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

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

These guys were allsigned under a 70.2M cap.... the cap is going down to 64.3 .... That is an 8.4 % drop...... all these guys are overpaid by 8.4%


The Flames cap spending for the 2012/13 season is 67.7 M 69 M if Baertshi makes the team.

The Flames have spent over the new cap by 4.7M .... they obviously would not have signed Wideman and Hudler with a 64M cap. They were the highest bidder for both of these guys..... If the Flames didn't sign them the next highest bidder (with cap room) would have got them considerably cheaper.


The Teams with caproom in 2013 The teams that are under 60 M in 2012/13 will be able to pick upsome quality UFAs at bargain rates........ from the team like the Flames who will be forced to dump their big salaries just to hang onto the guys they already have signed.

Teams under 60M this year and set up to stock their team for the next 5 years:
New York Rangers,Carolina Hurricanes,Columbus Blue Jackets,Winnipeg Jets,New Jersey Devils,Anaheim Ducks,Nashville Predators,Colorado Avalanche,Florida Panthers,St. Louis Blues,Dallas Stars,Ottawa Senators,New York Islanders,Phoenix Coyotes

There are NO teams evern close to the new 44M cap salary floor...... so everyone can stop saying how tradeable Stajan is.

You seem to be relating what teams have for salary this season 12/13 with the cap for next season. Not every contract goes into next season.

Dont get me wrong though, I totally agree that Wideman and Hudler would probably not have been signed for that much with a 64 mil cap.

[Alberta_Beef]

In the end I don't think the Flames will need to or use a compliance buyout.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

For the record, I highly doubt Wideman is bought out unless a new GM is in place 4 months from now. I can't see Feaster buying out 20 million dollars of a contract thats half a year old, and entirely a descision he made. The dollar value of the contract would have been a bit easier to stomach if it was a shorter deal. It's the length of that deal that scares me.

The owners would never allow it even if Feaster wanted to buy-out Wideman. See the handling of Kotalik for proof. They could have dump him in the minors but Feaster was forced to include him in a trade resulting in a bad deal.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Muffins

You seem to be relating what teams have for salary this season 12/13 with the cap for next season. Not every contract goes into next season.

Dont get me wrong though, I totally agree that Wideman and Hudler would probably not have been signed for that much with a 64 mil cap.

In defence of Feaster and the rest of the GM's of the league regarding this summer's signings, many analyists predicted a 20% roll-back. I remeber reading an agent thought the same thing while he was negotiating for his client.

20% off of Wideman and he's down to $4 million a year. That seems more in line of what he should be getting.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

In defence of Feaster and the rest of the GM's of the league regarding this summer's signings, many analyists predicted a 20% roll-back. I remeber reading an agent thought the same thing while he was negotiating for his client.

If that is his defense, that is a terrible way of doing business. I would be pretty pissed at my GM if that was his defense.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

If that is his defense, that is a terrible way of doing business. I would be pretty pissed at my GM if that was his defense.

While i sort of agree with you, there is an agent across the table telling the GM his client needs the extra 20% because of potential rollbacks. It's not like Feaster just came up with that contract and it was signed by the player immediatly.

If it had been up to me i would not have signed anybody last summer until Iggy had signed an extension or agreed to trade. It really looks like they are trying to show Iggy that the are comitted to spending money just to show they are commited to making the playoffs.

The worst comment i heard all summer was Conroy in August, after all the signings, say that the flames were still a bubble team. Don't get the direction.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

While i sort of agree with you, there is an agent across the table telling the GM his client needs the extra 20% because of potential rollbacks. It's not like Feaster just came up with that contract and it was signed by the player immediatly.

If it had been up to me i would not have signed anybody last summer until Iggy had signed an extension or agreed to trade. It really looks like they are trying to show Iggy that the are comitted to spending money just to show they are commited to making the playoffs.

The worst comment i heard all summer was Conroy in August, after all the signings, say that the flames were still a bubble team. Don't get the direction.

Isn't that even worse?

Last statement... in fairness to Conroy, its true. We still are a bubble team.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

In defence of Feaster and the rest of the GM's of the league regarding this summer's signings, many analyists predicted a 20% roll-back. I remeber reading an agent thought the same thing while he was negotiating for his client.

20% off of Wideman and he's down to $4 million a year. That seems more in line of what he should be getting.

That was the choice the Union made..... They protected the 50-60 guys that signed contracts (inflated to the 70M cap) at the expense of the rest of the rest of the union brothers.

They agreed to the buy out of the the guys that have signed inflated contracts to be funded by the rest of the players. The buy outs come out of the players 50% of the pot of money.

If the Flames decided to buy out Wideman for $20M after he plays half a season the rest of the players basically eat his contract..... the amount left in their pot will be down $20M.

The union really picked their favorites..... Weber,Parise, and Suter and all the guys like Kane Seguin, Hall who signed long term deals under the $70M cap that was rising by 10% a year.

The 64.3M cap will not likely go up after 2013/14 as there will be a huge chunk of buy out money already gone fromthe players 50%

The guys that have their contracts coming up in 2013/14 and 2014/15 are going to fighting for a significantly smaller pot of money.


There should be a rule about not allowing an ex-player becoming a GM.

But then Lawyer Feaster hands out contracts as though he hasn't recovered from post concussion syndrome.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fire

The owners would never allow it even if Feaster wanted to buy-out Wideman. See the handling of Kotalik for proof. They could have dump him in the minors but Feaster was forced to include him in a trade resulting in a bad deal.

