[News] players who are traded, then bought out, can't be signed again by original team - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Iniggywetrust · 06-25-2013, 05:43 PM

According to Larry Brooks. Signing a recently traded and then bought out player will be considered circumventing the cap.

lazypucker · 06-25-2013, 05:55 PM

Are there examples of such players who have been traded just for the purpose of being bought out?

Canada 02 · 06-25-2013, 06:53 PM

Your thread title is different than what is in your post. Which is it, or is it both?

Oling_Roachinen · 06-25-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Are there examples of such players who have been traded just for the purpose of being bought out?

No, not that I can think of. But that's because, prior to this CBA, the teams that could afford to take on additional dead salary would place them in the the minors and not have the buyout hurt their cap.

For example Kotalik, the Sabres were willing to bury him in the minors if needed but would not buy him out as it would cost them cap space.

Now it's the opposite, you can't bury players in the AHL but can get rid of the cap completely with a buyout (using up a compliance buyout).

landshark · 06-25-2013, 07:17 PM

I think it's one year - if you buy out a player, you can not sign him again for one year. I KNOW I'll corrected if I'm wrong...

Iniggywetrust · 06-25-2013, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Your thread title is different than what is in your post. Which is it, or is it both?

It's both. If a team tried to sign player they traded to another team, who was then bought out, the nhl would consider it circumventing th cap and that team would be punished.

Oling_Roachinen · 06-25-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landshark

I think it's one year - if you buy out a player, you can not sign him again for one year. I KNOW I'll corrected if I'm wrong...

Yes, a team who buys out a player can't sign (or even acquire I believe) the same player for a year.

This is referring to a similar but different situation where a team trades a player, the player is bought out, and the team who originally had him re-signs him.

For example (teams and players arbitrary), if the Flames traded Glencross to Columbus and Columbus bought Glencross out right away, the Flames couldn't offer Glencross a contract for a year. Apparently.

PlayfulGenius · 06-25-2013, 07:39 PM

That's a BS rule, if true... The player gets paid and the team are either losing assets or serious cash... I don't see it as a 'circumvention' at all.

Anyway, it doesn't really affect much either way.

Flame19,289 · 06-25-2013, 07:41 PM

So let's use Havlat as an example... He's currently playing for San Jose, but he signed his current contract with Minnesota. If he were traded to Calgary and bought out, Calgary would be unable to sign him to a new contract. Would BOTH San Jose and Minnesota be prevented from signing him as we'll, or would it only be San Jose that couldn't sign him?

dammage79 · 06-25-2013, 07:42 PM

Kills the LeCavalier rumors of getting traded to T.O then T-Bay resigns him him immediately after. I thinks thats where the rule will kill a couple compliance buy outs this summer. Unless he ends up being a one year rental for a team and them signs back on a year after...

Oling_Roachinen · 06-25-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

That's a BS rule, if true... The player gets paid and the team are either losing assets or serious cash... I don't see it as a 'circumvention' at all.

Anyway, it doesn't really affect much either way.

It would be a rare situation, but if a team is trading a player only to have the other team buy him out (obviously the trade would involve some incentive to have them take on the contract), how is it not circumvention to re-sign the player?

Player X is traded at 6M from Team A. (To complicate things Team A retains half the salary).

Player X is bought out.

Team A re-signs Player X at 2M.

Player X still gets his money while Team A gets him at 33% of his original cap hit.

handgroen · 06-25-2013, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iniggywetrust

It's both. If a team tried to sign player they traded to another team, who was then bought out, the nhl would consider it circumventing th cap and that team would be punished.

in your post it sounds like a player who's been traded then bought out cannot be signed by any team.
i assume that's not the case

lazypucker · 06-26-2013, 01:09 AM

Yeah, but realistically, why would a team trade for a player and then buys him out immediately?

Cheerio · 06-26-2013, 01:11 AM

Damn now we can't get Vinny+3rd overall for Sarich

browna · 06-26-2013, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Yeah, but realistically, why would a team trade for a player and then buys him out immediately?

Because of the asset that goes along with the to-be-bought-out player and the cap reduction for the team trading away.

Eg. Flames trade a 7th round pick in 2015 to Tampa for VLc and the #3 pick in this week's draft. Flames owners buy him out right away, paying out VLc for however many number of years out of their own pockets, with no team cap hit.

Vlc doesn't change addresses, and gets signed to a 3 year $6 mil deal from Tampa...collecting that on top of Murray Edwards' money. Tampa reduces their cap hit significantly.

Flames essentially have bought the 3rd overall pick with no lost assets or cap hit.

Not sure about suddenly worrying about the spirit of cap circumvention in this situation...the whole principle of the non compliance buyouts in essence, is cap circumvention. And each team only has 2 to use, so this isn't going to be a free-for-all.

Itse · 06-26-2013, 02:50 AM

Also, you could have teams co-operating.

For example: we trade player A to the Leafs for player B.
We buy out B, Leafs buy out A.
Then we re-sign A and Leafs re-sign B.

A bunch of cap hit disappears for both teams.

Devils'Advocate · 06-26-2013, 02:05 PM

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../20929896.html

Looks like it was Lecavalier that was being bought out.

Also looks like Toronto was basically trying to BUY a draft pick.

So......... which team loses their first round draft pick? I mean, the Devils deal with Kovalchuk was deemed "circumventing the rules" and *then* they clarified the what those rules are. Will Tampa or Toronto be equally punished?

Huntingwhale · 06-26-2013, 03:07 PM

I'm finally happy to see the seeds of all these ######ed contracts coming to fruition.

A 33 year old Vinny with a 7.7mil cap hit with 7 years left
A 33 year old Bryzgalov with a 5.6 mil cap hit with 7 years left
A 34 year old Luongo with a 5.3 mil cap hit with 9 years left

And the list goes on and on. B. Richards, Franzen, Hossa, etc. Some players are worth it, most aren't. I wish that there was no such thing as compliance buyouts. I want to see teams suffer with these contracts. Thank god the Flames don't have anything like that.

Jay Random · 06-26-2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Thank god the Flames don't have anything like that.

Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas.

devo22 · 06-26-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../20929896.html

Looks like it was Lecavalier that was being bought out.

Also looks like Toronto was basically trying to BUY a draft pick.

So......... which team loses their first round draft pick? I mean, the Devils deal with Kovalchuk was deemed "circumventing the rules" and *then* they clarified the what those rules are. Will Tampa or Toronto be equally punished?

that would have been a pretty nifty deal for both teams IMO. Interesting to see the NHL close that "loophole" before such a deal even takes place.