Seems a waste of a compliance buyout. This tells me the Flames will not be involved in any deals where they eat other team's mistakes for extra assets. If ownership can't stomach burying SOB in the minors for another year at $2M then they sure won't assume long term payouts for players from other teams.
Seems a waste of a compliance buyout. This tells me the Flames will not be involved in any deals where they eat other team's mistakes for extra assets. If ownership can't stomach burying SOB in the minors for another year at $2M then they sure won't assume long term payouts for players from other teams.
Doubt it, might be a case where the management don't want SOB around the teams youth and feel the best decision is to buy him out
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to flambers For This Useful Post:
Seems a waste of a compliance buyout. This tells me the Flames will not be involved in any deals where they eat other team's mistakes for extra assets. If ownership can't stomach burying SOB in the minors for another year at $2M then they sure won't assume long term payouts for players from other teams.
I don't think it was about cost.
Flames' management has made comments about his work ethic and commitment this summer. Sounds like they wanted him away from the team.
O'Brien was willing to report to the A. And they could use a veteran D. This was about getting him out of the organization
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Doubt it, might be a case where the management don't want SOB around the teams youth and feel the best decision is to buy him out
That's the way I see it also. SOB said all the right things last year when getting demoted , but that's probably because Burke promised him he would do anything in his power to trade him. Sob might not have had the same attitude this year knowing he would be down in the AHL for the entire season.
Can someone please refresh my memory on the difference between a regular buyout and a compliance buyout? The only difference I know of is that compliance buyouts don't count against the cap IIRC. Is there a limit for the number of compliance buyouts?
Can someone please refresh my memory on the difference between a regular buyout and a compliance buyout? The only difference I know of is that compliance buyouts don't count against the cap IIRC. Is there a limit for the number of compliance buyouts?
Two compliance buyouts per team on contracts that were signed prior to the current CBA being in place. That's why Ribierio was not a compliance buyout, because his deal was signed under the new CBA.
Also, yeah - big difference is having the $ not count against the cap with compliance buyouts.
Good, I was waiting for that to happen. It just makes me wonder(again) how did Feaster agree to that trade.
For people wondering why he was bought out and why it was a compliance buyout, first of all we are speaking of hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings. We just tend to forget we are dealing with millions of dollars when assembling teams on paper(with other people's money). If you want to have a successful business you can't have deadweight. As for the compliance buyout, cap space is still an asset and you don't want to waste it just because the floor seems a bit out of reach.
Flames' management has made comments about his work ethic and commitment this summer. Sounds like they wanted him away from the team.
O'Brien was willing to report to the A. And they could use a veteran D. This was about getting him out of the organization
Getting him away from the team is obvious. But why waste a compliance buyout when they can just buy him out and have it help our cap situation? Doesn't make sense except that the owners don't want to spend money that way.
Seems a waste of a compliance buyout. This tells me the Flames will not be involved in any deals where they eat other team's mistakes for extra assets. If ownership can't stomach burying SOB in the minors for another year at $2M then they sure won't assume long term payouts for players from other teams.
This doesn't quite make sense considering it was a compliance buyout. That means without the cap of O'Brien the team will now need to reach the floor and pay O'Brien 750K for the next 2 years (and a pretty negligible AHL player salary to replace him) whereas prior to the buyout all they had to do was reach the floor. If anything this is a commitment, if minor, to spend more...
Getting him away from the team is obvious. But why waste a compliance buyout when they can just buy him out and have it help our cap situation? Doesn't make sense except that the owners don't want to spend money that way.
Clearly they're prepared to spend some money to get to the cap floor on stuff that isn't SOB.
Obviously lots of teams still in cap trouble. We're like a circling vulture waiting for a team to get desperate and dump somebody solid.
This doesn't quite make sense considering it was a compliance buyout. That means without the cap of O'Brien the team will now need to reach the floor and pay O'Brien 750K for the next 2 years (and a pretty negligible AHL player salary to replace him) whereas prior to the buyout all they had to do was reach the floor. If anything this is a commitment, if minor, to spend more...
I guess that sort of makes sense. I still don't know why they would use a compliance buyout where we get no cap value out of it, especially for such a small salary. We need as much help as we can get at this point.
I think it should be шeйн обрайън. I have two PhDs in Russian translation and Irish onomastics*.
*Ya right. But really, I think that's how his name would be in the KHL.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
