Buyout questions? Cap space?

trellaine201 · Post #1 » by **trellaine201** » Fri Feb 8, 2008 11:21 pm

I am going to keep this question relatively simple and hope someone very knowledgeable can answer:

If all these players refuse to waive their no trade clause is there any way we can dump them and NOT have their salaries count against the cap next year and beyond?

I am on the understanding that all their contracts will count against the cap even if we waive them?

If we trade them to another team can we offer the other team MONEY along with the no trade player and then free up cap space?

Thanks

emfive · Post #2 » by **emfive** » Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:52 am

I am not sure what the story is?

Players assigned to the minors - even if on one-way contracts - do not count (as long as they are not on conditioning assignments).

During the season, anyone on a team's NHL roster counts against the cap. This includes players on the Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster and Non Roster.

If a player practices or travels with his NHL team or plays in an NHL game prior to 5:00pm and is then assigned to the minors, he will still count for that day.

A player who is being bought out or designated for unconditional release must first be offered on waivers, and any team that claims the player accepts the contract

kelso · Post #3 » by **kelso** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:18 pm

Based on your information then, to use a roster example, Jason Blake has 4 years left at 4 mil per year. If the Leafs bought him out at the end of the season:

- Blake gets paid 2/3rds the remainder of his money (16 mil x .66 = 10.56 mil) in a one time payment
- 2 mil counts against the Leaf cap for 8 years (twice the remaining 4 years left and half the money)

Is this correct? If it is, I don't think its a good idea to buy out Blake for instance.

emfive · Post #4 » by **emfive** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:30 pm

That is the way I see it also. Fletcher said there are over 100 no trade contracts in the NHL.

I read an article by Spector in the National Post where he spoke to 4 agents and they said their GM would not give not trades. What a bunch of hoeey. The crap writers get away with. :roll:

Fletcher does not seem to have the nuts to do the job he was assigned. Why buy them out? Trade them if he can without worrying about sensibilities. The new GM woould have a clean slate in terms of league rep. as he would bring his own rep with him. Fletcher is concerned more about his reputation than doing the best thing. What a sheit hiring.

This idea of entitlement that guys like Tucker play with needs to be ended. He is entitled to earn his money but his play (notwithstanding the bullcarap of the last few games) has not entitled him to squat about where he plays. If he loves TO so much he can ride the buses with the boys at the Ricoh center! Integrity! Yeah right. Where was his when he played in such a way as to get JFJ fired?

whysoserious · Post #5 » by **whysoserious** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:17 am

kelso wrote:Based on your information then, to use a roster example, Jason Blake has 4 years left at 4 mil per year. If the Leafs bought him out at the end of the season:

- Blake gets paid 2/3rds the remainder of his money (16 mil x .66 = 10.56 mil) in a one time payment
- 2 mil counts against the Leaf cap for 8 years (twice the remaining 4 years left and half the money)

Is this correct? If it is, I don't think its a good idea to buy out Blake for instance.

That's pretty much the way I read it. Thus it makes more sense to give him the full money you signed him to but pay him to play for the Marlies along with a few other guys. If they refuse to report they void their contracts.

As a team you end up paying more, but you end up clearing up your cap situation. If the Leafs buyout all these guys now, they'd end up operating at a much lower cap then the rest of the league just because bought out contracts would be taking up such a large portion of the cap and for a long period of time.

BringBackPopeye · Post #6 » by **BringBackPopeye** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:11 pm

you also have to remember if the player has a no movement clause you can't send him down to the minors to avoid his cap hit. I think only mccabe has a no movement clause though, the rest if I remember correctly are no trades

emfive · Post #7 » by **emfive** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:56 pm

BringBackPopeye wrote:you also have to remember if the player has a no movement clause you can't send him down to the minors to avoid his cap hit. I think only mccabe has a no movement clause though, the rest if I remember correctly are no trades

From NHLSCAP.com

A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim.

A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's buy-out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers.

The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.

At any rate Fletcher said he would not embarrass his vets by demoting them. This is a poor position to take considering the job he was hired to do. Seems to me he is more concerned about his legacy than doing his job! That is exactly why I was unhappy when he got the job. As a long suffering fan, I am dissapointed.