News: Streit and Habs shook hands and said good-bye

[Sidney the Kidney]

Only Marc Bergevin would think that signing a 39 year old (soon to be 40) Streit make up for the losses on defense.

This outcome was inevitable.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Thanks for the answers everyone.

I was under the impression that contracts couldn't be bought out at this time in the season.

 

[HabsDood]

Only Marc Bergevin would think that signing a 39 year old (soon to be 40) Streit make up for the losses on defense.

This outcome was inevitable.

Well, he traded Streit for Mete.. Great trade!

 

[CycloneSweep]

Mutual rescission of a contract happens all the time.

I think the bigger question is what are the cap impacts of this? I don't know why all rich teams wouldn't do this to get rid of bad contracts if it just removed the hit. Give the guy a big enough payout and why should he care? Is that player forbidden from playing on another team until the years of his original contracts are done or something? This is like a free compliance buyout otherwise. Pay someone off, get rid of the cap hit, get rid of a contract. All you need is the money to do it.


Hypothetically, does that mean the Wings could pay Abdelkader $100m tomorrow to induce him to agree to terminate his existing contract?

That seems ridiculous.

Big payouts are not allowed. Players can mutually terminate contracts and all they can get is money owed for games played. Thats it.

 

[mouser]

Thanks for the answers everyone.

I was under the impression that contracts couldn't be bought out at this time in the season.

They can't be bought out at this time. It's not a buyout, it's a mutual termination agreed to by both the player and team.

There's nothing preventing a team/player from doing this at any time. However if this was done with the intent to re-sign the player to a different contract following the termination then it would fall under the Circumvention rules and be disallowed/punished.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

If a team paid a player anything to terminate the contract (other then the CBA-defined buyouts) that would be considered cap circumvention.

That is what I thought.

I don't remember mutual terminations happening in all honesty.

 

[uncleben]

That is what I thought.
I don't remember mutual terminations happening in all honesty.

I'd say that's generally because they happen to "smaller" name players, but their have been three already this season before Streit (TOR-Marchenko; TBL-Darcy, Hart).

As has been stated, it's not a buyout, as those are not allowed in season. Instead it's both parties (Club and Player) agreeing to walk away from the contract - that means the Club has no money owing* to the Player to the cap**, and the Player gets nothing from the remainder of his contract (unlike a buyout, where the contract is "bought ut" and the player receives a portion of money owed, paid out over a future period of time).

Streit and the Habs effectively agreed, "this contract is not working for us, let's both walk away and owe each nothing more" Habs get the contract slot freed, and Streit can sign anywhere else he wants. This legally has to be an option (any contract has to have the option where both parties can agree to void the contract and walk away).



*Habs have to pay any money owing for the days that Streit was with the Club (salary, expense claims, living expenses owed, etc.)
**If this was a multi-year contract there would still be a cap hit since it was signed as a 35+ contract (there is practically zero way of getting out of that), however, single-year 35+ contracts have no forced cap hit. Any sub-35 contract would not be reflected on the cap either.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm assuming that Streit agreed to not get paid otherwise he'd have to show up in the AHL?

 

[Flukeshot]

I'm assuming that Streit agreed to not get paid otherwise he'd have to show up in the AHL?

Yup. Better off signing for $400k in Switzerland with minimal travel then plugging away in the AHL at 40.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

They can't be bought out at this time. It's not a buyout, it's a mutual termination agreed to by both the player and team.

There's nothing preventing a team/player from doing this at any time. However if this was done with the intent to re-sign the player to a different contract following the termination then it would fall under the Circumvention rules and be disallowed/punished.

Ah I hadn't picked on the nuance there!

Thanks for the info.

 

[Flowah]

If a team paid a player anything to terminate the contract (other then the CBA-defined buyouts) that would be considered cap circumvention.

How deep does that go?

Can they buy that player a car? Pay off their house? Give their family member a *very* high paying front office job?

 

[mouser]

How deep does that go?

Can they buy that player a car? Pay off their house? Give their family member a *very* high paying front office job?

It goes pretty deep. They can't directly or indirectly provide anything of value to the Player outside of what's contracted for in the SPC or CBA mandated like insurance and pension contributions.

Car and House are obvious no goes. Hiring a family member would depend on the circumstances with the NHL having the ability to investigate and punish the club if necessary.

 

[jvr32]

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

For Streit it's not the worst way to end your NHL career.. rode the Pens to win the cup and played his last game with the team that drafted him.

I think we all knew though that he wouldn't play well.. just bizarre signing.

 

[uncleben]

How deep does that go?

Can they buy that player a car? Pay off their house? Give their family member a *very* high paying front office job?

It goes pretty deep. They can't directly or indirectly provide anything of value to the Player outside of what's contracted for in the SPC or CBA mandated like insurance and pension contributions.

Car and House are obvious no goes. Hiring a family member would depend on the circumstances with the NHL having the ability to investigate and punish the club if necessary.

My understanding is that they can still offer the player himself an internal job, but the NHL would obviously have to approve, and that would require the player to stop playing hockey so why not just file retirement papers instead of termination papers at that point...

