Confirmed Buy-Out [ARI] Antoine Vermette

[rt]

Read my post above and tel me this was a tank move or cap floor circumvention. We'd have had a worse team with a higher cap it if we DIDNT buy him out. At least that seems to be the belief of management. And the numbers certainly support their stance.

 

[ck26]

Read my post above and tel me this was a tank move or cap floor circumvention. We'd have had a worse team with a higher cap it if we DIDNT buy him out. At least that seems to be the belief of management. And the numbers certainly support their stance.

Nobody who posts in this thread reads anything. They're too busy making snarky comments and inventing alternate realities to care about the truth. Learning what the Coyotes are actually doing takes time and effort. Just saying, "lulz tankers" doesn't.

 

[Duck Off]

Does the entire continent have a learning disability, or is it just people posting in this thread?

10 days ago, acquiring Antoine Vermette for the upcoming season would have cost:
a) $3.75m
b) some number of assets, we'll call it a 2017 7th round pick

For the last week, Antoine Vermette has been a UFA. Acquiring his services for the upcoming season costs:
c) however much cash you negotiate, presumably less than $3.75m

Vermette is still unsigned, so clearly no team has chosen to pay C yet.

If no team is willing to pay C, why the **** would a team have paid A and B?

The Coyotes could have retained 50% of his salary. Vermette at 1 season @ 1.875 for future considerations doesn't seem that far fetched to me. That said, there's no way to know if a team would have taken it. Still, a center who scored 17 goals and almost 40 points seems like it would be of interest to some team.

 

[rt]

The Coyotes could have retained 50% of his salary. Vermette at 1 season @ 1.875 for future considerations doesn't seem that far fetched to me. That said, there's no way to know if a team would have taken it. Still, a center who scored 17 goals and almost 40 points seems like it would be of interest to some team.

Obviously not. Clearly the Coyotes would've preferred to only throw away 50% of his salary instead of 66% of his salary. If they had the chance to do that, they'd have taken it. Clearly they didn't have that chance. Obviously no team was willing. Probably because they paid attention to exactly the kinds of things in my post above, and realized they'd rather not have him at 1.875 but might be willing to over him half that amount in Free Agency.

 

[ck26]

The Coyotes could have retained 50% of his salary. Vermette at 1 season @ 1.875 for future considerations doesn't seem that far fetched to me. That said, there's no way to know if a team would have taken it. Still, a center who scored 17 goals and almost 40 points seems like it would be of interest to some team.

There's a really easy way to know: Vermette now costs less than $1.8m and now costs 0 future considerations, but still nobody has signed him.

 

[Hivemind]

Just because no team has yet paid C, doesn't mean that no team is willing to pay C. Negotiations aren't instantaneous, and Vermette does not have to take the first offer he receives.

More to the point, A & B are making the assumptions that we're unsure about. Arizona may have been willing to retain salary on A (especially considering they're paying money on the buyout currently) or possibly take a salary in return. The type of salary exchange happening on A could potentially drop down B to be a effectively zero (Arizona takes back a smaller salary on an even less useful player instead of taking back any real future assets).

If you want to build a case against a Vermette trade, the NMC is the place to start.

 

[rt]

Just because no team has yet paid C, doesn't mean that no team is willing to pay C. Negotiations aren't instantaneous, and Vermette does not have to take the first offer he receives.

More to the point, A & B are making the assumptions that we're unsure about. Arizona may have been willing to retain salary on A (especially considering they're paying money on the buyout currently) or possibly take a salary in return. The type of salary exchange happening on A could potentially drop down B to be a effectively zero (Arizona takes back a smaller salary on an even less useful player instead of taking back any real future assets).

If you want to build a case against a Vermette trade, the NMC is the place to start.

Keep the following in mind:

1. Max retention would mean 1.875 million this season.
2. Buyout means 1.250 million this season, and then again next season.

That helps the budget along this year. Next year, a lot of dead cap is coming off the books between Datsyuk and Pronger.

Now, I'm going to say that none of ^ that matters at all. Because I don't believe any team was willing to pay him 1.875 million this season. I bet he'll sign a deal that pays him less than that this season. Which is why the Coyotes couldn't trade him for 50% off; Nobody wanted him at 50% off.

 

[Curufinwe]

1 year, $1m is my prediction.

 

[rt]

1 year, $1m is my prediction.

So it's no wonder no team would take him at 1.875.

