Speculation: Will there be a second buyout window this offseason? How active do you expect it to be?

[Deadly Dogma]

That’s utterly against the point of the cap

The minimum is for players to be eligible to be bought out. Not a minimum the arbitration player must sign for.

Question:If the NHL really hits the financial skids do you think they will allow the big $$ clubs to flex their financial muscles to help?
IMO it would be a perfect time to let teams essentially buy draft picks to cover costs.
Lets say Car/FLA/CBJ etc don't have enough $$ to cover payroll a team with enough $$ should be able to buy their 1st round pick if they cover a certain % of their payroll.

 

[Djp]

Bumping this as we're nearing arb hearings, any possible buyout candidates upcoming?

There is a problrm. Under the amended CBA the buyout person has to have a min ion a $4M cap it.

There are different groups of 1 or 2 arb cases that triggers the ability to do this.

The team can decline the ruling if the player files thus making him a free agent.

 

[mouser]

Question:If the NHL really hits the financial skids do you think they will allow the big $$ clubs to flex their financial muscles to help?
IMO it would be a perfect time to let teams essentially buy draft picks to cover costs.
Lets say Car/FLA/CBJ etc don't have enough $$ to cover payroll a team with enough $$ should be able to buy their 1st round pick if they cover a certain % of their payroll.

The NHL has already addressed the issue via the frozen cap and escrow. I feel confident in predicting if any other adjustments are required they won’t include letting teams throw more money around.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Edmonton has about 700,000 with Ethan Bear unsigned.

We have Klefbom we can put on LTIR.

 

[Big Muddy]

The actual rule is "following the resolution of the team's last arbitration case". Signing Virtanen resolved Vancouver's last arbitration case, so the 2nd buyout window will open for the Canucks.

Only players making more then a certain amount are eligible to be bought out in the second window. Normally that limit would be $3.57m this year, but for 2020 only the NHL and PA agreed to raise it to $4m.

So Vancouver can buyout Sutter. They could not buyout Ferland even if healthy.

Interesting. After checking the CBA (Article 12) , looks like player/club submit a request in writing. Thanks for the info.

 

[Deadly Dogma]

The NHL has already addressed the issue via the frozen cap and escrow. I feel confident in predicting if any other adjustments are required they won’t include letting teams throw more money around.

Do you know if the NHL has any plans in place for small market teams that can't meet payroll?

 

[spockBokk]

Question:If the NHL really hits the financial skids do you think they will allow the big $$ clubs to flex their financial muscles to help?
IMO it would be a perfect time to let teams essentially buy draft picks to cover costs.
Lets say Car/FLA/CBJ etc don't have enough $$ to cover payroll a team with enough $$ should be able to buy their 1st round pick if they cover a certain % of their payroll.

No, that’s ridiculous

 

[Dr Robot]

Question:If the NHL really hits the financial skids do you think they will allow the big $$ clubs to flex their financial muscles to help?
IMO it would be a perfect time to let teams essentially buy draft picks to cover costs.
Lets say Car/FLA/CBJ etc don't have enough $$ to cover payroll a team with enough $$ should be able to buy their 1st round pick if they cover a certain % of their payroll.

The solution would be actual revenue sharing not cannibalizing small market teams.

 

[mouser]

Do you know if the NHL has any plans in place for small market teams that can't meet payroll?

The league has tools available under the current system. If there’s anything specifically new the league hasn’t made it public—nor would I expect them to.

Payrolls have already been effectively slashed by 30% for the 2020-21 season, if and when it gets played. With 20% escrow (refunded to teams immediately rather then waiting), plus 10% deferred salary.

If the league feels the 30% cut isn’t enough to run a 2020-21 season at an acceptable cost/expense ratio then they can go back to the players for further cuts. Or wait to be reimbursed down the road in a year or two when the player costs will be cut to “pay back” the 2020-21 deficit.

Also, keep in mind Revenue Sharing still exists.

 

[Deadly Dogma]

The league has tools available under the current system. If there’s anything specifically new the league hasn’t made it public—nor would I expect them to.