But ya, no "here's fifty grand for your troubles, thanks for agreeing to this" type of thing...

 

[uncleben]

There's nothing preventing a team/player from doing this at any time.

Nothing except one party not agreeing to it, of course. Mutual termination has to be, well, mutual.

If, say, the team wants to terminate, and the player does not want to, then as long as the player has done nothing to call for termination (ie. has been accepting assignments such as to the AHL, not doing illegal things, not participating in activities forbidden within the contract, etc.), then there is very little the team can do.
Now (not that you need the explanation mouser, but for anyone new to the behind-the-scenes side of hockey...), the moment a player refuses to report to an assignment, or otherwise breaks the contract, the team has grounds to terminate without the players consent.

If a player does not want their current contract but the team is not ready to leave, their option is to simply walk and go elsewhere. The team then has the option to toll the contract and hold it against the player if they want back into the NHL. The team cannot legally force them to play out their contract for them, but they can corner the market so that honouring the existing contract is the only way to play in the NHL again (or pretty much any other affiliated league, or league with an IIHF-sanctioned agreement).

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

One of my favorite Islanders defensemen of all time.

 

[SUBdrewgANS]

is this a new rule to mutually terminate a contract? If not, how come Vancouver and Luongo didn't take this route? Lu even said he regretted signing that contract? What about Kovalchuck? He just retired from NHL, not a mutual termination.

Could Streit now sign with another team tomorrow if anyone wanted? Not that anyone will want him, I'm just curious.

 

[varano]

is this a new rule to mutually terminate a contract? If not, how come Vancouver and Luongo didn't take this route? Lu even said he regretted signing that contract? What about Kovalchuck? He just retired from NHL, not a mutual termination.

Could Streit now sign with another team tomorrow if anyone wanted? Not that anyone will want him, I'm just curious.

If you're Lu, Would you give up 5 million a year guaranteed for the rest of your career?

 

[LeapOnOver]

Mutual rescission of a contract happens all the time.

I think the bigger question is what are the cap impacts of this? I don't know why all rich teams wouldn't do this to get rid of bad contracts if it just removed the hit. Give the guy a big enough payout and why should he care? Is that player forbidden from playing on another team until the years of his original contracts are done or something? This is like a free compliance buyout otherwise. Pay someone off, get rid of the cap hit, get rid of a contract. All you need is the money to do it.


Hypothetically, does that mean the Wings could pay Abdelkader $100m tomorrow to induce him to agree to terminate his existing contract?

That seems ridiculous.

Someone missed the point. The whole thing that stops it from being a buyout is a mutual decision with no money changing hands other than what the players already earned. What you are suggesting is a buyout...that's not what happened. The reason other teams don't do this is because the decision to terminate contracts has to be mutual and there are not many times in hockey where a player says you don't have to pay me money to play for you anymore because I don't want to work here anymore. This just happens to be one of the few times it does.

 

[Frank Drebin]

So is this even allowed?

Not a big deal but the lawyer in me wants to know.

forget it

 

[LeapOnOver]

is this a new rule to mutually terminate a contract? If not, how come Vancouver and Luongo didn't take this route? Lu even said he regretted signing that contract? What about Kovalchuck? He just retired from NHL, not a mutual termination.

Could Streit now sign with another team tomorrow if anyone wanted? Not that anyone will want him, I'm just curious.

Yes, of course he could. That's why it was mutually dissolved. If he had just retired he wouldn't have an option to play for anybody else. They both mutually decided to part ways and that allows Streit the possibility (as slim as it is) to still seek work in the NHL. Why would Luongo decide to just give up the money he signed for? That would be ludicrous. I think you are confused on why he didn't like the contract....

 

[Oddbob]

We don't hear a lot about this type of contract termination, because for the most part, they happen when teams are cutting a low grade prospect who isn't/hasn't progressed and they need the roster space.

 

[Oddbob]

is this a new rule to mutually terminate a contract? If not, how come Vancouver and Luongo didn't take this route? Lu even said he regretted signing that contract? What about Kovalchuk? He just retired from NHL, not a mutual termination.

Could Streit now sign with another team tomorrow if anyone wanted? Not that anyone will want him, I'm just curious.

Big difference is Streit is getting a tiny amount of money for service put in, and agreed to leave, not wanting to play in the AHL. Luongo had a multi million dollar deal, and not only can still play, but wants to play, so why on earth would he give all that money away?

 

[SUBdrewgANS]

Big difference is Streit is getting a tiny amount of money for service put in, and agreed to leave, not wanting to play in the AHL. Luongo had a multi million dollar deal, and not only can still play, but wants to play, so why on earth would he give all that money away?

Wasn't part of the problem with Lu's contract was that they couldn't trade it for the longest time? both parties wanted out of the contract right? He even said he wished he could renegotiate the contract if he could.. so why not mutually terminate it and have him sign elsewhere and for a better team? There were plenty of better teams at the time that would've signed him I am sure. I know, I know he signed for so many years and was entitled to that money. Sure, but if I was completely unhappy at my job and wanted out and I knew I could easily get a better position elsewhere if I could terminate my current contract, I would.