Confirmed Buy-Out [ARI] Antoine Vermette

[ck26]

YEither way, I think the motive for the buyout was financial.

No ****. That's what a buyout is.

When Tampa bought out Matt Carle? Minnesota with Vanek? The Rangers Brad Richards? Edmonton with Korpikoski? Lighting with Lecavalier? Flyers with Umberger? Leafs with Grabovski? Flyers with Briere and Bryzgalov?

Contracts are too high, performance is too low, players get bought out.

Every buyout is financially motivated.

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)[/b]

You're terrible at math.

"If the Coyotes set aside 1.25m this year" (what does it mean to "set aside" money?), then THIS season, they're paying $2.5m real dollars and only "getting" a $1.25m cap hit. Paying cash without "getting" cap hit credit! What an un-Coyotes-like thing to do!

$2.5m in cash payout over two years.
$2.5m in cap hit spread out over two seasons.
AKA: "the way buyouts work under the CBA."

Seriously, it's basic arithmetic.

 

[Mr Positive]

No ****. That's what a buyout is.

When Tampa bought out Matt Carle? Minnesota with Vanek? The Rangers Brad Richards? Edmonton with Korpikoski? Lighting with Lecavalier? Flyers with Umberger? Leafs with Grabovski? Flyers with Briere and Bryzgalov?

Contracts are too high, performance is too low, players get bought out.

Every buyout is financially motivated.You're terrible at math.

"If the Coyotes set aside 1.25m this year" (what does it mean to "set aside" money?), then THIS season, they're paying $2.5m real dollars and only "getting" a $1.25m cap hit. Paying cash without "getting" cap hit credit! What an un-Coyotes-like thing to do!

$2.5m in cash payout over two years.
$2.5m in cap hit spread out over two seasons.
AKA: "the way buyouts work under the CBA."

Seriously, it's basic arithmetic.

First off, I want to say that nothing I wrote was to bash the Coyotes, like some do in back handed fashion when it comes to the financial stuff. What I'm about in this thread is saying that Vermette is still a very good player. Just because he's a good player doesn't mean he's the right player for the Coyotes. I will take the Coyotes GM on his word that it was about giving the young guys a chance.

The main crux comes from the financial angle. People are wondering why the Coyotes didn't just trade him at 50% retention (or less), rather than buy him out and pay 66% of the deal like they did. The implication is that no one would want him at 50% even for one year, and I've seen many stats from websites and posters here say that he's just not good anymore, and I disagree with that narrative they are making. When you factor in the 1.25 AAV cap hit for 2017-18 as part of the big picture, they save more than the trading at retention route. In that situation any team would prefer a 66% buyout rather than the trade at 50% retention, so there's no need to say that teams in the NHL just didn't want him at all.

I'd also point out that those other buyouts you mentioned were very different because they were all about gaining cap space. The Coyotes don't have that problem, which is why a lot of posters on these boards were puzzled by the move.

As for setting aside cash, I know for a fact the Oilers have done that for currency fluxuation reasons back when the Canadian dollar was trash. I don't mean any weird contract stuff if that's what you think I was saying. I know my post was a bit convoluted but I was discussing this with another poster so I was using it as a hypothetical.

 

[mouser]

The main crux comes from the financial angle. People are wondering why the Coyotes didn't just trade him at 50% retention (or less), rather than buy him out and pay 66% of the deal like they did. The implication is that no one would want him at 50% even for one year, and I've seen many stats from websites and posters here say that he's just not good anymore, and I disagree with that narrative they are making. When you factor in the 1.25 AAV cap hit for 2017-18 as part of the big picture, they save more than the trading at retention route. In that situation any team would prefer a 66% buyout rather than the trade at 50% retention, so there's no need to say that teams in the NHL just didn't want him at all.

You're essentially arguing the Coyotes would rather save $650k this season even if it means they have to pay $1.25m next season.

Vermette Traded at 50%
2016-17: $1.875m cost
2017-18: $0 cost

Vermette bought out:
2016-17: $1.25m cost
2017-18: $1.25m cost

I find it highly unlikely the team would choose the later here. The argument of $1.25m cap space next season is nonsensical when the team could just as easily spend that $1.25m on actual roster players with cap hits.

The more reasonable explanation is the team couldn't find a good trade for Vermette at 50%. Maybe teams were only offering to send a bad contract back in any part of a Vermette deal.

I look forward to seeing what Vermette gets as a UFA when he finally signs.

* edited 50% retention

 

[Mr Positive]

You're essentially arguing the Coyotes would rather save $500k this season even if it means they have to pay $1.25m next season.

Vermette Traded at 50%
2016-17: $1.75m cost
2017-18: $0 cost

Vermette bought out:
2016-17: $1.25m cost
2017-18: $1.25m cost

I find it highly unlikely the team would choose the later here. The argument of $1.25m cap space next season is nonsensical when the team could just as easily spend that $1.25m on actual roster players with cap hits.

