of a sudden $10M cap hit that may or may not be there.

 

[JLewyB]

The devils have a recapture penalty because of his retirement. The formula is the amount extra paid spread out over the years of the contract thus lowering it to a rather negligable amount of something like $350,000 per year.

If Ehrhoff was to retire this offseason the cap hit of the recapture is $10M spread evenly over the remaining contract yrs left. So $10M spread over 7 yrs is around $1.4M per year.


If he is bought out by Buffalo it also kicks in. Say they buy him out when he has 4 yrs left where he is due $6M. So the buy out would be $4M spread over 8 yrs or $500,000 per year. Along with this over the remaining 4 contract years is the recapture of $10M. It isnt spread evenly because of the accounting rules. It looks at the difference in cap hit vs salary. If they were to buy him out this offseason they wouldnt see the cap hit from this buy out until the years 7-10 in the contract. years 4-6 would only be the buy out amount while years 7-10 would be the buy out amount + recapture.





The league would not allow cap circumvention around a new CBA.



Once Buffalo trades him they lose the ability to have the recapture lower during the years where cap hit> salary (years 7-10). In year 7 the $10M drops to $9M, then the last 3 years it drops $3M each year.

LTIR still would not exempt Buffalo from the recapture penalty. Sure if you have him on LTIR thru the contract then you can dodge it but there are rules on LTIR that need to be followed.



I honestly do not see a $100M cap. I dont see the cap raising $6M per year. the cap is mainly driven by TV rights fees. In order for the cap to increase by $6M in one year the revenue would need to increase by about $360M in a year.


If Ehrhoff is retired or bought out the cap hit will be < $4M in year 10. If they trade him and he retires or is bought out prior to the last year of the contract the recapture is $10M. that is $6.5M lost of cap space. That $6.5M is enouggh space for 1-2 players to fill out the roster.

With the group drafted from 2011-2015 and they develop, around 2020 is when they would be due their 2nd or 3rd contracts which would be higher salaries. Its hard to plan or budget for the chance of a sudden $10M cap hit that may or may not be there.

So why would we ever buy him out if there is a regular buyout cap hit + the recapture penalty. Also, where does it state that a buyout doesnt void the recapture penalty? From what I understand, it only applies to when the player retires or defects from the league prior to the contract?

 

[Ruckus007]

Because it would be pretty daft for an organization thats trying to build a Cup champion and has unlimited resources to artificially handicap itself based on a maybe. They would build the team unfettered as they see fit and only deal with the cap recapture if it became an issue.

The arguments about the recapture are compelling and pretty interesting (and more than a little confusing!) but I think the uncertainty aspect, if Ehrhoff were traded, just isn't that big of a deal. There is so much uncertainty in what this team is going to look like, what the salary structure will be, even what the cap landscape is going to look like during the recapture years that I believe would allow Buffalo to effectively navigate those cap hit(s). Without advocating any decision one way or the other, I simply think that if the Sabres decided to move Ehrhoff, they could appropriately factor the potential recapture penalties while still being competitive.


Since you brought up team building, let's look at this in a different way, that maybe you won't agree with. The recapture is a huge disincentive for the Sabres to move Ehrhoff, no argument there. I could suggest, however, that the exact reason why the Sabres shouldn't move Ehrhoff makes him a compelling trade option. The recapture is a risk that is going to be completely born by the Sabres, so now there is a level of risk management involved that, I think, swings to Buffalo's favor.

Forget all the cockamamie suggestions about trading him while trying to avoid a recapture. Putting Ehrhoff on the trade market means accepting a potential recapture. To me, that would allow Buffalo to dictate terms and ask for a package rich enough in assets to alleviate the complications of planning for, and possibly paying, the recapture.

Summary Statement: If a team really wants Ehrhoff, they would have to compel (with assets) Buffalo to accept the possibility of recapturing him.

