Who would the Flames buyout on the 1 non-cap buy out

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Is this one-time buyout for this season only?

If it's not, I don't want to see them buy out anyone. Everyone pretty much has one year left on their contract (except for the important players you want under contract long term). It's not as bad as we think.

My understanding is that it is a one-time deal, for the 2013-14 season only.

The only thing that makes sense is to use it on someone that you know is not going to be part of the team going forward.

If Stajan isn't going to have a spot on the team next year, then why not?

But as others have said, first you have to see how things play out this year and then assess what next year is going to look like.

I also agree with those that say that bad contracts are going to be very hard to trade for a year or two, until things settle a bit. With the cap lowering, there is going to be an abundance of players available - specifically older, expensive UFAs. Under the old CBA for instance, I would have imagined Iginla re-signing in the $6 - $6.5M range. But for 2013-14 at least, he will probably have a hard time generating interest at even $5M.

[moon]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I'm just wondering with the cap potentially being so low @60m, does any bad contract have any trade value? Will a potential contending team already well over the cap really want to trade for a luongo or lecavalier? I not sold on the idea that Bouwmeester, Luongo or any other.....(elite?) contract would garner any trade value in a heavily restrictive cap like it will be at 60 million.

If Luongo has no trade value to teams like Colombus, NYI, Toronto who have crap goaltending, haven't made the play-offs in years and who could definitely benefit from just making the play-offs then their GM's are idiots.

I don't think they would need to give up a kings ransom but Luongo is at worst a top 15-20 goalie and likely still a top 10 guy. He is better than the guy replacing him but because of some PR crap he is somehow being portrayed as some stiff.

He may be a bit overpaid but it is much better to overpay for a guy who has been top 15 in GAA and SV % for each of the past 5 years and top 5 a few times, has the 3rd most play-off wins in the past 5 seasons and is as consistent as he is than to go cheap and pay some stiff to post bottom 20's level numbers in all categories and miss the play-offs.

[AR_Six]

^I don't think it's PR so much as they needed to give Schneider a #1 role or let him go and they think that the value proposition over time for him is better - i.e. he will be good for longer and will be almost as good as Luongo in a couple of years.

Originally Posted by dammage79

Luongo or any other.....(elite?) contract would garner any trade value in a heavily restrictive cap like it will be at 60 million.

Luongo and a couple of others are exceptions (not that Hossa or Kovy are going anywhere) because their contracts would no longer be allowed under the new system - they're exploitative such that the cap hit is actually lower than market. 5.33 against the cap actually becomes a better deal in the new CBA world than it was, in the short term. The issue is as always the term, but teams with a shot right now are still going to be willing to make that sacrifice particularly if they think the cap will go back up in the next 3-4 years. There's cap inflation that will result in that hit being less % of overall cap as the years go on.

There is the additional point that there are lots of higher-than-they-should-be cap hit contracts around the league, and it may be that some will simply swap as a package with other desired pieces. You could see that potentially happening with Luongo, too.

[moon]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^I don't think it's PR so much as they needed to give Schneider a #1 role or let him go and they think that the value proposition over time for him is better - i.e. he will be good for longer and will be almost as good as Luongo in a couple of years.

The PR stuff is him being a stiff.

I can somewhat understand them wanting to go with the younger guy (even though I think Schnieder is wildly overrated), but the idea that Luongo was at fault for the Canucks play-off failures or is now not worth trading for is the garbage that I was referring to.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Do you think it would be possible to use the clause to take on a bad contract from another team only to use your own buyout clause on them? Or might they make it contingent on only being allowed to buyout players that are currently on your roster?

So say you're the Canadiens who have multiple bad contracts plaguing your team. Could you say trade Kaberle to the Flames so they could use their one time buyout clause on him? That way the Flames might be able to acquire some decent prospects/picks for just buying out a player. That way this clause is more lucrative for the teams who don't have that one bad contract that needs to be bought out.

I'm sure this will happen with at least one player. It's actually happened in the past (one example is Edmonton trading O'Sullivan to Phoenix only to have the Coyotes buy him out).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Is this one-time buyout for this season only?

If it's not, I don't want to see them buy out anyone. Everyone pretty much has one year left on their contract (except for the important players you want under contract long term). It's not as bad as we think.

As ER said, if they're not part of the plans going forward and you dont think you can trade him then why not buy him out, save some money and capspace that you can use elsewhere. Buying a guy out is going to be less money than paying his salary for a year even if the savings are marginal.

At this point even marginal savings may be really important to get under the cap.

Further, and I think this point is important: with a lower cap the entire economy of scale is going to shift downward.

[Robbob]

I guess it depends on the rules for the buy out. I would consider buying out kipper at 1m and then signing him to a 2.5 million one year. Lowers his cap by almost 3 million and effectively the buy out would be additional salary not on the cap. I would rather use the allocated buyout to keep a player I wanted happy then wasting it on Stajan, who I would try to farm out to a team in Russia if I couldn't trade him for a bug of pucks.

[kyuss275]

To early to tell if they would use the buy-out. Flames still have to figure whether Iggy wants to be on this team after the shortened season. If he wants to stay and wants a competitive team, then yes they would probably buy out Stajan and spend his $3.5 million eleswhere.

As for J-Bo they should just wait until the trade deadline of his final year to get rid of him. If the cap goes down to $60 million, i doubt he would have any trade value at the start of the 2013/2014 season, unless the flames were taking back $6.7 million in contracts. It would probably be something like the return from the Dion trade. No thanks.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I guess it depends on the rules for the buy out. I would consider buying out kipper at 1m and then signing him to a 2.5 million one year. Lowers his cap by almost 3 million and effectively the buy out would be additional salary not on the cap. I would rather use the allocated buyout to keep a player I wanted happy then wasting it on Stajan, who I would try to farm out to a team in Russia if I couldn't trade him for a bug of pucks.