The more reasonable explanation is the team couldn't find a good trade for Vermette at 50%. Maybe teams were only offering to send a bad contract back in any part of a Vermette deal.

I look forward to seeing what Vermette gets as a UFA when he finally signs.

I'm sure Vermette won't get much, especially if he goes to a contender like many think. I still think he's a good target for any team though.

For the numbers, is it not 1.875 for full retention? I'm not sure on how retentions work 100%, but wouldn't it be based on the 3.75 cap hit? If so, then it's 625k savings the first year (1.875-1.25), but a 1.25 salary the following (so paying twice what was saved), but then it amounts to paying 625k dollars to get 1.2 million in cap space to help get to the floor in 2017-18.

edit: But even if you're right on the retention number it's still like playing 900k or whatever for 1.2 of cap space

 

[ck26]

People are wondering why the Coyotes didn't just trade him at 50% retention (or less), rather than buy him out and pay 66% of the deal like they did.

Because nobody wanted him.

The implication is that no one would want him at 50% even for one year, and I've seen many stats from websites and posters here say that he's just not good anymore, and I disagree with that narrative they are making.

10 days and counting since Vermette was bought out.

When you factor in the 1.25 AAV cap hit for 2017-18 as part of the big picture, they save more than the trading at retention route.

Sure. I'm confident Chayka made phone calls. But nobody was interested.

In that situation any team would prefer a 66% buyout rather than the trade at 50% retention, so there's no need to say that teams in the NHL just didn't want him at all.

Teams in the NHL didn't want him at $1.875m? The cost is important. It sure seems so thus far, and you seem to agree:

I'm sure Vermette won't get much, especially if he goes to a contender like many think.

Won't get much, like, say ... he'll get less than $1.8m?

I'd also point out that those other buyouts you mentioned were very different because they were all about gaining cap space.

It doesn't matter if it's cap space or budget space. They can all be boiled down to: "The team thought the money would be better spent on other things." All buyouts can.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

The main crux comes from the financial angle. People are wondering why the Coyotes didn't just trade him at 50% retention (or less), rather than buy him out and pay 66% of the deal like they did. The implication is that no one would want him at 50% even for one year, and I've seen many stats from websites and posters here say that he's just not good anymore, and I disagree with that narrative they are making. When you factor in the 1.25 AAV cap hit for 2017-18 as part of the big picture, they save more than the trading at retention route. In that situation any team would prefer a 66% buyout rather than the trade at 50% retention, so there's no need to say that teams in the NHL just didn't want him at all.

These numbers don't show if a player is a negative influence. He could be a locker room cancer on top of being useless on the ice.

 

[mouser]

I'm sure Vermette won't get much, especially if he goes to a contender like many think. I still think he's a good target for any team though.

For the numbers, is it not 1.875 for full retention? I'm not sure on how retentions work 100%, but wouldn't it be based on the 3.75 cap hit? If so, then it's 625k savings the first year (1.875-1.25), but a 1.25 salary the following (so paying twice what was saved), but then it amounts to paying 625k dollars to get 1.2 million in cap space to help get to the floor in 2017-18.

edit: But even if you're right on the retention number it's still like playing 900k or whatever for 1.2 of cap space

Corrected the 50% retention numbers.

One other thing to consider here: you're making an assumption that the team is "banking" the Vermette savings this season. Some of that money may end up going to Rieder or a UFA. Maybe Murphy/Stone's contracts came in higher then the team budgeted for going into the summer. Without knowing precisely what the team budget is and where all that money is going to ultimately be spent I wouldn't assume the Vermette savings are banked.

 

[Jakey53]

These numbers don't show if a player is a negative influence. He could be a locker room cancer on top of being useless on the ice.

Vermette way NOT a cancer. He was a solid vet and mentor, but his time has come. Age will do that to all of us.

 

[hockeykicker]

 

[Habsfan2731]

For some reason I think the Canadiens maybe have tabled something.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Anyone else find it a bit weird he'll sign by the day vesey becomes a UFA?

 

[Djp]

No ****. That's what a buyout is.

When Tampa bought out Matt Carle? Minnesota with Vanek? The Rangers Brad Richards? Edmonton with Korpikoski? Lighting with Lecavalier? Flyers with Umberger? Leafs with Grabovski? Flyers with Briere and Bryzgalov?

Contracts are too high, performance is too low, players get bought out.

Every buyout is financially motivated.

Not every buyout is in a vacuum of how good player is vs his salary.

Other reasons for buying out a player is to open up a spot for someone else. Sometimes its financially related to other players that are due contracts and the team will need space.

I don't know the details on why he got bought out. Was there something else going on here? Phoenix isn't despairs the for cap space. Did they feel vermette was a negative locker room influence.

