Edmonton is No Good VI: Chia•den•freu•de

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Anyone think he spends a lot of time these days regretting that? We will never know the details but either his agent did a terrible job at negotiating or McDavid got caught up in the Kool-Aid or winning a playoff round after a decade of being no good. It's one thing to waste the prime years of your career in that mess but doing at a discount is pretty dumb.

I seem to remember Oiler media at the time talking about how McDavid was actually embarrassed to earn over $100 million so that's why he signed for what he did. He's just so darn humble and didn't want to come across as greedy by signing anymore more than that.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Extremely doubtful.

McDavid gave the Oilers a discount on his last deal. He could have just told them nothing less than the max or i am not signing and they would have had zero options (in reality) than to agree. He potentially left over 17 million dollars on the table.

Absolutely.
The McDavid contract does not hurt the Oilers.
It's almost every other contract that is probably about 1 million too much.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Why do people keep thinking that a lockout is required for compliance buy-outs to happen?

Whatever new CBA they shart out will probably have some buy-out mechanism, regardless whether there is a lockout or not. The players' union likes them, and GMs like them, so there you go.

Why would there be compliance buyouts, unless they were absolutely necessary?

In 2005, there were compliance buyouts because some teams were going to have to cut their payroll in half. It would have been impossible for some teams to get under the cap using the regular buyout process.

In 2013, teams probably could have gotten under the new cap by means of the regular buyout, but it would have been extremely punishingvon some teams.

With the current potential lockout, I don’t see either side wanting to move from the 50/50 revenue split. If that remains the same, why is there a need for compliance buyouts? The whole point for compliance buyouts was to make it possible for teams to get to where they needed to be. If the percentages aren’t changing, there’s no need for teams to be made able to spend (dead) money outside of the cap.

[Jason14h]

Because both owners and players want them?

The union gets more money for their players. Buyouts don't count against the cap, and that freed up money is used on new playersa


Owners (with money) can get better players to fill these spots


I guess low end salary teams don't like it maybe?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Because both owners and players want them?

The union gets more money for their players. Buyouts don't count against the cap, and that freed up money is used on new playersa


Owners (with money) can get better players to fill these spots


I guess low end salary teams don't like it maybe?

It's true the union supported the idea last time. But individual players only like it if they can sign with another team for money that will even out their takeaway. If they are bought out and never get another job, that's millions out of their pocket.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Because both owners and players want them?

The union gets more money for their players. Buyouts don't count against the cap, and that freed up money is used on new playersa


Owners (with money) can get better players to fill these spots


I guess low end salary teams don't like it maybe?

The owners want them? They lost an entire season to get a salary cap, and now they want the ability to spend money outside of the cap? Why not just get rid of the salary cap then?

Yes, there’s a couple owners with really deep pockets that would gladly do this, but as a while the owners have only wanted to have compliance buyouts when it is necessary only.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's true the union supported the idea last time. But individual players only like it if they can sign with another team for money that will even out their takeaway. If they are bought out and never get another job, that's millions out of their pocket.

They still get 2/3 of their money (unless they're under 26)... and become UFA. So to the player - there is no difference from a regular buyout. It betters for the players... it my inversely effect the few that are bought out, that would not have been under a regular buyout and that can't make up that 1/3 difference in free agency - that's a small number.


With so many buyout proof contracts - it's needed to clear out some bad ones - Lucic and McDavid are buyout proof - McDavid is a good contract, but things can change through injury and other unforeseen circumstances.

[Robbob]

If they just extend the CBA there will be no need for a compliance buyout period.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

They still get 2/3 of their money (unless they're under 26)... and become UFA. So to the player - there is no difference from a regular buyout. It betters for the players... it my inversely effect the few that are bought out, that would not have been under a regular buyout and that can't make up that 1/3 difference in free agency - that's a small number.


With so many buyout proof contracts - it's needed to clear out some bad ones - Lucic and McDavid are buyout proof - McDavid is a good contract, but things can change through injury and other unforeseen circumstances.

I doubt that the NHL is going to do compliance buyouts just to let teams clear their mistakes. IF they do approach the NHLPA and say, hey we want compliance buyouts, the NHLPA is going to say



What are you giving us in return for this?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The owners want them? They lost an entire season to get a salary cap, and now they want the ability to spend money outside of the cap? Why not just get rid of the salary cap then?

Yes, there’s a couple owners with really deep pockets that would gladly do this, but as a while the owners have only wanted to have compliance buyouts when it is necessary only.

The GMs like it because it lets them off the hook from their own stupidity.

[Erick Estrada]

I can definitely see compliance buyouts coming with the next CBA. The Kings, Hawks, Wild, Oilers, etc. will be pushing extremely hard to get out of a few unmovable contracts that are prohibiting them from improving their roster.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would give teams compliance buyouts, but if for everyone they use they lose their first round draft pick.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I can definitely see compliance buyouts coming with the next CBA. The Kings, Hawks, Wild, Oilers, etc. will be pushing extremely hard to get out of a few unmovable contracts that are prohibiting them from improving their roster.

And why would the other 28 owners agree to this?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Shazam

The GMs like it because it lets them off the hook from their own stupidity.

Just like they liked the non-salary cap era that let them off the hook for their own stupidity.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would give teams compliance buyouts, but if for everyone they use they lose their first round draft pick.

Ooh. Interesting. Or set it up like offer sheets, where the level of pick you give up is tied to the dollar value you are buying out. I like it.

[the2bears]

The obvious reason for compliance buyouts is a change to the CBA, such that some existing contracts are *not actually compliant*. If the current CBA is extended, then there's no need for compliance buyouts.

At that point, it becomes a negotiation. Both between the few teams that would love to use this as a tool to rid themselves of contracts, but between the league and the NHLPA. The players are unlikely to bring this up, so if the league decides they want them they'll have to offer something in return.

[Locke]

Ironically, and more in line with the tone of this thread, with the only thing that could conceivably save the Oilers or at least dramatically shorten their rebuild turnaround time, being Compliance buyouts we are on course for potentially the most amicable CBA discussion/Labour dispute in the history of Professional Sports.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's true the union supported the idea last time. But individual players only like it if they can sign with another team for money that will even out their takeaway. If they are bought out and never get another job, that's millions out of their pocket.

Unless you're Lucic. Ahahahahahahaha

LOiLers.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that the NHL is going to do compliance buyouts just to let teams clear their mistakes. IF they do approach the NHLPA and say, hey we want compliance buyouts, the NHLPA is going to say



What are you giving us in return for this?

I wasn't suggesting they would or would not - I was just explaining why I don't think it's bad for the players.


BUT....


Why wouldn't the NHLPA want them? They are a way of making the revenue split work in their favor. Let's say the NHL stays at a 50/50 split - compliance buyouts make it so that the money some players are paid remains outside that split - so in effect its 49 owners 51 players (just an example).


OT: Can you imagine employee costs at 50% of your overall revenue in any other business, no wonder a drink at a game costs so much.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

They still get 2/3 of their money (unless they're under 26)... and become UFA. So to the player - there is no difference from a regular buyout. It betters for the players... it my inversely effect the few that are bought out, that would not have been under a regular buyout and that can't make up that 1/3 difference in free agency - that's a small number.


With so many buyout proof contracts - it's needed to clear out some bad ones - Lucic and McDavid are buyout proof - McDavid is a good contract, but things can change through injury and other unforeseen circumstances.

2/3 is less than 3/3. And it equals millions. If the p[layer can get a new contract that equals or exceeds the difference, great. If not, they get much less than they bargained for (and I suspect their agent doesn't take a hit off the buyout).