 

[Jame]

The arguments about the recapture are compelling and pretty interesting (and more than a little confusing!) but I think the uncertainty aspect, if Ehrhoff were traded, just isn't that big of a deal. There is so much uncertainty in what this team is going to look like, what the salary structure will be, even what the cap landscape is going to look like during the recapture years that I believe would allow Buffalo to effectively navigate those cap hit(s). Without advocating any decision one way or the other, I simply think that if the Sabres decided to move Ehrhoff, they could appropriately factor the potential recapture penalties while still being competitive.


Since you brought up team building, let's look at this in a different way, that maybe you won't agree with. The recapture is a huge disincentive for the Sabres to move Ehrhoff, no argument there. I could suggest, however, that the exact reason why the Sabres shouldn't move Ehrhoff makes him a compelling trade option. The recapture is a risk that is going to be completely born by the Sabres, so now there is a level of risk management involved that, I think, swings to Buffalo's favor.

Forget all the cockamamie suggestions about trading him while trying to avoid a recapture. Putting Ehrhoff on the trade market means accepting a potential recapture. To me, that would allow Buffalo to dictate terms and ask for a package rich enough in assets to alleviate the complications of planning for, and possibly paying, the recapture.

Summary Statement: If a team really wants Ehrhoff, they would have to compel (with assets) Buffalo to accept the possibility of recapturing him.

I totally agree... but the reality remains that their is almost no amount of assets a team would realistically part with, that would cover the risk I deem associated with those potential dead cap hits in key years.

Im not taking that risk for a late 1st, solid prospect, bla bah dee bla

No one is putting a top 10 pick and a top tier prospect on the table for Ehrhoff...
No one is putting a 23 yr old top 6 center on the table for Ehrhoff...


There simply are no realistic scenarios where I would take on that risk...

 

[Sabretooth]

Well teams could use buyouts on their own players to circumvent their own cap if recapture wasn't in play, so thats why a normal buyout doesn't eliminate recapture.

Whats kinda shady is that if we trade ehrhoff, the team we trade with buys him out before the final year of his contract, and then ehrhoff goes on to sign a new contract and keep playing with another team. Seems kinda unfair that the sabres should be hit with that full $10mil recapture in that scenario. If the team we traded with really wanted to **** us over just because, they could do that. All it takes for it to be beneficial for them to do so is the cost/benefit analysis that hurting their competition (the sabres) by sticking them with a $10 million recapture is more beneficial to them than not having ehrhoff + the small buyout cost. You think the vanek offer sheet was bad, imagine how that would hurt the team. You think today a team like boston or chicago or pittsburgh or LA wouldn't seriously consider it being beneficial to stick one of the others in the group with a $10mil recapture if all they had to do was buy out a 3rd pairing, declining, aging vet that was traded to them 7 years earlier? Some of those teams would be crippled by suddenly losing $10 mil of their cap space if they tried to become compliant. They'd be better off taking the draft pick penalty of being non-cap compliant, probably, than dismantling their team. The sabres could be in that position right when players are peaking, simply by trading ehrhoff now.

I suppose that is another thing to consider - if it did happen, would the penalty for not being cap compliant be better/easier to handle than dismantling the team to become cap compliant with the $10 mil recapture. Suppose in 7 years we get the full recapture and are unable to be cap compliant, and the league hits us with losing a first round draft pick in one of the next 3 drafts (looking at NJD for the precedent) - well if we're a playoff team and contending then, losing a late 1st might be a fair price to pay, compared to dismantling the team by trading away players with a combined 10mil worth of cap hit to become cap compliant.

 

[Ruckus007]

I totally agree... but the reality remains that their is almost no amount of assets a team would realistically part with, that would cover the risk I deem associated with those potential dead cap hits in key years.

Im not taking that risk for a late 1st, solid prospect, bla bah dee bla

No one is putting a top 10 pick and a top tier prospect on the table for Ehrhoff...
No one is putting a 23 yr old top 6 center on the table for Ehrhoff...


There simply are no realistic scenarios where I would take on that risk...

Yeah, I have no idea where the line would be other than, as you said, unrealistically high. Hopefully Edmonton's just crazy enough to try to find out

 

[dotcommunism]

Well teams could use buyouts on their own players to circumvent their own cap if recapture wasn't in play, so thats why a normal buyout doesn't eliminate recapture.