 

[BLONG7]

For some reason I think the Canadiens maybe have tabled something.

If the Habs can rid themselves of the teacher's pet, I can see them taking on Vermette...

The midget DD would have to be gone...

 

[NHL RankKing]

Anyone else find it a bit weird he'll sign by the day vesey becomes a UFA?

I find it weird that he said he'll sign with someone on Monday considering Vesey probably won't sign on Monday.

You'd think guys like Hudler and Vermette would wait until the Vesey sweepstakes is over with because there are some holes that need to be filled on many of those teams that are in the running but might be tight against the cap.

 

[hbk]

Not every buyout is in a vacuum of how good player is vs his salary.

Other reasons for buying out a player is to open up a spot for someone else. Sometimes its financially related to other players that are due contracts and the team will need space.

I don't know the details on why he got bought out. Was there something else going on here? Phoenix isn't despairs the for cap space. Did they feel vermette was a negative locker room influence.

He is not a locker room bad influence. Generally regarded as a great teammate.

This is a reflection of $ versus play and a new GM putting his stamp on the team. He wants youth. AZ believes in Dvorak and Strome and have several options in Gaudet and Dauphin who can take on a bottom 6 role at C.

 

[Habsfan2731]

If the Habs can rid themselves of the teacher's pet, I can see them taking on Vermette...

The midget DD would have to be gone...

In a pure defensive role on the 3rd line, I'd be happy with him at $1M

 

[1909]

In a pure defensive role on the 3rd line, I'd be happy with him at $1M

Right now, habs have almost no room under the salary cap space. If they could (but is it possible) get rid of DD, I might say yes to vermetyte, maybe... But habs have still some other guys to play on that third line centre, mostly youngsters who deserved to be tried: Danault, McCarron, De Larose.

 

[rt]

Not every buyout is in a vacuum of how good player is vs his salary.

Other reasons for buying out a player is to open up a spot for someone else. Sometimes its financially related to other players that are due contracts and the team will need space.

I don't know the details on why he got bought out. Was there something else going on here? Phoenix isn't despairs the for cap space. Did they feel vermette was a negative locker room influence.

Short Summary:

For Arizona(specifically), Antoine Vermette has turned into an undisciplined player that takes too many penalties, turns the puck over too much, won't contribute meaningfully to either specialty team and is likely a 20ish point forward next season. The team sees him as a net negative that does more harm than good on the ice. They'd have liked to dump him at 50% retention but nobody wanted him. So they had to buy him out at 67%.


Details Here:

It sounds like everyone is still very confused.

Let me help you with that:

Tanguay isn't returninig and Vermette won't be getting Top Two PP time this season.

Vermette had 21 EV pts in 76gp last year = 0.28EVppg

58gp 24ps without Tanguay = .41ppg
18gp 14pts with Tanguay = .78ppg

Vermette with Tanguay:

184:08 time played

Goals for per 60 3.91
Goals against per 60 0.98

Vermette without Tanguay:

735:20 time played

Goals for per 60 1.71
Goals against per 60 3.18

Without Tanguay, and without significant PP time, Vermette was headed for a cliff. Without late season chemistry with Tanguay and top PP minutes, Vermette would've likely been a 25pt player last season. Now he's a year older.

In management's minds, they simply removed him while they still could. Otherwise they'd be paying 100% of his salary for him to play for the AHL affiliate in Tucson. Instead they only have to pay 66% of his salary and he gets to sell his wares to another NHL team.

Their thinking is that this is better for the club and better for the player.

Some further reading that is very, very interesting:

Individual penalty differential isn’t exactly a statistic that’s regularly used, but can certainly help a team determine whether a player is tangibly affecting overall ability to get through a game without playing shorthanded.

Players with positive penalty differentials draw more penalties than they take, and negative differentials are the opposite.

Last season, Vermette finished the year with six individual penalties drawn… but with 25 individual penalties taken.

Per Corsica Hockey, that was good for a minus-19 differential at even strength, worst on the team by a full five penalities (defenseman Connor Murphy was the second worst, with a minus-14). Even controversial Coyotes forwards like Shane Doan and Martin Hanzal, both of whom are no stranger to the penalty box, did a better job of balancing out their transgressions with power play opportunities provided.

For Vermette, there wasn’t exactly a preconceived notion that he was drawing penalties for the team. If anything, there was a sense of frustration surrounding his play because of his time spent in the box – but where some players only seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time in the box, Vermette actually did.

That, combined with his poor possession play, certainly helps explain why the team was willing to shell out money just so he wouldn’t play next year.

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/nhl-w...toine-vermette-buyout-necessary-evil-arizona/

^ important to note that the Coyotes had one of the league's worst PK% last season, as well.