Payrolls have already been effectively slashed by 30% for the 2020-21 season, if and when it gets played. With 20% escrow (refunded to teams immediately rather then waiting), plus 10% deferred salary.

If the league feels the 30% cut isn’t enough to run a 2020-21 season at an acceptable cost/expense ratio then they can go back to the players for further cuts. Or wait to be reimbursed down the road in a year or two when the player costs will be cut to “pay back” the 2020-21 deficit.

Also, keep in mind Revenue Sharing still exists.

thanks for the reply
In these fluid times revenue sharing poses an interesting dilemma. I expect no teams make a profit so how would revenue sharing work?
If even the wealthy teams are loosing $$ I expect them to be less inclined to add to their losses by paying other clubs.
Unless it boils down to if said small market clubs fold that in turn lowers the value of the NHL and by proxy would in turn lower big market franchise values. So maybe its cheaper to keep the small guys afloat than to absorb the loses of equity in franchise value if x amount of clubs fold.

 

[mouser]

thanks for the reply
In these fluid times revenue sharing poses an interesting dilemma. I expect no teams make a profit so how would revenue sharing work?
If even the wealthy teams are loosing $$ I expect them to be less inclined to add to their losses by paying other clubs.
Unless it boils down to if said small market clubs fold that in turn lowers the value of the NHL and by proxy would in turn lower big market franchise values. So maybe its cheaper to keep the small guys afloat than to absorb the loses of equity in franchise value if x amount of clubs fold.

Revenue Sharing is based on revenue, not profits. If revenue is down then the revenue sharing amount is also down. But again if revenue is down then the biggest team expense—player salaries—goes down as well via escrow. It’s complicated and intertwined.

If the NHL doesn’t believe almost all of their teams can operate at either a profit or manageable losses in 2020-21 then I doubt the league will run the season under the current arrangement with the PA. The NHL would go back to the PA to negotiate a new compromise for the 2020-21 season.

The NHL and PA agreed on certain parameters of a 2020-21 season like the escrow cap at 20%, deferred 10% salary, any escrow underage not satisfying the 50/50 split carrying to future seasons, and an agreement the NHL wouldn’t invoke the force majeure clause in contracts.

Notably absent from the agreement was a guarantee to actually play a 2020-21 season, nor how many games the regular season would be. So even the previously agreed upon details could be reopened for negotiation if necessary to conduct a 2020-21 season.

 

[kabidjan18]

I think it's worth noting that 8.1% of salaries will be paid out on Oct. 31st. I'm wondering if that might make some players who get put on waivers more attractive. Now, not only are their bonuses paid, part of their salaries are paid as well. And this is prior to training camp even beginning so a player claimed off of waivers Nov 1st will be with your team the entire season from day 1 of camp like any free agent you signed and all you will have to pay them is 91.9% of their salary. That could make some players put on waivers really hard to pass up.

 

[Big Muddy]

I think it's worth noting that 8.1% of salaries will be paid out on Oct. 31st. I'm wondering if that might make some players who get put on waivers more attractive. Now, not only are their bonuses paid, part of their salaries are paid as well. And this is prior to training camp even beginning so a player claimed off of waivers Nov 1st will be with your team the entire season from day 1 of camp like any free agent you signed and all you will have to pay them is 91.9% of their salary. That could make some players put on waivers really hard to pass up.

Depends on the salary I suppose. A salary of $5 m less 9% (using your "hypothesis) is still a big number & a big expense. And, of course, the term of the contract could still be multiple years versus just one year. I would think most NHL clubs (i.e., the vast majority) are trying to be as lean as possible over the next couple of years because they know revenue will be way down versus normal.

 

[MMC]

 

[Drake1588]

Fans always seem to believe that owners are eager to pay players not to play for them, whether through buyouts or retention. Buyouts and retention get you out of cap jams created by the people who work for you, and let you spend more than the salary cap. The only people who benefit from that are GMs, fans, and players. Owners take it on the chin, and this is an inherently ownership call. As an owner, if ever a GM convinced me to buy out or retain, I'd approve the action and then probably fire the GM on principle (or else take it out of whatever executive bonus structure exists.) It's an incredible admission of failure on the part of management, one that a manager is asking the owner to bankroll.