 

[Mr Positive]

Obviously not. Clearly the Coyotes would've preferred to only throw away 50% of his salary instead of 66% of his salary. If they had the chance to do that, they'd have taken it. Clearly they didn't have that chance. Obviously no team was willing. Probably because they paid attention to exactly the kinds of things in my post above, and realized they'd rather not have him at 1.875 but might be willing to over him half that amount in Free Agency.

They actually save more than 50% with the buyout route if you include the 1.25 cap hit the following season, which will help them get to the cap floor without spending that money

 

[ck26]

They actually save more than 50% with the buyout route if you include the 1.25 cap hit the following season, which will help them get to the cap floor without spending that money

... the hell? "Without spending that money?"

You do realize that buying out a contract requires the team cut checks to the player without him actually playing, right? Buyout cap hit is based on the 2/3 number of cash paid out, not the original cap hit and salary. #CBABasics #TheMoreYouKnow

 

[Curufinwe]

$1.25m in 16-17 and $1.25m in 17-18 is a considerable saving over $3.75m in 16-17.

The Coyotes have been very aggressive about deferring salary costs out of 16-17 when possible.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shane-doan

CONTRACT NOTE: Signing Bonus after interest is applied = $1,500,000 broken down in 6 payments of $250,000 starting in 2017 & ending in 2022. Games Played Bonus after interest is applied = $1,000,000 broken down in 2 payments of $500,000 starting in 2018 & again in 2019.

 

[rt]

$1.25m in 16-17 and $1.25m in 17-18 is a considerable saving over $3.75m in 16-17.

The Coyotes have been very aggressive about deferring salary costs out of 16-17 when possible.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shane-doan

Makes you wonder if it's because it's a lame-duck season.

Am I doing it right? Hahaha.

 

[Mr Positive]

... the hell? "Without spending that money?"

You do realize that buying out a contract requires the team cut checks to the player without him actually playing, right? Buyout cap hit is based on the 2/3 number of cash paid out, not the original cap hit and salary. #CBABasics #TheMoreYouKnow

It doesn't matter when the checks are sent out. It's 2/3 the salary, which is 2.5 million total, saving them 1.25 million. When I say "without spending the money," I don't mean on Vermette. I mean on whatever other player is out there.

Pronger and Datsyuk come off the books next offseason and there goes their cap floor strategy. Except, in addition to saving the 1.25 million total off of vermette by buyout (replacing him with a cheap young guy making something like 900k), there is a lingering cap hit going to 2017-18. That cap hit is 1.25 million, and so the total amount they don't have to spend from this buyout is 2.5 million. Their total savings are 66%, not 50% like they could get by trading him at full retention.

(I'm no expert btw. I hope this adds up)

 

[Kaibur]

It doesn't matter when the checks are sent out. It's 2/3 the salary, which is 2.5 million total, saving them 1.25 million. When I say "without spending the money," I don't mean on Vermette. I mean on whatever other player is out there.

Pronger and Datsyuk come off the books next offseason and there goes their cap floor strategy. Except, in addition to saving the 1.25 million total off of vermette by buyout (replacing him with a cheap young guy making something like 900k), there is a lingering cap hit going to 2017-18. That cap hit is 1.25 million, and so the total amount they don't have to spend from this buyout is 2.5 million. Their total savings are 66%, not 50% like they could get by trading him at full retention.

(I'm no expert btw. I hope this adds up)

In 17-18, the Coyotes will spend over the cap floor in real dollars, so what your saying doesn't make sense.

One way or another, Coyotes ownership will pay something like $3.4M for someone to play center in 16-17 when they could have just paid Vermette $3.75M to keep on doing it. Maybe he would have hit an absolute wall and dropped off as dramatically as rt's numbers show. Maybe he would have found new chemistry with one of the new wingers, the way he did late in the season with Tanguay. In any event, that would have been a single season buffer, allowing Strome and Dvorak some additional veteran protection beyond the injury-prone Hanzal. To me, that veteran buffer is worth $375k as an investment in the long term development of Strome and Dvorak, so I think they made a mistake by buying out Vermette.

Unless he did something scandalous.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I smell a return to Ottawa.

 

[rt]

In 17-18, the Coyotes will spend over the cap floor in real dollars, so what your saying doesn't make sense.

One way or another, Coyotes ownership will pay something like $3.4M for someone to play center in 16-17 when they could have just paid Vermette $3.75M to keep on doing it. Maybe he would have hit an absolute wall and dropped off as dramatically as rt's numbers show. Maybe he would have found new chemistry with one of the new wingers, the way he did late in the season with Tanguay. In any event, that would have been a single season buffer, allowing Strome and Dvorak some additional veteran protection beyond the injury-prone Hanzal. To me, that veteran buffer is worth $375k as an investment in the long term development of Strome and Dvorak, so I think they made a mistake by buying out Vermette.

