Value of: Marleau buyout

[Empoleon8771]

How would this be any different?

Just a few reasons:

1. Marleau's contract is a 35+ contract, so you get no cap relief by buying him out according to Mike Russo. Orpik's contract wasn't a 35+ contract.
2. Even if Marleau didn't have a 35+ contract, Marleau's contract is heavily filled with bonus money, that alone means that there's no financial benefit for buying him out. He has a contract that's called "buyout proof" because of that. Orpik's buyout was a savings of $3 million for this year.
3. Even if Marleau didn't have a 35+ contract and didn't have a buyout proof contract, he has a full NMC, so he has to consent to any sort of transaction involving him. Orpik had no trade protections or waiver protections in his deal.

So basically, you have a player who has a deal with has full trade and waivers protection, a bonus structure that makes it buyout proof and an age that makes it valueless to buy him out. That's how it's different than the Orpik situation, it's blatantly cap circumvention. There's no other possible way you can explain that.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

They closed the Orpik loop hole.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

So toronto could do the same.

No, they couldn’t. Did you not read the post about Friedman? The league let this slide once because it was a very minor player and they couldn’t find any evidence of collusion. They’re not going to let the Leafs weasel out of that salary and honestly the NHLPA won’t like it either. Colorado bought out Orpik because they didn’t have a use for him. Marleau isn’t the same situation.

 

[Legion34]

No, they couldn’t. Did you not read the post about Friedman? The league let this slide once because it was a very minor player and they couldn’t find any evidence of collusion. They’re not going to let the Leafs weasel out of that salary and honestly the NHLPA won’t like it either. Colorado bought out Orpik because they didn’t have a use for him. Marleau isn’t the same situation.

You do realize this is the same league that couldn’t find evidence of Zetterberg circumvention......

When he actually admitted it in an interview right?

The issue it wouldn’t work is the signing bonus. It could work with a team with a second buyout period.

They would have to find collusion. Not infer it. They wouldn’t be able to because there would be no actual proof

 

[CraigsList]

Better off trading Nylander.

 

[Langdon Alger]

You could trade him to Ottawa who could then flip him to another team and retain 50% of his salary. Leafs likely have to give Ottawa a pick though.

 

[LeafChief]

It was a hockey trade with a cap dump aspect, with very little evidence that the Avs were then further compensated to buy Orpik out and certainly not to benefit the Caps.

Essentially I think you’d have to replicate the deal to a degree - Marleau+asset for player - and you’d have to do it carefully enough that the league wouldn’t bust you, and THEN you’d have to be able to prove that you didn’t conspire to have the team that traded for him buy him out, and you’d ALSO have to prove that there were no prior conversations with the player or the agent regarding what the plan was.

You really don't want it to happen, eh?

Have a futures bet on this or something?

 

[Rpenny]

Why is this open

 

[Scintillating10]

Many have theorized that the Leafs will pay a team to buy out Marleau, then sign him back to a cheaper contract. What will the Leafs have to give up?

I have confidence that the rational and fair minded people of HF can reach a consensus.

For Sandin a team may do it? Problem here is will Marleau waive?

 

[Empoleon8771]

You could trade him to Ottawa who could then flip him to another team and retain 50% of his salary. Leafs likely have to give Ottawa a pick though.

No you couldn't because Marleau has a full NMC. I really doubt he'd risk being stuck with Ottawa.

I don't know why Leafs fans are refusing the reality that they'll have to keep Marleau for the entirety of his contract, unless Marleau is okay with being moved.

 

[Langdon Alger]

No you couldn't because Marleau has a full NMC. I really doubt he'd risk being stuck with Ottawa.

Did you read what I wrote? He won’t play for Ottawa. He gets traded to a third team. Ottawa just retains. Like Vegas did with Brassard.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Did you read what I wrote? He won’t play for Ottawa. He gets traded to a third team. Ottawa just retains. Like Vegas did with Brassard.

And there is a risk of getting stuck on Ottawa at that point if Ottawa can't find a deal that's to Marleau's liking. You're going to have to find a better situation for Marleau than what he has in Toronto to get him to waive his NTC.

 

[dubey]

You really don't want it to happen, eh?

Have a futures bet on this or something?

If it wasn't allowed I assume the league wouldn't have allowed it - because it's the league that determines the rules...

 

[Langdon Alger]

And there is a risk of getting stuck on Ottawa at that point if Ottawa can't find a deal that's to Marleau's liking. You're going to have to find a better situation for Marleau than what he has in Toronto to get him to waive his NTC.

These things get worked out ahead of time. No chance Marleau is playing for Ottawa. The only way this works if there’s a deal to flip Marleau. Kind of like Ottawa/Vegas/Pittsburgh with Brassard. Either way, I don’t care. Marleau can stay in Toronto.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Is that not... illegal? Kinda seems illegal. Cap circumvention-y illegal.

I’m pretty sure you’d have to wait a year, then just sign him after.

Washington literally did it with Orpik last year

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Washington literally did it with Orpik last year

Read the thread, my man. The league investigated thoroughly to make sure that Colorado was not, in fact, “encouraged” to buy out Orpik and did it because they genuinely didn’t want him. Friedman then said the league was going to keep a sharp eye on future such transactions and wouldn’t hesitate to make an example out of a team trying to bend the rules.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Buyouts can only happen in June unless a player gets unclaimed on waivers. Marleau has a NMC which means he can't be put on waivers (usually in August). Come July 1st, no one can buy Marleau out.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Read the thread, my man. The league investigated thoroughly to make sure that Colorado was not, in fact, “encouraged” to buy out Orpik and did it because they genuinely didn’t want him. Friedman then said the league was going to keep a sharp eye on future such transactions and wouldn’t hesitate to make an example out of a team trying to bend the rules.

Even if they were "encouraged." how would you prove that? no team is going to admit to cheating

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Even if they were "encouraged." how would you prove that? no team is going to admit to cheating

The NHLPA would never allow it, for one thing. I’d also imagine the player’s agent would insist on some kind of written agreement - it’s the player’s livelihood that’s being screwed with if it’s just a “handshake” agreement. The team could get screwed too - what if the agreement is to buy him out and bring him back at say 2 mil but the second he hits free agency someone calls offering twice that? Too much risk for everyone and that’s before the NHL or NHLPA got involved.

 

[Snowman]

Leaf fans are in serious denial. Marleau is definitely, without a doubt staying in Toronto next season. They’ll need to dump a useful player or two to stay under cap.

 

[uncleben]

Marleau's contract has no buyout relief, as he is on a 35+ contract.

Marleau's contract is bonus heavy and would not give much financial relief to any team buying him out either.

The League would investigate if Toronto traded him, he got bought out, and Toronto re-signed him. Yes, it worked with Orpik, but there were a few other factors there that others have discussed, and the League deemed it was not a pre-planned situation. This would be a much harder sell.


There's not much more to discuss here, sorry friends.