Idea: Teams are allowed to terminate one contract a year. No payout, no cap-hit.

[Voight]

Why should we let teams off the hook for signing bad contracts? Nobody forced Edmonton to sign Lucic or for Detroit to re sign Abdelkader to those deals.

This would enable the super rich teams like TOR, NYR, MTL, DET to sign whoever they wanted and for any amount (under the cap of course) because if the player didnt perform, they could just pay them out with 0 consequence.

 

[flashsabre]

I think one of the two options would be interesting:

1). You can terminate a contract once every 5 years so use it wisely.

2) You can terminate a contract but you cannot sign a UFA that season.

Of course the NHLPA wouldn't go for those but fun hypotheticals.

 

[HabsQC]

Contract termination is when both parties agree, like people said the NHLPA would block such a thing. It's pretty much 1 compliance buyout per CBA signing nowadays.

 

[Beezeral]

With this rule.

Every contract would be 7 year front loaded contracts with max decreases each year to lower the cap hit. Then after 3 years the contract is terminated. Player is happy because he got max real money over the three years and the team is happy because they got a star at a cap hit of 60% of what it should have been.

Losers, every team that can’t afford to pay a star 15+ million a year.

Conclusion, this rule is awful

 

[Stubu]

Christ you had me going thinking this was a thing that was gonna be happening by the off-season

And you are even not from Edmonton!

 

[AK87]

It is no different than you or I being fired from our jobs if you think about it.

 

[ShelbyZ]

I can't see the NHLPA going for that, unless the contract in 100% covered and not a "buy-out".

I think maybe they could soften the cap a tad and allow teams to trade for another teams unused Cap space. You could trade draft picks for space in increments of $1M: your upcoming 7th for $1M, 6th for $2M, etc. etc. up to a 1st for $7M. And that pick cannot be lottery protected. Teams can only add or subtract up to $7M, and you can only use your own picks in the next draft, so you can't trade something like 7 7th's to 7 different teams to get $7M. The kicker would be that you can't sell or add cap in trades in two straight seasons. The NHLPA would love it.

Another idea could be like a waiver draft type thing before the draft and then at the beginning of the season. A team would leave their non-NMC protected bad contracts unprotected and then they leave 10 "assets" (roster players, draft picks, unsigned prospects, pro-level prospects) unprotected. A team with cap space can claim a bad contract at 50% retained and in turn they get to take 1 unprotected "asset" as well. Or, they can claim the entire contract and choose two unprotected assets and get some sort of draft pick compensation from the other team at the end of the deal which would be based on some formula around the money and term left on the deal (IE like claiming Lucic's full contract would give the claiming team a high Oilers pick in 2023). The pick compensation would be a reward for carrying out the full term of the deal. If the player is eventually bought out or traded, the pick compensation is voided.

That could be the annual NHL yard sale...

 

[Frank Drebin]

I like it. Its brutal that GM's like Holland inherit impossible positions because of prior managers, and fanbases shouldn't have to suffer for decades either.

 

[blue_n_copper]

No pay out? You mean just say to the player, I don't care if we signed a contract we are not paying you. I am pretty sure every court in North America would tell you that is illegal. Having the pay out not count against the cap is one thing but no pay out is a non-starter.

 

[King In The North]

Haha read the title and thought Idea was an insider.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Compliance buyouts threaten parity.

It becomes a type of "soft cap", which is a bit of a joke.


I'm an Edmonton fan, but even I know the league needs cost certainty, and a hard cap.

 

[Hennessy]

Signings have consequences. Good or bad. If this rule change is tempting to you, your favorite team probably needs new management.

 

[Fixxer]

Maybe on contracts that are more than half passed. Not a recently signed contract because it might get ugly quick with ugly contracts that could be shredded...

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

Maybe on contracts that are more than half passed. Not a recently signed contract because it might get ugly quick with ugly contracts that could be shredded...

Or Maybe GM's can show self control and not sign stupid contracts. If you want out of a contract you buy it out and take the penality. You don't get to go "we all collectively suck so we need a get out of jail free card"

 

[FlameChampion]

I'd like the teams to have a little more control over the roster.

I personally dont think the players union would ever accept the termination of the contract and honestly I think there are ethic issues come into play when it comes to carrying out a contract by both parties. But I do wonder if they could make something work in regards to taking the cap hit off a contract every x number of years. Player still gets paid but would make the salary cap a bit easier to deal with (player wouldnt be allowed to play with the team if the salary cap obligation was removed obviously). A lot of times GM's just make stupid decisions (especially UFA's) but there are certain situations where unforeseeable injuries or personal matters really put the teams in a bind.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Compliance buyouts threaten parity.

It becomes a type of "soft cap", which is a bit of a joke.


I'm an Edmonton fan, but even I know the league needs cost certainty, and a hard cap.

The league needed cost certainty specifically for teams like Edmonton pre-cap. The only way you can have a legitimate conversation about a one termination per year idea is to first ask what the owners give up to negotiate for this rule to be put in place because the players won't be for it.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

Sure let them have one a year, but the team has to buy that right

2 million or less next first round draft pick
2 to 4 million next 1 first round draft pick and 1 second round draft pick
4 million and up 2 first round draft picks

 

[T REX]

The player union would never allow a no payout contract termination imo.

What I think could work for both sides is a no cap hit buyout once a year.

Don't see why both sides wouldn't agree to this. It allows the player to find another team at a less expensive price while still getting paid by their ex team and it allows teams to get rid of their bad contracts.

This basically circumvents a cap. Cost certainty is a real and not going away.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

The league needed cost certainty specifically for teams like Edmonton pre-cap. The only way you can have a legitimate conversation about a one termination per year idea is to first ask what the owners give up to negotiate for this rule to be put in place because the players won't be for it.

I don't think the owners are for it.

I mean Sure, Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver and Edmonton might be for it. But I doubt the teams with smarter management and their cap under control want to give their competitors a mulligan.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't think the owners are for it.

I mean Sure, Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver and Edmonton might be for it. But I doubt the teams with smarter management and their cap under control want to give their competitors a mulligan.

Maybe not but the teams with the most to gain from this have the most power and the smarter management teams will be allowed to take more risks under such a system so it's not like they don't stand to gain something being for this.

 

[TOGuy14]

This makes contracts non-guaranteed which the PA would never allow. That is an absolute red line for them I am sure.

If there was a penalty free full buyout option where players got the remainder of their contract and became UFAs again, I am sure the PA would love that.

 

[3074326]

Contracts are signed for a reason. Both parties agreed. The team being allowed to terminate the contract puts the players at a very unfair disadvantage. I disagree 1000% with this idea and hate the precedent.

No get out of jail free cards..

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Maybe not but the teams with the most to gain from this have the most power and the smarter management teams will be allowed to take more risks under such a system so it's not like they don't stand to gain something being for this.

It's the same as circumventing the cap.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It's the same as circumventing the cap.

It's the same as allowing for compliance buyouts. There's obviously some will to have that there at least for a time. It's not a stretch to think it gets more traction as a thing when a lot of teams benefited from that.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

It's the same as allowing for compliance buyouts. There's obviously some will to have that there at least for a time. It's not a stretch to think it gets more traction as a thing when a lot of teams benefited from that.

Yeah, but it becomes one step towards ceasing to be a level playing field, and removing cost certainty.

The entire reason we lost 05-06