Except buyouts count against the cap. It's not cap circumvention

Btw, from the CBA describing the recapture penalty:

50.5(d)(ii)(B) For any period during which the Player under a Long-Term Contract is no longer playing in the League during the term of that Long-Term Contract by reason of retirement, "defection" from the NHL or otherwise (but not death) (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to that Long-Term Contract), an amount attributable to that Player shall nonetheless continue to be included in his Club's Averaged Club Salary as described below.

If a contract is bought out, then that contract is terminated. Therefore, the recapture penalty will not apply since it will no longer be during the term of that contract. Using a buyout also does not violate the spirit of the recapture rule, either, since the point of the recapture rule is ensure that a team has to "pay back" the cap space it saved. Ordinary course buyouts still carry a cap hit, so it's not an issue of circumvention

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

I would potentially buy him out. I like him, I consider him a top pairing dman but he would be on the low end of the spectrum. Ideally, you would want Ehrhoff to be your 3rd best dman and at his age in a few years when we finally start contending he's going to be in his mid 30s. You think he wants to play any of those seasons paying him 1 mil a year? He already got his 18 mil the last two seasons, so he's set. I'd be shocked if he plays any of the 1 mil seasons and possibly not the 3 mil one. He will be 35 turning 36 that season and I don't see him playing any longer then that. Why play the last 4 years for 6 million if you already made 34 in the previous 6?

 

[FamilyGuy716]

I would potentially buy him out. I like him, I consider him a top pairing dman but he would be on the low end of the spectrum. Ideally, you would want Ehrhoff to be your 3rd best dman and at his age in a few years when we finally start contending he's going to be in his mid 30s. You think he wants to play any of those seasons paying him 1 mil a year? He already got his 18 mil the last two seasons, so he's set. I'd be shocked if he plays any of the 1 mil seasons and possibly not the 3 mil one. He will be 35 turning 36 that season and I don't see him playing any longer then that. Why play the last 4 years for 6 million if you already made 34 in the previous 6?

I agree with your logic on him not playing out his contract and a buyout is the only option. It would be aggressive and help the tank. I'm torn on this one.

 

[Sabretooth]

Except buyouts count against the cap. It's not cap circumvention

Btw, from the CBA describing the recapture penalty:

50.5(d)(ii)(B) For any period during which the Player under a Long-Term Contract is no longer playing in the League during the term of that Long-Term Contract by reason of retirement, "defection" from the NHL or otherwise (but not death) (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to that Long-Term Contract), an amount attributable to that Player shall nonetheless continue to be included in his Club's Averaged Club Salary as described below.

If a contract is bought out, then that contract is terminated. Therefore, the recapture penalty will not apply since it will no longer be during the term of that contract. Using a buyout also does not violate the spirit of the recapture rule, either, since the point of the recapture rule is ensure that a team has to "pay back" the cap space it saved. Ordinary course buyouts still carry a cap hit, so it's not an issue of circumvention

Its kind of semantics, really.

If he stays with the sabres and retires with one year left:

If Christian Ehrhoff retires or defects in the 2020 off-season (age 37 as of July 1 that year) and is not traded before doing so, following is an estimated breakdown of the recapture penalties for the involved teams.

2020-21: $3,000,000

If he stays with the sabres and is bought out with one year left:

Christian Ehrhoff is 37 years old on the buyout date of June 15, 2020, setting the buyout ratio at 2/3 and the total buyout cost at $666,667 spread over 2 years. His contract was originally valued at $40,000,000 beginning in 2011 and ending in 2021, with $1,000,000 remaining from the buyout year forward. The following is a season-by-season breakdown of the buyout. A negative buyout cap hit indicates a credit.

Christian Ehrhoff buyout from CapGeek.com

2020-21: $3,333,333
2021-22: $333,333

Straight from capgeek - the calculation of the buyout cost by definition includes the 3 mil recapture, in addition to the 333,333 cap hit for 2 years buyout cost.