Unless he did something scandalous.

It sounds like you're looking at this from the perspective of buying out our 3C. We didn't. That's Richards. We bought out the projected 4C. Who was scheduled to make 3.75m, and contribute 20pts and very little to either specialty team. We probably figure one of Ryan White, Laurent Dauphin, or Tyler Gaudet could at least do that.

No other NHL team wanted him at 1.875 million. But we made a mistake refusing to pay him 3.75?

Not only did he have the worst penalty differential on the team, he had the 2nd most turnover among forwards. And don't think take-always bailed him out. He also had the second worst gvwy/tkwy ratio on the team among forwards. Chayka wants a possession team. Giving the puck away and putting the team on the PK doesn't help with that.

 

[danyhabsfan]

It sounds like you're looking at this from the perspective of buying out our 3C. We didn't. That's Richards. We bought out the projected 4C. Who was scheduled to make 3.75m, and contribute 20pts and very little to either specialty team. We probably figure one of Ryan White, Laurent Dauphin, or Tyler Gaudet could at least do that.

No other NHL team wanted him at 1.875 million. But we made a mistake refusing to pay him 3.75?

I'm pretty sure that the half price waiver rule doesn't exist anymore?

 

[rt]

I'm pretty sure that the half price waiver rule doesn't exist anymore?

Oh gosh. I'm saying they obviously would be offered him around at 50% off rather than having to buy him out at 67% and given that they chose the buyout, they obviously didn't have any takers at 50%

 

[mouser]

It doesn't matter when the checks are sent out. It's 2/3 the salary, which is 2.5 million total, saving them 1.25 million. When I say "without spending the money," I don't mean on Vermette. I mean on whatever other player is out there.

Pronger and Datsyuk come off the books next offseason and there goes their cap floor strategy. Except, in addition to saving the 1.25 million total off of vermette by buyout (replacing him with a cheap young guy making something like 900k), there is a lingering cap hit going to 2017-18. That cap hit is 1.25 million, and so the total amount they don't have to spend from this buyout is 2.5 million. Their total savings are 66%, not 50% like they could get by trading him at full retention.

(I'm no expert btw. I hope this adds up)

It absolutely depends on when the checks are sent out. The Coyotes will be paying Vermette $1.25m in 2017-18, and lo and behold his buyout cap hit for 2017-18 is $1.25m. There is no "cap benefit" gained, it's dollar for dollar coming from the team payroll just like any active player on the roster.

Factor in the player replacing Vermette will likely be at least $850k. Potentially much more if they sign one of the remaining UFA's on the market. So the total "savings" of salary vs cap hit for buying out Vermette is at most $400k ($3.75m - $2.5m - $850k).

 

[Kaibur]

It sounds like you're looking at this from the perspective of buying out our 3C. We didn't. That's Richards. We bought out the projected 4C. Who was scheduled to make 3.75m, and contribute 20pts and very little to either specialty team. We probably figure one of Ryan White, Laurent Dauphin, or Tyler Gaudet could at least do that.

No other NHL team wanted him at 1.875 million. But we made a mistake refusing to pay him 3.75?

Not only did he have the worst penalty differential on the team, he had the 2nd most turnover among forwards. And don't think take-always bailed him out. He also had the second worst gvwy/tkwy ratio on the team among forwards. Chayka wants a possession team. Giving the puck away and putting the team on the PK doesn't help with that.

I don't think putting a label on it like 3C or 4C makes a difference. Tippett can use Vermette up and down the lineup - to varying effect. It's clear that he's in decline. But I don't think that's a playoff roster before the buyout and I don't believe it is after. The money was already committed and development should be the priority.

How many games is Hanzal going to miss this year? Does anyone expect him to play 82? What happens if he suffers an injury during the preseason? Where does that leave Strome & Dvorak? Richardson and either White or one of Gaudet/Dauphin to help shelter them in this pivotal year in their development? That could cripple the rebuild and the franchise has no one else in the way of potential 1C prospects.

I know it sounds fickle, but in this instance I would have preferred Tippett to keep the veteran in place of the rookie and the franchise to continue the slow and steady pace of the rebuild. My posts even a year ago probably sounded the exact opposite.