Doubly perplexing is the idea that in tough times, anyone would favor buyouts. In times of financial straits, if anything you would want to reduce payroll, reduce your costs, not pay more than the max allotment to go over the top.

Buyouts and retention are an absolute last resort, and not something to be entered into lightly when your revenues are constrained.

It's easy to spend someone else's money.

 

[kabidjan18]

Depends on the salary I suppose. A salary of $5 m less 9% (using your "hypothesis) is still a big number & a big expense. And, of course, the term of the contract could still be multiple years versus just one year. I would think most NHL clubs (i.e., the vast majority) are trying to be as lean as possible over the next couple of years because they know revenue will be way down versus normal.

I don't have TJ in mind if that's what you're thinking. There are a lot of value guys making 1M or less, and -8.1% on that would be extra value.

 

[violaswallet]

The minimum is for players to be eligible to be bought out. Not a minimum the arbitration player must sign for.

Thanks for explaining

 

[violaswallet]

Question:If the NHL really hits the financial skids do you think they will allow the big $$ clubs to flex their financial muscles to help?
IMO it would be a perfect time to let teams essentially buy draft picks to cover costs.
Lets say Car/FLA/CBJ etc don't have enough $$ to cover payroll a team with enough $$ should be able to buy their 1st round pick if they cover a certain % of their payroll.

I mean I don’t see why a team with a billionaire owner who did extremely well in 2020 would have that problem: the two Florida owners are joint partners in a financial firm that has return 30 percent since Jan 1

I know that you don’t mean offense but, if you are going to propose an explicit hypothesis About teams make sure you the facts are somewhat consistent

 

[Name Nameless]

It is rumored Detroit may buyout Nielsen in the 2nd window. But I am not sure how much stock I put into that.

Sounds almost absurd they would even want that. They have tons of cap, and saves almost nothing. And they would have to pay someone else.

Will there be a buyout-window before the expansion-draft next year?

 

[Go Wings]

Sounds almost absurd they would even want that. They have tons of cap, and saves almost nothing. And they would have to pay someone else.

Will there be a buyout-window before the expansion-draft next year?

I think it ia more about getting him off the roster and giving that spot to someone else.

 

[Puckclektr]

I hope not. Should’ve gave up assets along with cap players with negative value in order to sign other guys. You didn’t do that. Tough. You pay the penalty.
Not fair if you let teams off the hook. I get Covid wasn’t predicted. But it’s unfortunate. Many teams got the shaft becuse if Covid.

 

[Name Nameless]

I think it ia more about getting him off the roster and giving that spot to someone else.

Nielsen can be waived unless I read this wrong at capfriendly.

 

[brentashton]

they should give each team the option of buying out a player and resign them to the same term. So for Marner we would buy him out and resign at league min. Boom cap problems solved

?

 

[RedMenace]

Fans always seem to believe that owners are eager to pay players not to play for them, whether through buyouts or retention. Buyouts and retention get you out of cap jams created by the people who work for you, and let you spend more than the salary cap. The only people who benefit from that are GMs, fans, and players. Owners take it on the chin, and this is an inherently ownership call. As an owner, if ever a GM convinced me to buy out or retain, I'd approve the action and then probably fire the GM on principle (or else take it out of whatever executive bonus structure exists.) It's an incredible admission of failure on the part of management, one that a manager is asking the owner to bankroll.

Doubly perplexing is the idea that in tough times, anyone would favor buyouts. In times of financial straits, if anything you would want to reduce payroll, reduce your costs, not pay more than the max allotment to go over the top.

Buyouts and retention are an absolute last resort, and not something to be entered into lightly when your revenues are constrained.

It's easy to spend someone else's money.

Does this reasoning also apply to a team's new GM who's inherited bad contracts?

 

[Deadly Dogma]

?

yea edibles and what I think are great ideas don't go well together lol