I don't believe you can bury guys in the minors any more for cap savings?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Isn't that even worse?

Last statement... in fairness to Conroy, its true. We still are a bubble team.

I'm not sure why that is worse? Agents and players when negiotating for ufa contracts normally have the upper hand. All the agent has to say is that there is a team out their that will give his client his wish.


I did not word the Conroy statement well. I also believe that the team was a bubble team after the signings. I just don't get why after 3 years of no playoffs that staying a bubble team is a good choice. That's just me though. Hartely will be the key if it was a good decision or not.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't believe you can bury guys in the minors any more for cap savings?

LOL @ the Rangers.

How on earth will Sather be able to cope with that little CBA change?

It's too bad they allowed compliance buy outs. Would have been fun watching teams like the Hawks and Rangers deal with the reduced cap and all the big long term contracts they are carrying without being able to bury multiple millions of dollars in the minors.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I'm not sure why that is worse? Agents and players when negiotating for ufa contracts normally have the upper hand. All the agent has to say is that there is a team out their that will give his client his wish.

Agent: "Hey Jay, my boys at the PA tell me they're gonna roll back 20% on ticket prices, so since my guy really only wants $4M, you should sign him for $5M."
What do you think a good response is? Cause if its "Deal!" ... sounds like you just got sold a ####ty used car. I'm hoping thats not the case, and Feaster signed the $ he did expecting those would be the $ and he wouldn't get conned so easily into overpaying. At least I can't see myself stupid enough to fall for that con.

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I did not word the Conroy statement well. I also believe that the team was a bubble team after the signings. I just don't get why after 3 years of no playoffs that staying a bubble team is a good choice. That's just me though. Hartely will be the key if it was a good decision or not.

Its not really a choice, its looking at the roster and looking at the roster of your competition. Fact is, thats where the Flames sit.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

In defence of Feaster and the rest of the GM's of the league regarding this summer's signings, many analyists predicted a 20% roll-back. I remeber reading an agent thought the same thing while he was negotiating for his client.

20% off of Wideman and he's down to $4 million a year. That seems more in line of what he should be getting.

Wideman would not have gone for 4 million, even with a 64 mil cap. He's averaged over .5 PPG for the last few years, including a couple of monstrous playoff runs in Boston. He's also fairly physical and played #1 minutes in Washington.

The reduction in cap really isn't as significant as most people are making it out to be. It really only affects a few teams. It's only a small handful of teams who are over the reduced cap. None of those teams were in the running to sign Wideman.

[PeteLFan]

Can you trade for then buyout said player?

[moon]

Originally Posted by handgroen

every team is going to use this get out jail free card, so 2 players will be bought out league wide? stajan and ballard?

if not who else will be bought out?
thanks

You have to remember that any guy that is bought out is off your team as you can't re-sign him.

So while I dislike Mike Green and think he has a bad deal I don't think even I would say you are gone off our team for nothing. Brooks Laich isn't even on that bad a deal so no reason he is gone.

If Myers is Tyler Myers then that might be the dumbest move in NHL history to have him gone for nothing.

When looking at the list it has to be both bad deal and guy you don't mind losing. MOst of the guys on your list didn't fit in the second part of that equation.

I think almost, if not all, the guys cut will be of the 3/4th line, bottom pairing guys with medium level contracts that are bad.

Sure there will be a Gomez with a huge deal but for the most part guys with 5+ million dollar deals got those for a reason and are too valuable to lose for nothing at all.

Guys like Stajan, Ballard, Frolik, Olesz, Vishnovksy (if he won't play for Islanders), Andy Sutton, Khabibulin, Leino, Jussi Jokinen etc. are the type of guys that I think would be bought out as they make enough money to help you out and can be replaced on the roster.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I did not word the Conroy statement well. I also believe that the team was a bubble team after the signings. I just don't get why after 3 years of no playoffs that staying a bubble team is a good choice. That's just me though. Hartely will be the key if it was a good decision or not.

The alternative is to do what Darryl used to do and sell off the future for the present. Now that the Flames finally seem to have a decent prospect base, I don't think any of us want that to happen.

So, the choices are: Trade away picks and prospects for veteran help now and try to be better than a bubble team; trade away anyone who can help you win now and try to be as bad as possible for better draft picks (a strategy that will hopefully be negated by the new draft lottery); or aim for something in the middle, try to remain competitive for the time being while letting your young players develop into larger roles with the team. If you go with choice #3, you're stuck being a bubble team in the mean time, unless you catch fire at the right time.

[moon]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Can you trade for then buyout said player?

I haven't seen anything saying whether you could or not but assuming this is similar to the NBA buyouts that happened this year it would be no.

I would also assume the way the NHL has tried to prevent Cap Space manipulating that it would also be no in this case, as they wouldn't want big teams to be at an advantage in taking on big contracts for assets.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Can you trade for then buyout said player?

One of the things I read said there will be a minimum number of games played requirement for a team to buy out a player. So, if it was something you were planning, you'd have to trade the player prior to the trade deadline.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Can you trade for then buyout said player?

I thought I read something that said no - not 100% certain though.

[dino7c]

Wideman got a slight raise on his old contract after putting up 46 points not sure why everyone is so down on him. I think that hard right handed shot from the point is something the Flames have been missing for a long time