Speculation: inquiry on hypothetical, termination due to injury compared to a regular buyout

[bernmeister]

I don't know, which is why I am here asking @mouser and any other experts to provide an answer + substantiate

Take the Rangers' Kreider.
Ongoing back issues.
It is not clear if/when that fully clears up
2 more seasons after this.
IF we KNEW when he would def be healed, that would be different. But again, we don't

Say Rs + Kreider agree
he will RETIRE, be paid off in full.
Will accept a gig as a specialty coach for Rempe, etc, for PP front of the net work.
On the team in that capacity, but fully INeligible to play as a player.

Now here are the ?s
1. If he is completely paid out in full immediately, can there be no cap hit? {Contract no longer exists if compensation obligations are discharged, no? And with no contract, then logically, ergo, not cap hit going forward.}

2. It is clear the separation from the roster was provoked directly by player injury.
Let's say roughly a year hence, say Jan. 2026, he is medically cleared and deemed fit to play.
He then wants and Rs wish to sign him yr to yr at reduced salary.

Now, all of this is different from a standard buyout, where cap hit is involved [presumably b'c the player (is fit enough and) can play somewhere], and a player can, I don't remember if waivers might be involved, but in any event, can play elsewhere. That is not the case with the Kreider hypothetical here, unless and until he is fully healthy. But that is not likely to be for an extended period.

Given it is legit different from standard buyout,
-- can Rs avoid cap by paying out in full immediately
-- can Kreider return to Rs once healthy if after an extended interval
-- if yes, is there a statutory min period? Or is it league discretion?


Thanks in advance all answers, comments
bern

 

[Mrfenn92]

LTIR until his contract expires

 

[qcal1427]

The short answer is no.

For Kreider to "not count against the cap" there would only be four mechanisms the Rangers/Kreider could use:

1) LTIR. Note here that he still technically does count against the cap, but the Rangers would be allowed to spend over the cap to a number equivalent to his cap hit minus the available cap they have. Kreider would have to have a legit medical reason to not be able to play. Guys like Backstrom, Oshie, Weber that have been LTIRetired before all have had legit awful injury issues that have been cleared by the league. This is the only option where Kreider gets all of his money and the Rangers get the maximum salary relief.

2) Buy out Kreider's contract. Kreider would not get all of his money and the Rangers would not get full cap relief, but this is the "meet in the middle" solution. You can look at Puckpedia's buyout calculator to see what that would look like. This can only be done in a very specific window in the summer.

3) Kreider retires. He would forfeit the rest of his contract in this scenario and the Rangers would get full cap relief (because his deal is not an over-35 contract). The NHL would carefully scrutinize any potential future job Kreider would take with the Rangers if this happened to make sure it wasn't a handshake deal to give him his money without playing. If he retired then immediately signed a $6.5M a year contract with the Rangers to become a development coach, the league would freak out and almost certainly block it and sanction the Rangers for cap circumvention.

4) Kreider's contract is terminated. This could be done unilaterally by the Rangers if Kreider breaches the contract (refuses to report for training camp, for example) or by mutual consent. You often see the mutual consent mechanism when AHLers want to leave for Europe. Once again the Rangers would get full relief, but Kreider would not get any money.

The only other contract "termination" I can remember that had a different outcome was Lehner with Vegas. I think it was pretty clear that it was an example of a unilateral contract termination (#4) where Lehner was in breach of contract but Vegas/the League/the PA agreed for him to still be paid basically to throw him a bone with his legal issues. I highly doubt the Rangers would be able to do this with Kreider.


TLDR: the cap mechanisms that exist for a contract to be "terminated" are extremely limited and very carefully scrutinized by the NHL and the kinds of creative solutions you are proposing here would without a doubt be quickly shot down by the league.

 

[bernmeister]

My thanks and appreciation to all who replied/will reply.
Am interested in any further comment

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Bern going to great lengths to keep his boy from being traded in the offseason.

 

[Djp]

I don't know, which is why I am here asking @mouser and any other experts to provide an answer + substantiate

Take the Rangers' Kreider.
Ongoing back issues.
It is not clear if/when that fully clears up
2 more seasons after this.
IF we KNEW when he would def be healed, that would be different. But again, we don't

Say Rs + Kreider agree
he will RETIRE, be paid off in full.
Will accept a gig as a specialty coach for Rempe, etc, for PP front of the net work.
On the team in that capacity, but fully INeligible to play as a player.

Now here are the ?s
1. If he is completely paid out in full immediately, can there be no cap hit? {Contract no longer exists if compensation obligations are discharged, no? And with no contract, then logically, ergo, not cap hit going forward.}

No...he goes on LTIR and must be legit.