From tsn outlining the current offer there is a clause that Stajan or Redden or whoever can be paid by the NHL to play in the AHL or Russia or anywhere but the cap over some limits - 400K? get charged against the cap.

Money paid (above a defined threshold) to Players on NHL SPCs in another professional league (e.g., the AHL or a European league) will be charged against the NHL team's Cap, but not against the Players' Share

seems The Owners want bad contracts to be owned by the teams that make them and make it so rich teams can't overspend teh cap hiding bad contracts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I guess it depends on the rules for the buy out. I would consider buying out kipper at 1m and then signing him to a 2.5 million one year. Lowers his cap by almost 3 million and effectively the buy out would be additional salary not on the cap. I would rather use the allocated buyout to keep a player I wanted happy then wasting it on Stajan, who I would try to farm out to a team in Russia if I couldn't trade him for a bug of pucks.

Highly unlikely that they would allow teams to buy a guy out and then immediately re-sign him - pure cap circumvention, which the league has shown quite difinitively that they don't want to see.

[saillias]

Stajan for sure. There's just no value there.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

To early to tell if they would use the buy-out. Flames still have to figure whether Iggy wants to be on this team after the shortened season. If he wants to stay and wants a competitive team, then yes they would probably buy out Stajan and spend his $3.5 million eleswhere.

As for J-Bo they should just wait until the trade deadline of his final year to get rid of him. If the cap goes down to $60 million, i doubt he would have any trade value at the start of the 2013/2014 season, unless the flames were taking back $6.7 million in contracts. It would probably be something like the return from the Dion trade. No thanks.

Stajan 3.5 M is already spent. The Flame have to lower their contracts by around 8-10 M.

Buying out Stajan and don't re-sign Iginla would just get the Flames to the top of the Cap and keeping all the rest of the contracts the same or getting equivalent priced replacements.

If the Flames have any chance of re-signing Iginla for 2013-14 they have to be buying out Cammalleri or Boumester... or maybe Wideman.... and even then they would have to be replacing all open spots with league minimum contracts.

The Leafs now have to dump Hagman, Stajan, White , Mayers and not get a Phanuef back to drop the 10M in salary.....

The Leafs left 7 m in cap space to get Loungo..... that plus another 3M is gone from their current contracts

ALL teamsd that are currently at the cap will be looking to drop significant contracts.

also the league minimum is also going up

from TSN

Continued increases in League Minimum Salary and Per Diem

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

He has a no trade contract and all of the other high spending teams... will be forced to dump salary. There will be no viable trading partner for a year of Jaybo at 6.68 M.

The rest of the league will be saying once the Flames buy him out they could sign him at 3 M. .....

Bet you my life savings that Jaybo's next contract is more than 3 million

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Do you think it would be possible to use the clause to take on a bad contract from another team only to use your own buyout clause on them? Or might they make it contingent on only being allowed to buyout players that are currently on your roster?

So say you're the Canadiens who have multiple bad contracts plaguing your team. Could you say trade Kaberle to the Flames so they could use their one time buyout clause on him? That way the Flames might be able to acquire some decent prospects/picks for just buying out a player. That way this clause is more lucrative for the teams who don't have that one bad contract that needs to be bought out.

In the NBA version of this after their CBA you couldn't amnesty players that weren't on your team prior to the provision being added

i.e no traded amnesties

I would imagine this one follows that

[AR_Six]

I don't really get why that would be, though. What is the objection to traded amnesties?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I don't really get why that would be, though. What is the objection to traded amnesties?

None as the proposed CBA is currently structured but if the players negotiated it so the amnesty buyouts did end up "outside the system" then I could see the owners possibly having an issue with it.

I'm not too familiar with the NBA CBA. Did each team also have a limit on how many buyouts they could have?

[trackercowe]

I wonder if Cosmonaut Bryzgalov gets bought out?

[Fire Park '71]

Too many left wingers on the team. If you buyout/amenesty a contract, wouldn't you do it from an over-loaded position? Maybe, everyone should wait and see what happens with #12. If he isn't going to re-sign with the Flames, what's the point of keeping #40 around? Remember, there hasn't been mention of a salary cap minimum(floor). Coupled with a lowered cap maximum(ceiling), will make trading even more difficult than under the expired CBA.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by saillias

Stajan for sure. There's just no value there.

Agreed, Stajan is a depth player... who can be replaced by a much lower end contract.

There is no way Feaster would buyout a player he has just signed last summer (i.e. Widman or Hudler).

Only other option is Bouwmeester...

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

None as the proposed CBA is currently structured but if the players negotiated it so the amnesty buyouts did end up "outside the system" then I could see the owners possibly having an issue with it.

I'm not too familiar with the NBA CBA. Did each team also have a limit on how many buyouts they could have?

one

here's a breakdown of it from here http://www.hoopsworld.com/salary-cap...coon-12142011/

* A team can use amnesty one time and one time only.
* Amnesty is available before each season. If they used it in a prior season, they can’t use it again.
* Amnesty can only be used for players who were with the team on 12/9. If they sign a new contract or were traded, they can’t be amnestied.
* The team waives the player. They still have to pay his salary, but he comes off their cap and tax.
* The team that waives the player cannot re-sign or re-acquire the player for the length of his contract.