[Signing] Kraken sign Yamamoto (1y, $1.5mil)

[GioforPM]

Dude's name is spelled wrong in the tweet and the title.

[Locke]

You worried we're going to get him mixed up with the other one?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stang

Yes he could… but why would they? Browns his replacement.

No, players can’t sign with the team that traded them for 1 year after a buyout. At least that was a rule recently.

[stang]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

No, players can’t sign with the team that traded them for 1 year after a buyout. At least that was a rule recently.

Puckpedia

https://twitter.com/puckpedia/status...55Rk0Lcu7D9zbQ

Not sure how to embed

[FlamesAddiction]

Didn’t the Flames buyout Stone and then re-sign him, or am I misremembering?

Never mind, that isn’t the same anyway.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stang

Puckpedia

https://twitter.com/puckpedia/status...55Rk0Lcu7D9zbQ

Not sure how to embed

Not sure I believe a random tweet but if so when did they change that rule?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I have my doubts about Yamamoto actually becoming a productive player. I am sure people who follow the Oilers more closely than me would know better, but wasn't he a fairly unproductive player during the times when he didn't have Draisaitl on his line?



I like his fearlessness and his willingness to engage bigger players. There is a lot of fight in him. Just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of skill. Let's see if a new team and environment does to his game.

[stang]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Not sure I believe a random tweet but if so when did they change that rule?

I’m not sure puckpedia is just a random person.

I don’t think it was a rule. Only for the compliance buyouts.

Flames bought out Stone and then re-signed him a month later.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by stang

I’m not sure puckpedia is just a random person.

I don’t think it was a rule. Only for the compliance buyouts.

Flames bought out Stone and then re-signed him a month later.

I didn’t think it was a rule either. What would the rule break? If people are thinking cap circumvention, think about it from the other angle. The player makes less money than they were contractually owed. Are you then going to turn around and sign a sweetheart deal with that team to further help them? It’s hard to imagine this being a problem.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I didn’t think it was a rule either. What would the rule break? If people are thinking cap circumvention, think about it from the other angle. The player makes less money than they were contractually owed. Are you then going to turn around and sign a sweetheart deal with that team to further help them? It’s hard to imagine this being a problem.

But that is exactly what happened with Orpik.

Caps traded Orpik and Grubauer to Colorado for a 2nd.

Avs buyout Orpik.

Caps re-sign Orpik at a lower cap hit, but at a salary that would make up whatever he lost in the buyout.

End result: Caps get Orpik at a cheaper cap hit and Orpik doesn't lose any money.


NHL investigated that series of events, but couldn't find any evidence that it was premeditated by the Caps so they let it slide but sent out a memo warning teams about it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

But that is exactly what happened with Orpik.

Caps traded Orpik and Grubauer to Colorado for a 2nd.

Avs buyout Orpik.

Caps re-sign Orpik at a lower cap hit, but at a salary that would make up whatever he lost in the buyout.

End result: Caps get Orpik at a cheaper cap hit and Orpik doesn't lose any money.


NHL investigated that series of events, but couldn't find any evidence that it was premeditated by the Caps so they let it slide but sent out a memo warning teams about it.

Pretty significant asset cost in my opinion there.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stang

I’m not sure puckpedia is just a random person.

I don’t think it was a rule. Only for the compliance buyouts.

Flames bought out Stone and then re-signed him a month later.

Stone was allowed because we bought out our own player. Not the same situation.

[stang]

I know with the compliance buyouts you couldn’t re-sign for a year.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stang

I know with the compliance buyouts you couldn’t re-sign for a year.

I wonder why they would have instituted that rule for the compliance buyouts but not applied it to regular buyouts as well? Seems like the circumvention concern still applies but I suppose the governors get the benefit just as much as their opponents try to take advantage so it's a fluctuating perspective.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I wonder why they would have instituted that rule for the compliance buyouts but not applied it to regular buyouts as well? Seems like the circumvention concern still applies but I suppose the governors get the benefit just as much as their opponents try to take advantage so it's a fluctuating perspective.

You had no cap hit from compliance buyouts.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

You had no cap hit from compliance buyouts.

That's a major difference, so makes sense now.