2. It is clear the separation from the roster was provoked directly by player injury.
Let's say roughly a year hence, say Jan. 2026, he is medically cleared and deemed fit to play.
He then wants and Rs wish to sign him yr to yr at reduced salary.

You could agree to a contract termination. I font see why Kreider would do that. If you fo a contract termination

I think he cant br on rangers roster for one full calendar year.

Now, all of this is different from a standard buyout, where cap hit is involved [presumably b'c the player (is fit enough and) can play somewhere], and a player can, I don't remember if waivers might be involved, but in any event, can play elsewhere. That is not the case with the Kreider hypothetical here, unless and until he is fully healthy. But that is not likely to be for an extended period.

Given it is legit different from standard buyout,
-- can Rs avoid cap by paying out in full immediately
-- can Kreider return to Rs once healthy if after an extended interval
-- if yes, is there a statutory min period? Or is it league discretion?


Thanks in advance all answers, comments
bern

You can buy jim out bit therr us no way yo get it off the books. Same 1 yr period if you buy him out.

I dont have an issue if you had a legit LTIR/ career ender injury that the contracts go against a 33rd team that has all there LTIR that count against player share of salary

 

[eco's bones]

I don't think it's clear how injured or not Kreider is. He's played 57 regular season games. He was available for and played two games in the 4 nations tournament. If he were injured then he could have declined playing and rested and recuperated. His production is way down but it's not like there isn't any. it's been a bad year and there was a reported back issue but that was 3 months or so ago. His production could also be other things......the vibe around the team this year has been shit and that can affect players too. I'm not convinced he won't get his game back together (maybe for another team as there are rumors that he'll be moving on in the off season) but the drop-off might just be decline more than anything else. He's been a favorite player of mine for a long while but shit happens---it's different to an individual but player's do decline with age or even sometimes a player will move to another team and get another wind.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

I don't know, which is why I am here asking @mouser and any other experts to provide an answer + substantiate

Take the Rangers' Kreider.
Ongoing back issues.
It is not clear if/when that fully clears up
2 more seasons after this.
IF we KNEW when he would def be healed, that would be different. But again, we don't

Say Rs + Kreider agree
he will RETIRE, be paid off in full.
Will accept a gig as a specialty coach for Rempe, etc, for PP front of the net work.
On the team in that capacity, but fully INeligible to play as a player.

Now here are the ?s
1. If he is completely paid out in full immediately, can there be no cap hit? {Contract no longer exists if compensation obligations are discharged, no? And with no contract, then logically, ergo, not cap hit going forward.}

2. It is clear the separation from the roster was provoked directly by player injury.
Let's say roughly a year hence, say Jan. 2026, he is medically cleared and deemed fit to play.
He then wants and Rs wish to sign him yr to yr at reduced salary.

Now, all of this is different from a standard buyout, where cap hit is involved [presumably b'c the player (is fit enough and) can play somewhere], and a player can, I don't remember if waivers might be involved, but in any event, can play elsewhere. That is not the case with the Kreider hypothetical here, unless and until he is fully healthy. But that is not likely to be for an extended period.

Given it is legit different from standard buyout,
-- can Rs avoid cap by paying out in full immediately
-- can Kreider return to Rs once healthy if after an extended interval
-- if yes, is there a statutory min period? Or is it league discretion?


Thanks in advance all answers, comments
bern

No. You cant pay him money and have it not count against the cap. Mutual termination generally means the player forfeits his contract.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think a player can be terminated if he is injured doing something illegal or violates his contract

 

[Drake1588]

Options for the Rangers to break up with Kreider include:

1) A trade, although his contract has two more years at a good number and his production is down. He has no-trade protection, submitting a 15-team list to the Rangers. So he can block a trade to ~half the league's teams. The Rangers would need to find a trade partner, and then need to either select one of the teams not on his list, or get him to waive if it is on his list.

2) A buyout, which the Rangers can do unilaterally this summer. They'll pay him 2/3 of his salary (but spread out over twice the length of his contract, 1/3 per year). He is due to make $5M and then $4M (+ a $1M SB). The cap hit to the Rangers would be a front-loaded $3M, $4M, $1.5M, and $1.5M for the next four seasons through July 2029. This is the only completely unilateral option at the Rangers' disposal.