 

[rt]

Given that they paid him to go away, I think it's clear that Tippett and Chayka believe Vermette did more harm than good at even strength. The fact that he was the team's worst penalty magnet, 2nd worst turnover culprit, and only produced at a 20pt per 82gp clip at even strength, without Tanguay seems to suggest that they have a solid case for the assertion that he a net negative, even strength player. Given that he's nearly certain to lose nearly all of his PP time and that Tanguay is not coming back, I can hardly blame them for cutting bait. Given that the other 29 teams took a pass on waivers, and likely took a pass at 1.875m further affirms that Chayka and Tippett were probably on to something.

Do I think we need at least two more veteran forwards? Yes. But I believe they need to either contribute to the PK or be passable even strength possession players. Preferably they'd be both. Vermette became neither. Which isn't acceptable. You and I agree on needs, I think. We're on the same page there. I just think that there's a solid case to be made that Vermette did nothing to help fill those needs.

 

[rt]

It absolutely depends on when the checks are sent out. The Coyotes will be paying Vermette $1.25m in 2017-18, and lo and behold his buyout cap hit for 2017-18 is $1.25m. There is no "cap benefit" gained, it's dollar for dollar coming from the team payroll just like any active player on the roster.

Factor in the player replacing Vermette will likely be at least $850k. Potentially much more if they sign one of the remaining UFA's on the market. So the total "savings" of salary vs cap hit for buying out Vermette is at most $400k ($3.75m - $2.5m - $850k).

Meaning they simply feel that they can get more utility from a 1,000,000-ish player.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I don't think putting a label on it like 3C or 4C makes a difference. Tippett can use Vermette up and down the lineup - to varying effect. It's clear that he's in decline. But I don't think that's a playoff roster before the buyout and I don't believe it is after. The money was already committed and development should be the priority.

How many games is Hanzal going to miss this year? Does anyone expect him to play 82? What happens if he suffers an injury during the preseason? Where does that leave Strome & Dvorak? Richardson and either White or one of Gaudet/Dauphin to help shelter them in this pivotal year in their development? That could cripple the rebuild and the franchise has no one else in the way of potential 1C prospects.

I know it sounds fickle, but in this instance I would have preferred Tippett to keep the veteran in place of the rookie and the franchise to continue the slow and steady pace of the rebuild. My posts even a year ago probably sounded the exact opposite.

1. If it is not a playoff roster before or after cutting Vermette and development is the priority, then the team did the right thing. Vermette would simply cut into development time at the NHL level for these players. There is also no guarantee that Vermette becomes a valuable trade deadline commodity either.

2. I think crippling the rebuild is too strong of a verb to use here. I am viewing this as management finding 60-70 games of Hanzal as being better than 82 full games of Vermette (which anyone should agree with). Should Hanzal get injured, we haven't really crippled any sort of rebuild. Strome and Dvorak will have to play some tougher minutes at C, but that is supposed to happen over time. A little accelerated, but that doesn't mean that b/c of the extra 2-5 minutes per game, these players are going to wind up with severe lapses in overall play. They will be outmatched at times, but sometimes that happens in all levels of sport. Worst case scenario is that we are now closer to front-runners for a top 5 pick, and that actually makes me more excited to gain future talent. We could use an additional forward, but probably on the wing position, and as RHS.

 

[Mr Positive]

It absolutely depends on when the checks are sent out. The Coyotes will be paying Vermette $1.25m in 2017-18, and lo and behold his buyout cap hit for 2017-18 is $1.25m. There is no "cap benefit" gained, it's dollar for dollar coming from the team payroll just like any active player on the roster.

Factor in the player replacing Vermette will likely be at least $850k. Potentially much more if they sign one of the remaining UFA's on the market. So the total "savings" of salary vs cap hit for buying out Vermette is at most $400k ($3.75m - $2.5m - $850k).

You're not taking into account that the Coyotes are only paying Vermette 1.25 million this coming season. They save 2.5 million in the short term. If they set aside 1.25 million of those savings to pay for next year's salary, the net result is 1.25 in cash savings, but with a resulting cap hit of 1.25 million for the next year and that's money they won't have to spend to reach the floor, for 2.5 in cash savings total. (and of course, the cap floor is not an issue in the short term, but it is for next season)

But you are totally right that they have to replace the player so it's not 2.5 really. More like 1.4 million. Those savings are still significant.

Also, of course they don't have to set the money aside. That was just to illustrate it. If they are short term minded, they might want the huge 2.5 million short term savings to spend on Reider. Either way, I think the motive for the buyout was financial.