Summary: Management likely believes he's going to be awful without choice PP mins and Alex Tanguay. He's also a penalty taking machine that never draws any. They feel he's a net negative.


Without Tanguay, he was an offensive black-hole last season. Apart from the PP where the majority of his production came. This season, he wouldn't have been getting any PP time, and Tanguay is gone.

The Coyotes were looking at 20-25pt center who's PK usage had declined so much he barely managed to get 1min/gp on the PK last season, despite his team having one of the league's worst penalty kills. Though, it's not a shock he had reduced PK minutes, given that he took 20 more penalties than he drew last season, which was worst on the team.

He was an undisciplined player last season, which hurt the team. He wasn't a contributor at even strength, and was looking at having only even strength minutes in the upcoming season.

Obviously management (and Dave Tippett is both the coach and John Chayka's boss) feel that the team is better off without Vermette because he's a net negative player that hurts the team on the ice more than he helps the team on the ice. The numbers certainly suggest that's the case, and when you took the time to give it the eye-test, it's not surprising that the numbers shake out that way.

2.5million & Vermette not on ice > 3.75million & Vermette on ice

If he can clean up the minor penalties, and he comes cheap enough, he should be a fine 4th line center.

76gp 21EVpts = 0.28EVppg

58gp 24pts without Tanguay = .41ppg

76gp 38pts 21EVpts = 55% of pts at EV

.41ppg w/o Tanguay x 82gp = 34pts x .55EV = 19pts

A healthy Vermette with no Tanguay and no PP time gets you around 20pts

Also, 2nd worst on the team among result forwards in giveaways, giveaways per game, and giveaway versus takeaway deficit.


Cliff's:

1. He takes a ton of penalties but doesn't draw any
2. He turns the puck over a lot but never gets any takeaways
3. He's no longer a contributor to the penalty kill
4. He got the bulk of his points on the PP and because of late chemistry with Tanguay
5. He won't get any PP time with Strome coming in
6. Tanguay is gone


Short Take-Away:

For Arizona(specifically), Antoine Vermette has turned into an undisciplined player that takes too many penalties, turns the puck over too much, won't contribute meaningfully to either specialty team and is likely a 20ish point forward next season. The team sees him as a net negative that does more harm than good on the ice. They'd have liked to dump him at 50% retention but nobody wanted him. So they had to buy him out at 67%.

 

[Habsfan2731]

Right now, habs have almost no room under the salary cap space. If they could (but is it possible) get rid of DD, I might say yes to vermetyte, maybe... But habs have still some other guys to play on that third line centre, mostly youngsters who deserved to be tried: Danault, McCarron, De Larose.

I'd rather get McCarron 1st line mins in the A then 3rd line mins in the NHL at this point, he won't have wingers & I don't want MT to use him as a grinder.

 

[De Montreal]

People keep talking about how good Vermette was with Tanguay, any chance a GM try to reunite both? The two of them are available after all. Sounds like something the Canucks would do.

 

[Positive Vibes]

For some reason I think the Canadiens maybe have tabled something.

wouldn't surprise me at all if they did wouldnt mind it if he did sign here ithier tbh

 

[rt]

In a pure defensive role on the 3rd line, I'd be happy with him at $1M

Right now, habs have almost no room under the salary cap space. If they could (but is it possible) get rid of DD, I might say yes to vermetyte, maybe... But habs have still some other guys to play on that third line centre, mostly youngsters who deserved to be tried: Danault, McCarron, De Larose.

I'd offer you a 3rd round pick for Torrey Mitchell. Maybe take that deal and then sign Vermette for 1yr, 1mil. ?

 

[Habsfan2731]

I'd offer you a 3rd round pick for Torrey Mitchell. Maybe take that deal and then sign Vermette for 1yr, 1mil. ?

As much as I like Mitchell, I'd do the deal.

Mitchell would be really good for Arizona IMO.

Galchenyuk
Plekanec
Vermette
Danault

Down the middle.

Mitchell for a Arizona's 3rd.

 

[Maurice of Orange]

Their is a write up on the hockey writers that says Vermette has 5 teams offering him a new contract, and that Vermette is going to decide by Monday which deal he's going to take. I assume Vermette's agent Alain Walsh is going to announce Vermette's new deal on Monday and which team he decides to play for this season.

I would put a link up but I don't know how to put a link up on here.
If someone that has read that article on the hockey writers could post a link, it would be much appreciated.

 

[hockeykicker]

Their is a write up on the hockey writers that says Vermette has 5 teams offering him a new contract, and that Vermette is going to decide by Monday which deal he's going to take. I assume Vermette's agent Alain Walsh is going to announce Vermette's new deal on Monday and which team he decides to play for this season.

I would put a link up but I don't know how to put a link up on here.
If someone that has read that article on the hockey writers could post a link, it would be much appreciated.

It's like 10 posts up