3) Contract termination, which sees the player get nothing and the team receive no cap penalty. There are two types of termination, one initiated by the team (a) and one by mutual consent (b).

a) A player must be in egregious breach of his contract for the team to have the option to terminate a contract unilaterally. Trying to fudge this one, when you want to just dump a player and his cap hit, doesn't work. He has to really screw up. Kreider isn't a likely candidate for this. Yet if he's injured doing prohibited activities, or seriously harms the reputation of the league by illegal acts, etc. then yes, there may be grounds to go down the unilateral termination route.

b) The other kind of termination is by mutual consent, which requires the team and player to agree to scrap the contract. It's rare for North American veterans, but more common for youngish veteran Europeans who were undrafted, yet succeeded in a European league, and decide to come over mid-career to try their hand at the NHL. They usually are on one-year deals. When it goes tits up, and it usually does, contract termination is a clean way to let him go back to Europe instead of getting sent down to the AHL. The NHL doesn't dispute those scenarios - but they have to be mutual.

If a player and team agree to termination by mutual consent, it is very unlikely that the league would tolerate that player then receiving a sweetheart, lucrative job with the team, or payments on the side, etc. Basically, all creative ways to then make restitution to the player after a contract termination are not permitted and would result in the league cracking down on the Rangers. Hard.

4) Retirement, which sees the player get nothing and the team suffer no cap penalty (unless the player is on a contract signed when he was over 35 years old). Kreider would be giving up $10M if he did this. Moreover, he would be basically barred from taking a job with the Rangers that paid him anything afterwards. If they tried it, the league would punish the Rangers severely (fines and draft pick penalties). The team cannot unilaterally bring about this outcome. It requires the player to sign his retirement papers.

To be clear, the league can't actually stop Dolan from giving money to a former player, or anyone else for that matter. Yet if he did, the Rangers would suffer heavy penalties imposed by the league, probably including some combination of more money in fines, a cap hit penalty for a certain number of years, and/or the loss of draft picks.

5) LTIRetirement, which is when a player has a chronic injury that ends his career. The player keeps getting the rest of his contract, mostly paid by insurance, but the team gains all the benefits of regular LTIR (i.e., they can go over the salary cap by an amount equivalent to the amount of the contract's AAV, but don't get to accumulate or 'bank' cap space the same way when operating under the cap). This is an ideal situation for most all parties, but there really does need to be a strong medical reason for this option. The league scrutinizes the case closely and reads all medical reports, and probably has its own medical professionals weigh in on the severity of the injury. This is a scenario that requires the team and the player to be in agreement and cooperate throughout the process to plead their case to the league that this is legitimate. A team can't initiate this unilaterally.

The player remains a member of the team for the entire length of the rest of his contract. In some cases, he hangs around the team and its facilities for the remaining years of his deal. Backstrom does this a good deal. The player's contract remains in force, and he's getting paid, but he doesn't play, and the team has the ability to go over the cap by the same amount. So far, no one has gone on LTIR for the purposes of career-ending retirement and then found his injury improved sufficiently that he wanted to try playing again. The league doesn't really have a policy on that yet.

 

[Djp]

I think a player can be terminated if he is injured doing something illegal or violates his contract

Yes a conttact can be terminated if he did something that violates the contract terms such as playing certain sports/activitirs in the offseason

Thrn you have contract termination when both sides agree to it. But when doing that therr are rules on resigning him.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Yes a conttact can be terminated if he did something that violates the contract terms such as playing certain sports/activitirs in the offseason

Thrn you have contract termination when both sides agree to it. But when doing that therr are rules on resigning him.

I do not think they can for one calendar year. Say they cancel a player on a 10 mil contract and then resign him for 1. That would be circumvention

 

[TGWL]

We told you that's not how it works on our own board. Did you think we were just lying to you?

 

[Mr Nogatco]

Yes a conttact can be terminated if he did something that violates the contract terms such as playing certain sports/activitirs in the offseason

Not exactly. If his contract prohibits him from hang gliding and he gets caught hang gliding over the summer, that’s not enough to terminate his contract on its own.

It must be a “material breach,” that is to say the breach must in some way prevent the Rangers from enjoying the full “benefit of the bargain” that was contracted for — Kreider’s services.

If he breaks his ankle hang gliding, or if he’s imprisoned after he hang glides thru a window and into a session of British Parliament — those are both situations where the contract has been materially breached and may be terminated by the team.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Not exactly. If his contract prohibits him from hang gliding and he gets caught hang gliding over the summer, that’s not enough to terminate his contract on its own.

It must be a “material breach,” that is to say the breach must in some way prevent the Rangers from enjoying the full “benefit of the bargain” that was contracted for — Kreider’s services.

If he breaks his ankle hang gliding, or if he’s imprisoned after he hang glides thru a window and into a session of British Parliament — those are both situations where the contract has been materially breached and may be terminated by the team.

