Proposed Compliance Buyout

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I think it should be in consideration that the NHL needs to gift one compliance buyout to all teams every five seasons.

I like the rule because it gives teams an option, also it'll make for more interesting trades if other teams aren't using theirs. As of today there is a penalty from buyouts where they take money off the cap owed to the player.

The reason I think it should go into effect one day is that there are also LTIR that become early retirement. I think it's also wrong to be making a hidden agenda to force a player into retirement due to a falsified injury.

Click to read more...

 

[izzy]

i think the loopholes that exist need to be destroyed before they give these teams another escape from stupid contracts

 

[TheImpatientPanther]

The owners hate them though.

 

[Moose Head]

You have to live with your mistakes imo. That said, they should consider a one time compliance buyout due to Covid19. A lot of teams legitimately planned for an increasing cap and Covid19 just screwed those plans.

 

[Mike Jones]

With an expansion draft coming up teams can line up and offer the new team a pile of assets to take on their mistakes. And if I'm Seattle I set up an auction and set them against each other to push the price up.

 

[traparatus]

Proposed, as in you just proposed it

You probably had a lot of people pretty excited for a moment there.

 

[Kane One]

Why would the owners want to add this? All it does is increase spending.

 

[ClydeLee]

I know it has been said in the past, this league is run by the GMs and Gms make moves to alter and adjust things in their favors sometimes over the ownership or players wants.

But if not for the obvious economic scenario now, I think the GMs would of pushed for another compliance buyout with the CBA talks, they lost out on it with the cap freeze and exactly because of the ownership strength among the current couple seasons of low income, I don't think they will allow one. The GMs lost their chance at this for at least 4 years I think.

 

[coopooter]

If it went out of the players 50% cut sure. But since it comes out of the owners cut they won’t

 

[PAZ]

I think it should be in consideration that the NHL needs to gift one compliance buyout to all team every five seasons.

I like the rule because it gives teams an option, also it'll make for more interesting trades if other teams aren't using theirs. As of today there is a penalty from buyouts where they take money off the cap owed to the player.

The reason I think it should go into effect one day is that there are also LTIR that become early retirement. I think it's also wrong to be making a hidden agenda to force a player into retirement due to a falsified injury.

LTIR gets paid by insurance. Compliance buyout gets paid by owners.

The only way the owners would agree if compliance buyouts comes out of the player's cut, but then it will have a negative affects on the salary cap or make escrow even worse for the players.

There is 0% chance this happens due to financial reasons, now and in the future.

 

[Norwegianoiler]

While it would be lovely for most teams - and I'd selfishly love to have the Oilers buy out certain overpaid players - it would be unfair to those teams now in a good position to exploit the teams strapped by poor signings. Ok, so some teams speculated that the cap would always rise, but there was no guarantee or promise - so let them live with it.

 

[zar]

I think it should be in consideration that the NHL needs to gift one compliance buyout to all team every five seasons.

I like the rule because it gives teams an option, also it'll make for more interesting trades if other teams aren't using theirs. As of today there is a penalty from buyouts where they take money off the cap owed to the player.

The reason I think it should go into effect one day is that there are also LTIR that become early retirement. I think it's also wrong to be making a hidden agenda to force a player into retirement due to a falsified injury.

Here’s where I have a problem with this... I could be a team that doesn’t have a bad contract... how does this benefit me?

I would suggest this is a good idea under the premise that there is a penalty (draft pick forfeiture?) and the greater the amount of the buyout, the greater the penalty.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Owners would counter with limiting contracts to five years instead.

 

[jetsv2]

Compliance buyouts cause a ton of headaches for the league with escrow. The NHLPA would hate the idea because the owners are never going to take the money out of their half of revenues.

 

[Spirit of 67]

They can do it every year if I had my way.

Anything to get around the cap is good in my books.

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

The owners hate them though.

Click here to see 10 tips GMs DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

 

[ViewsFromThe6ix]

How about just don't sign bad contracts, and you won't need these stupid buyouts.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

How about just don't sign bad contracts, and you won't need these stupid buyouts.

every team should just let all their free agents walk every year because almost any contract can turn out bad. Teams will be made up of nothing but ELCs or RFAs, and every 28+ year old will end up like Taylor Hall taking one year deals

 

[tenken00]

Proposed, as in you just proposed it

You probably had a lot of people pretty excited for a moment there.

When I saw this thread, I immediately thought of this:

One of my good friends play in the NHL. Told me once in a while they joke about it and sometimes I write in lieu of him.

 

[innitfam]

You have to live with your mistakes imo. That said, they should consider a one time compliance buyout due to Covid19. A lot of teams legitimately planned for an increasing cap and Covid19 just screwed those plans.

I agree with this, or even a modified compliance buyout at half the cap hit. Otherwise, no compliance buyouts at all.

 

[smokes lets go]

The LTIR loophole isn't enough cap circumvention for you?

 

[Tetsuo]

Owners would counter with limiting contracts to five years instead.

Which they should do, to be fair. Or make it four years for Free Agents going to a new team, but re-signing Free Agents allows a team to extend them for five years. These eternal contracts hurt significantly more than they help.

 

[Marmoset]

Owners would counter with limiting contracts to five years instead.

This is what the league needs. Paying someone too much on the AAV isn't what destroys a team's cap, it's doing it for 6,7,8 years. (And then often a buyout or salary retention down the road).

Of course, you could say if GMs were smarter this wouldn't be a problem. Only the truly elite should get a deal that long.

 

[Voight]

Owners would counter with limiting contracts to five years instead.

NHLPA will (rightfully) never agree to that.

 

[Stuzchuk]

How about just don't sign bad contracts, and you won't need these stupid buyouts.

in other words, just remove July 1st