Prospect Info: Hurricanes Prospect Info and Discussion - Part VI

[MinJaBen]

Watch this about five or six times and focus on the Pens player No. 9.

Player number 25, too.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Player number 25, too.

Oh you mean Tom Sestito?

Yeah, that’s him.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Player number 25, too.

Oh you mean Tom Sestito?

Yeah, that’s him.

No way, he moved *at least* a foot backwards. Way, way more than No. 9.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No way, he moved *at least* a foot backwards. Way, way more than No. 9.

I just find it hilarious that the Pens are paying Sestito NHL money to stand there and do that.

edit: technically not NHL money, but $225K as opposed to the $10/hour the other guys on the ice are making.

 

[GoldiFox]

I don't think anyone will debate that AHL defenses are considerably worse than NHL defenses.

What intrigues me about Zykov is that he has consistently show good hands and decisiveness within 5 feet of the crease. There is nobody on the Canes outside of Aho who currently has that ability and/or confidence. Hanifin had essentially the exact same open-net opportunity as Zykov last night and missed the net 2 feet wide.

 

[bleedgreen]

It’s an under rated skill being able to be in position for rebounds and half empty nets and consistently burying them. Today’s NHL makes it very tough for defenseman to clear the crease so I’d like to see this guy have a shot at it. If he scores 10-15 ugly goals a year he’s a positive addition.

 

[letsgrowcactus]

Nečas once again big in the playoffs for Kometa (scored the GWG, named the best player for his team in today's game). It'll suck to lose him next year but you have a great prospect here.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

hooray for hope

cant wait to bring him over and crush his spirits into a fine dust

 

[Pixie]

Yes, GWG and PP goal for Nečas today. Kometa won both away games against Vítkovice.

 

[NotOpie]

i don't think peters could look into a camera and say darling gives us the best chance to win games, but sometimes winning games today isn't as important as determining who can help us moving forward. this is a grand scale embarrassment and a costly one at that.

He's an issue for the entire organization right now, in the sense that we're going to end up spending a lot of resources just to move on from him to the next guy.

Wonder what the better play is for the team. Do you bury him in the AHL, save $1 million in cap for 3 years (and/or hope he regains/finds some semblance of good goalie play)? Or do you buy him out and have annual cap hits of $700K, $1.3 million, $2.4 million, followed by 3 years of $1.3 million. Even with the rising cap, we're going to have young star contracts to pay. Not sure what the right answer is...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Wonder what the better play is for the team. Do you bury him in the AHL, save $1 million in cap for 3 years (and/or hope he regains/finds some semblance of good goalie play)? Or do you buy him out and have annual cap hits of $700K, $1.3 million, $2.4 million, followed by 3 years of $1.3 million. Even with the rising cap, we're going to have young star contracts to pay. Not sure what the right answer is...

I think the answer is you buy him out and move on. We are drafting goalies every year and those guys need game experience. Whether Ned works out or not, others will be coming up behind him. We can't have our $16M mistake in Charlotte, blocking them.

 

[MinJaBen]

I think the answer is you buy him out and move on. We are drafting goalies every year and those guys need game experience. Whether Ned works out or not, others will be coming up behind him. We can't have our $16M mistake in Charlotte, blocking them.

True. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, either. If we don't see a young guy ready to be in Charlotte for next year, we could bury Darling there for one year and then buy him out the next year if there is a guy we want to bring up to the AHL. That would shorten the time we'd have his dead cap on the books after the buyout.

 

[tarheelhockey]

True. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, either. If we don't see a young guy ready to be in Charlotte for next year, we could bury Darling there for one year and then buy him out the next year if there is a guy we want to bring up to the AHL. That would shorten the time we'd have his dead cap on the books after the buyout.

True, and theoretically it would also give Darling time to work out whatever the hell is wrong with him. Not that I think it would happen that way, but stranger things have happened in the NHL than a guy looking like crap and then coming back strong. As long as they don't have anyone waiting in the wings, the cap relief and potential for a rebound would probably be worth at least starting him off in Charlotte next season.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Is there a limit of two buyouts on the books per team? If so, we've got Semin counting against us for the next three seasons. I'm not sure we want to handcuff ourselves like that if we buy out Darling. I think sending him to Charlotte is the move, but I thought it was the move in January, when we could have still salvaged this season -- and maybe even Darling's Canes career -- but what do I know.

 

[NotOpie]

True, and theoretically it would also give Darling time to work out whatever the hell is wrong with him. Not that I think it would happen that way, but stranger things have happened in the NHL than a guy looking like crap and then coming back strong. As long as they don't have anyone waiting in the wings, the cap relief and potential for a rebound would probably be worth at least starting him off in Charlotte next season.

Yeah, I realize that may be an issue, but my sense is that Smith was a bit of a waste (unless he mentored Ned more than realized). You've got Booth in FL and next season something is going to have to be done w/Helvig....so maybe you do move on. There is, however, that slim chance that your $4 million investment might regain some shine and then becomes more tradeable (or one of the younger guys does). Carrying 3 goalies in Charlotte isn't the worst idea either....especially given we're do for a rash of goalie injuries anyway, so we'll likely have call ups.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is there a limit of two buyouts on the books per team? If so, we've got Semin counting against us for the next three seasons. I'm not sure we want to handcuff ourselves like that if we buy out Darling. I think sending him to Charlotte is the move, but I thought it was the move in January, when we could have still salvaged this season -- and maybe even Darling's Canes career -- but what do I know.