Yes it IS

Did you forget about the dog sledding incident.

ANY ACTIVITY NAMED AND BANNED IN THE CONTRACT THE TEAM CAN NUKE THE CONTRACT FOR VIOLATION.

 

[Mr Nogatco]

Yes it IS

Did you forget about the dog sledding incident.

ANY ACTIVITY NAMED AND BANNED IN THE CONTRACT THE TEAM CAN NUKE THE CONTRACT FOR VIOLATION.

That's simply not true.

The dog sledding was a problem because he was supposed to be recovering from a herniated disk at the time, and the Red Wings contended that the dog sledding exacerbated the injury which kept him from playing the following season

ESPN.com - NHL - Krupp's dog-sled racing is at issue

 

[Jumptheshark]

That's simply not true.

The dog sledding was a problem because he was supposed to be recovering from a herniated disk at the time, and the Red Wings contended that the dog sledding exacerbated the injury which kept him from playing the following season

ESPN.com - NHL - Krupp's dog-sled racing is at issue

It was in his contract not to do it

 

[Mr Nogatco]

It was in his contract not to do it

I understand, I’m saying it was only an issue because it (allegedly) interfered with his recovery from an injury which prevented him from playing.

If he had gone dog sledding and remained in perfect health and the dog sledding didn’t affect his performance with his team whatsoever, they would not have been able to terminate the contract. Fine him, yes, but they wouldn’t be permitted to terminate the contract over a breach that had no effect on the player’s services rendered to the team.

 

[Super Hans]

Y'all got any of them equipment allergies?

 

[mouser]

I don't know, which is why I am here asking @mouser and any other experts to provide an answer + substantiate

Take the Rangers' Kreider.
Ongoing back issues.
It is not clear if/when that fully clears up
2 more seasons after this.
IF we KNEW when he would def be healed, that would be different. But again, we don't

Say Rs + Kreider agree
he will RETIRE, be paid off in full.
Will accept a gig as a specialty coach for Rempe, etc, for PP front of the net work.
On the team in that capacity, but fully INeligible to play as a player.

Now here are the ?s
1. If he is completely paid out in full immediately, can there be no cap hit? {Contract no longer exists if compensation obligations are discharged, no? And with no contract, then logically, ergo, not cap hit going forward.}

2. It is clear the separation from the roster was provoked directly by player injury.
Let's say roughly a year hence, say Jan. 2026, he is medically cleared and deemed fit to play.
He then wants and Rs wish to sign him yr to yr at reduced salary.

Now, all of this is different from a standard buyout, where cap hit is involved [presumably b'c the player (is fit enough and) can play somewhere], and a player can, I don't remember if waivers might be involved, but in any event, can play elsewhere. That is not the case with the Kreider hypothetical here, unless and until he is fully healthy. But that is not likely to be for an extended period.

Given it is legit different from standard buyout,
-- can Rs avoid cap by paying out in full immediately
-- can Kreider return to Rs once healthy if after an extended interval
-- if yes, is there a statutory min period? Or is it league discretion?


Thanks in advance all answers, comments
bern

Some points:

- Teams cannot negotiate compensation with a player for contract termination or retirement. Must be either a buyout, termination (unilateral or mutual), or retirement. In short, this boils down to teams cannot renegotiate a SPC (Standard Player Contract), combined with the Cap Circumvention rules that teams cannot provide incentive to a player outside of a contract for cap benefit.

- Teams can hire a retiring player with an active contract to a new job. But the job compensation must be comparable to other employees around the league with similar job titles. E.g. we saw this happen with Luongo. Teams cannot “overpay” a player with a new team job as an inducement to retire. With Luongo the NHL reviewed his hiring by Florida after retiring and determined his new team job compensation was not excessive enough to trigger a cap circumvention issue.

 

[bernmeister]

Some points:

- Teams cannot negotiate compensation with a player for contract termination or retirement. Must be either a buyout, termination (unilateral or mutual), or retirement. In short, this boils down to teams cannot renegotiate a SPC (Standard Player Contract), combined with the Cap Circumvention rules that teams cannot provide incentive to a player outside of a contract for cap benefit.

- Teams can hire a retiring player with an active contract to a new job. But the job compensation must be comparable to other employees around the league with similar job titles. E.g. we saw this happen with Luongo. Teams cannot “overpay” a player with a new team job as an inducement to retire. With Luongo the NHL reviewed his hiring by Florida after retiring and determined his new team job compensation was not excessive enough to trigger a cap circumvention issue.

thanks for this and to all esp those w/constructive input

gonna have to deal w/real world stuff for like a wk

till then...