So yes, if the sabres buyout his contract before the end (not compliance buyout, normal buyout), the recapture still applies.

The question is, if we trade ehrhoff, and the team we traded him to buys him out before the end of his contract (that is, he does not retire or defect, but is bought out using a normal buyout), does the $10 million recapture for the sabres apply? I haven't found anything saying yes or no.

 

[dotcommunism]

Its kind of semantics, really.

Except no, it isn't. You were arguing that both would count. They don't. You brought up the example of the Sabres trading him and then the other team buying him out with one year left to stick Buffalo with the $10M cap penalty. That wouldn't happen. There would be no recapture.

Straight from capgeek - the calculation of the buyout cost by definition includes the 3 mil recapture, in addition to the 333,333 cap hit for 2 years buyout cost.

Except the fact that the buyout cap hit is higher than the recapture penalty doesn't mean they "both" count. The buyout doesn't "include" the recapture. The numbers are arrived at by different means. They are separate.

So yes, if the sabres buyout his contract before the end (not compliance buyout, normal buyout), the recapture still applies.

Again, no. You're wrong

The question is, if we trade ehrhoff, and the team we traded him to buys him out before the end of his contract (that is, he does not retire or defect, but is bought out using a normal buyout), does the $10 million recapture for the sabres apply? I haven't found anything saying yes or no.

Again, no, because there is no recapture in that scenario. That's why going by the actual rules instead of your completely unfounded interpretation that just seems to be based on the fact that one number is higher than the other is important.

 

[Sabretooth]

Except no, it isn't. You were arguing that both would count. They don't. You brought up the example of the Sabres trading him and then the other team buying him out with one year left to stick Buffalo with the $10M cap penalty. That wouldn't happen. There would be no recapture.


Except the fact that the buyout cap hit is higher than the recapture penalty doesn't mean they "both" count. The buyout doesn't "include" the recapture. The numbers are arrived at by different means. They are separate.


Again, no. You're wrong


Again, no, because there is no recapture in that scenario. That's why going by the actual rules instead of your completely unfounded interpretation that just seems to be based on the fact that one number is higher than the other is important.

I hate the internet sometimes. There's always jerks who have to always be "right" and someone else "wrong".

Well you're right, its not semantics, we were talking about completely different things entirely!

In the case of ehrhoff never being traded, whether he retires early or is bought out, there is the recapture penalty to account for the cap benefit years in the case he retires, and the buy out calculation has its own way of making up for the cap benefit received in the earlier years (which not coincidentally is the same as the recapture at the same point in time + the cost of buying out the remaining money owed, 2/3 spread out over twice the remaining years). The buyout includes/accounts for the same amount as the recapture in the case that ehrhoff never leaves the sabres. That is what I was arguing when I said the buyout includes the recapture cost.

Regarding if he is traded and bought out, I wasn't asserting anything about knowing what would happen. I was saying that it didn't seem right that the sabres should be responsible for recapture if the other team bought him out, and gave an example of how another team could stick it to us by using a buyout.

If the bolded above in the quote is true (which I didn't know and was asking about - thanks for the information tho it would have been nice if you were less of an ass about the way you responded to me) that there would be no recapture for the sabres then, THAT would actually be worth talking about and making people aware of. Because pretty much everyone around here assumes that if ehrhoff is traded and the other team buys him out, that the sabres would be responsible for the whole $10mil recapture. That is the genesis of the "force the team to buy them out in 2016 so the annual recapture penalty is spread out vs. hitting all at once" idea that keeps getting thrown around. The fact that the other team using a buyout would eliminate the recapture for the sabres - if that is true then that eliminates a big part of the risk of trading ehrhoff. The only risk would be retirement at that point. I don't really believe ehrhoff retiring before his contract is up to be a substantial risk anyways. But suppose he did want to retire with 1 year left, I'm sure some behind the scenes unofficial conversations/dealing, or some trade in which the sabres take a cap dump for a pick, would happen to get the other team to buyout the player rather than let him retire and stick us with the recapture.