Point: In theory we shouldn’t be too handcuffed because it’s only 3 years to avoid signing a completely crippling contract. That really shouldn’t be so hard. And if it does happen somehow, by the time we figure it out we only have to bite the bullet for maybe 1-2 seasons. It’s worth risking that to get out of this goalie crisis.

Counterpoint: Canes

 

[bleedgreen]

If we have a rich owner I would bury him and let him ride out the contract instead of paying it for years. New gm may be able to work it into a trade someday.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Is there a limit of two buyouts on the books per team? If so, we've got Semin counting against us for the next three seasons.

IDK about buyouts, but there is a limit of only 2 salary retained contracts at a time.

 

[A Star is Burns]

I'm pretty sure there's no limit on the number of normal buyouts. Columbus has three at the moment, so you can have at least that many. But I don't recall there being a limit

And you can have three retained salaries I believe.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

Wasn’t the two buyout limit strictly for compliance buyouts after the last lockout? Or am I misremembering?

 

[Joe McGrath]

IDK about buyouts, but there is a limit of only 2 salary retained contracts at a time.

3 salary retained contracts.

 

[Breakdowns]

I remember something about no more than 2 buyouts per year

 

[Lempo]

I can't find a limit in the CBA. The SPC has the stipulations on how to do it to an individual player, and there's the time window when the buyout needs to be initiated, but limits on numbers, no.

 

[DaveG]

IDK about buyouts, but there is a limit of only 2 salary retained contracts at a time.

Was pretty sure the limit on retained contracts at 1 time was 3.

Wasn’t the two buyout limit strictly for compliance buyouts after the last lockout? Or am I misremembering?

I think this is what we're thinking of.

 

[Lempo]

11.18 Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period. Clubs shall have the right to exercise Ordinary Course Buy-Outs outside the regular period for Ordinary Course Buy-Outs in accordance with Paragraph 13(c)(ii) of the SPC. Each Club shall be limited to no more than three (3) such Buy-Outs outside the regular period over the term of this Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC. However, in the event that a Club has only one salary arbitration hearing pursuant to Section 12.3(a) in a given League Year, such Club shall not be entitled to exercise such an Ordinary Course Buy-Out outside the regular period. Moreover, a Club shall not be entitled to exercise an Ordinary Course Buy-Out outside the regular period for: (i) any Player who was not on the Club's Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline, or (ii) any Player with an Averaged Amount less than $2,750,000. The dollar amount of $2,750,000 set forth in this Section 11.18 shall be increased on an annual basis at the same percentage rate of annual increase as the Average League Salary, with the first such increase occurring based upon a comparison of the 2014/15 Average League Salary to the 2013/14 Average League Salary. By way of example, if the Average League Salary for the 2014/15 League Year has increased by ten (10) percent from the Average League Salary for the 2013/14 League Year, then the figure of $2,750,000 stated in Section 11.18, shall be increased by ten (10) percent to $3,025,000.

SPC 13(c)(ii) mentioned (and thusly CBA 11.18) is about Clubs that got tangled to a Salary Arbitration. I don't think there are limits to buyouts during the Regular Period, which I think is June 15 (or 48 hours after last SC final game whichever latter) to June 30.

The Retained Salary concerns only clubs that traded away a player with salary retained to other Clubs. That is, they can have only 3 traded ex-players' salary on their books at any league year.

Buy-outs are not "Salary Retained", the CBA calculates the cap effect under term "Ordinary Course Buy-Out".

50.5(C) Under no circumstances may a Club: (1) (2) (3) Have in its Averaged Club Salary in any single League Year amounts attributable to more than three (3) Retained Salary SPCs for Players that the Club has Traded to other Club(s); or Retain more than an amount equal to fifteen (15) percent of the Upper Limit for that League Year in allocated Averaged Amounts (as measured based on the full-season Averaged Amount of a Retained Salary SPC and calculated based on the maximum potential Averaged Amount of a Retained Salary SPC) (e.g., 15 percent of $70.2 million or $10.53 million in the 2012-13 League Year; 15 percent of $64.3 million or $9.645 million in the 2013-14 League Year; or $12 million if the Upper Limit equals $80 million) in the aggregate (i.e., for all such Retained Salary SPCs) in any one League Year; or Reacquire within one (1) calendar year from the date of that Retained Salary Transaction an SPC the Averaged Amount and Player Salary and Bonuses of which that Club agreed to retain as part of a Retained Salary Transaction; Illustration: If Club A Trades a Player to Club B and retains 30% of the Averaged Amount of such Player's SPC in a Retained Salary Transaction, Club A cannot reacquire such Player's SPC within one (1) calendar year from the date of the Trade. However, if such Player's Retained Salary SPC expires or is otherwise terminated prior to one (1) calendar year from the date of the Trade such that it no longer exists, Club A may reacquire the Player since the Retained Salary SPC no longer exists. or (4) (5) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the past calendar year; Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1) calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1) calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC. or Enter into a Retained Salary Transaction with respect to an SPC that has already been subject to two (2) Retained Salary Transactions; or (6) (D) If an SPC is subject to more than one (1) Retained Salary Transaction, the second such Retained Salary Transaction may not add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify the obligations of the Club that initially agreed to retain a portion of the Averaged Amount and Salary and Bonuses of a Retained Salary SPC (i.e., the Club Trading the Player retains the amounts of its Retained Salary obligations for the life of the Retained Salary SPC

Quote is all messed up, check the CBA if you want it properly.