Speculation: Compliance buy outs

[LostInMosEisley]

There's been speculation that the NHL may have to institute a compliance buy out to help some of the teams over the cap get under before the season begins. I have no idea how likely it is or how it would look, but lets just say the NHL opens a one time temporary window before the start of the 2021 season which allows teams to buy out one player without cap penalties, but once the window expires cap penalties will apply once again. Do the Avs use it? Should they?

Obviously there's been a lot of speculation with regards to Erik Johnson and whether or not he'd waive for the expansion draft. and speculation that the Avs could buy him out if he did not waive. None of us know whether or not Joe Sakic has had conversations with EJ about this, but obviously Joe knows a lot more about the situation. Perhaps he already knows EJ's plans, perhaps it's uncertain. But if there was a small opportunity to buy him out without incurring a $2 million cap hit for four seasons, should the Avs do it?

Click to read more...

 

[MaKarter]

At this point, for this season, no.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

First of all, what speculation? No owners are ever agreeing to compliance buyouts. They’re losing money hand over fist from not only their sports franchise, but most likely all their other businesses they are involved with thanks to the pandemic. Something like 15-20 NHL GM’s were given orders to cut as many costs as possible by their owners. You think in return these same owners would ever agree to pay a single player on their team to not play hockey for them just so that they can use that cap space to pay someone else? Not going to happen. Not to mention cash flow is near minimal. Many of these owners are worth plenty of dollars but that doesn’t mean they have that cash readily available. With a buyout you have to pay the player off immediately. You need cash flow to do that and many don’t have it. What you’re worth and what you have in cash flow are two very different things. These owners are still paying overhead for many business ventures that aren’t making money.

The next point is moot because compliance buyouts won’t happen, but if by some miracle they did EJ still wouldn’t get one. He’s still a top 4 D. He’s Colorado’s best PK’er by a long shot and as we know that’s their biggest flaw right now. He’s Mr. Avalanche. To top it off, his contract comes off the books just as Mackinnon gets his extension. As much as people don’t like his contract and his aging body, EJ is likely an Av until his contract runs out and that’s really not a bad thing. The Avs are able to re-sign Landy and Makar without having to rid themselves of EJ. Unless he’s being difficult over his NMC for expansion I don’t see him being anywhere but Denver for the next 3 years.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

FTR if they ever did have Compliance buyouts I use it on Donskoi. He could legitimately be on our 4th line this year. Nuke is better. I think Compher is better if he’s on the wing full time. Jost should be the 3C based on our current roster (though that’s obviously just my opinion and arguments against it are certainly fair since he’s clearly not ideal).

EJ makes just 2M more than Donskoi at the same term and is a hell of a lot more important to this team.

The flat cap obviously magnifies it but I think Sakic giving Donskoi 4M over 4 years is his biggest and perhaps his only mistake over the last 3-4 years.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

Donskoi would be my choice too. His endurance is questionable too. He got rocked hard last season.

 

[dahrougem2]

It would have to be Donskoi.

However, based on the last time there were compliance buyouts I don't foresee the Avalanche using one on any player from the roster.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

EJ and Donskoi are the obvious options. It would only help us going forward if one of those contracts dissapeared.

Every GM makes cap mistakes, so far Sakic has been one of the best.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

The cap is only going to be more difficult to navigate once Makar, Landeskog, MacKinnon, and Grubauer re-sign. So, for that reason, I’d rather not use a buy out and have the cap hit linger longer.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

First of all, what speculation?

I've heard speculation on a podcast. You're free to google search for it or assume I'm making it up if you like. If you actually read the OP there would not be much point in making a fuss over the plausibility.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

The cap is only going to be more difficult to navigate once Makar, Landeskog, MacKinnon, and Grubauer re-sign. So, for that reason, I’d rather not use a buy out and have the cap hit linger longer.

A "compliance buyout" would be one in which the cap hit does not incur. They instituted it once at the start of the cap era.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I've heard speculation on a podcast. You're free to google search for it or assume I'm making it up if you like. If you actually read the OP there would not be much point in making a fuss over the plausibility.

When you say “there’s speculation” it might make more sense to post the source of that speculation rather than suggesting googling it. Especially since when you google search it the very first link that pops up has a title that reads “Owners Dead-Set Against Compliance Buyouts”.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

When you say “there’s speculation” it might make more sense to post the source of that speculation rather than suggesting googling it. Especially since when you google search it the very first link that pops up has a title that reads “Owners Dead-Set Against Compliance Buyouts”.

No, because I'm not interested in breaking news about speculation, I'm interested in starting a discussion about the speculation. You are not obliged to participate in the discussion.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

No, because I'm not interested in breaking news about speculation, I'm interested in starting a discussion about the speculation. You are not obliged to participate in the discussion.

That’s fine, but still to this point you’ve failed to point out that there even is any speculation. You didn’t even name the podcast and which episode. Until you do this is just your own speculation.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

That’s fine, but still to this point you’ve failed to point out that there even is any speculation. You didn’t even name the podcast and which episode. Until you do this is just your own speculation.

I haven't failed because it's not my intention. I could tell you the podcast but this interrogation is idiotic so I'll just ignore it starting now. Feel free to keep shaking your fist at the sky.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I haven't failed because it's not my intention. I could tell you the podcast but this interrogation is idiotic so I'll just ignore it starting now. Feel free to keep shaking your fist at the sky.

very good.

Brb. Making a Lafreniere to Colorado speculation thread. You’ll have to guess where I got my info from but that’s fine, you can trust that I heard it from a legit source.

 

[The Abusement Park]

No, because I'm not interested in breaking news about speculation, I'm interested in starting a discussion about the speculation. You are not obliged to participate in the discussion.

But there isn’t any speculation lol.

 

[dahrougem2]

No, because I'm not interested in breaking news about speculation, I'm interested in starting a discussion about the speculation. You are not obliged to participate in the discussion.

If you want to start a discussion about "speculation", then make sure that speculation is at least somewhat legit and you're posting where you got it from.

Anyone can come in and say "hey I just heard this" and want to start a discussion - problem is, nobody knows if that's legit.

 

[henchman21]

There was rumblings around the idea prior to the return to play/CBA extension. It got shot down real quick when the owners demanded it hit the player's share... and the players didn't want to take even more of a hit than they already were. JP Barry openly discussed in June (?) on TSN radio. But it is certainly not happening now or within this version of the CBA. There is no appetite between the either party to address this issue.