Speculation: Roster Building Thread XXXIX

[Leetch3]

This situation has occurred in the NFL before and most of the time the players were forced to repay their signing bonuses. One example is Calvin Johnson so it is not only low profile guys that this has happened to. The Colts chose not to try and get Andrew Luck's signing bonus back but going on past history if they wanted to do so they likely would have succeeded.

if hank played in the nfl that would be relevant

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I can't imagine the league freezes the cap to it's current number as Lebrun suggests

However, if it does happen, Gorton's gotta be sweating about that Kreider contract

 

[SA16]

if hank played in the nfl that would be relevant

Did Vadim Shipachyov play in the NHL? Because he repaid his signing bonus after he quit after 3 games.

Signing bonuses are not free money that you get no matter what. They’re contingent on you actually trying to perform your job if healthy.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I can't imagine the league freezes the cap to it's current number as Lebrun suggests

However, if it does happen, Gorton's gotta be sweating about that Kreider contract

Compliance buyout Krieder.

 

[UnSandvich]

If CBO's are offered to teams, San Jose will probably use theirs on Jones, and therefore would theoretically be in the market for a goalie. Wonder what we could get from them for Hank @ 50% or Georgiev?

 

[LokiDog]

Did Vadim Shipachyov play in the NHL? Because he repaid his signing bonus after he quit after 3 games.

Signing bonuses are not free money that you get no matter what. They’re contingent on you actually trying to perform your job if healthy.

You’re obviously factually right, but I think if the Rangers knew Hank would retire after the bonus paid out rather than having to buy him out they’d just turn a blind eye to that 1M.

 

[SA16]

You’re obviously factually right, but I think if the Rangers knew Hank would retire after the bonus paid out rather than having to buy him out they’d just turn a blind eye to that 1M.

I don’t think the Rangers would go after the money but they certainly can if they want to and they likely would win the case.

 

[Thirty One]

You’re obviously factually right, but I think if the Rangers knew Hank would retire after the bonus paid out rather than having to buy him out they’d just turn a blind eye to that 1M.

I don't think the Rangers would have issue with it, I think the league would raise the cap circumvention issue.

 

[Thirty One]

And honestly, if the Devils were to pay a player some 2020-21 money and not carry any money on the cap for that player, I would have an issue with that.

 

[leetch99]

F*** the Devils....LMAO....

 

[Thirty One]

F*** the Devils....LMAO....

I actually did mean to type Islanders! Yeah, the Devils can cheat the cap all they want next year.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Compliance buyout Staal.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

I think Lundqvist is so competitive, he continues playing after his contract expires here (assuming he’s not bought out).

We saw early in the year he can still play. He’s just not a guy who can carry a crappy team on his back for 60 games a year like he used too.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Compliance buyout Staal.

If it's a normal buy out: Staal
If it's a compliance buy out: Lundqvist

 

[Thirty One]

Compliance buy-outs seem v. unlikely to me.

 

[SA16]

If there are issues with the revenue and they want to hold the cap flat I don’t understand why there would be compliance buyouts. That would increase total league spending and increase escrow which seems like exactly what they don’t want to do. If the cap were to go way down it would be one thing in order to let teams get compliant but it’s hard for me to see how a team could be compliant at 81.5 this year yet it be completely impossible next year.

 

[egelband]

You’re obviously factually right, but I think if the Rangers knew Hank would retire after the bonus paid out rather than having to buy him out they’d just turn a blind eye to that 1M.

Exactly. The assumption is the Rangers are giving him a million to come if the books a year early. Certainly a great deal for the Rangers. And frankly, a pretty bad deal for Henrik. But certainly no way the Rangers are fighting him for that million if that scenario actually comes to pass.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I can't imagine the league freezes the cap to it's current number as Lebrun suggests

However, if it does happen, Gorton's gotta be sweating about that Kreider contract

Should have been sweating it from the second the signed copy came through...

 

[FIRE DRURY]

Should have been sweating it from the second the signed copy came through...

Yuuuuuup.

But, as much as I didn’t want us to re-sign Kreider, he was re-upped at a great price.. And Gorton does have some cap clearing options at his disposal if it ultimately comes to that.

 

[Ola]

I don’t think there is any other way (could of course be a smaller variance, but around 81.5 +\- say 500k).

The CBA means that no matter if the cap is 20m or 200m next season — the players will get the exact same amount of money next season anyway.

They get 50% of HRR. If the combined sum of salary of all players exceed 50% of HRR, they have to pay the difference back (it’s when there are signs of this happening that money is put in escrow, to ensure that all players can pay it back). If the combined sum of salary of all players is less than 50% of HRR, the opposite happens. I.e the owners will have to pay retroactive salary to all players exceeding their contract. A player with an 850k contract could end up making 880k or whatever.

Hence — besides from a competitive on ice perspective (a good team on the ice=profitable, and some will benefit on ice from a high cap and some from a low cap) — the cap is solely and issue for the players side. A mechanism to take their 50% and dived it among the players. And it shows in the CBA, like who controls the 5% inflator? The PA. Not an issue for the owners if the cap is 80m or 84m.

From the players POV, what is best for the players? What is most fair? If you reduce the cap you screw the free agents. They are what 1/3 of the PA. They take the entire hit and the rest benefit. Would surprise me.

One player can only make more if someone else makes less, the pot is the same no matter what the cap is.

 

[Ola]

But Ola, if the cap mainly is a question for the players, why would the owners -- ever -- think compliance buy-outs is a good idea?

First of all, the owners has never thought that compliance buy-outs is a good thing. In two occasions -- in connection with new CBA's -- the PA has through negotiations requested, and the owners folded to that request regarding, compliance buy-outs (i.e. the removal of contracts outside the cap mechanism). In 05', the result without compliance buy-outs would have been bigger escrow. Someone with a 4m contract might get 2m. They hated that, 4m was guaranteed before the cap was put in. It was a big concession by the owners to offer compliance buy-outs, and IIRC that was something that was put in place in the summer of 04' which saved the 04/05 season (@RangerBoy can probably correct me if I am wrong).

It was the same in 12'-13'. But this time the owners put up a much weaker fight. Why was that? The cap had gone up rapidly after 05' and about the time that slowed down -- many teams signed really bad contracts long-term. I don't think anyone wanted to lose another season in so short time. Many owners saw a positive side-effect to a compliance buy-out. They agreed to it.

Second of all, since the owners never before have offered a compliance buy-out in the midst of a running CBA -- can we 100% rule out that they will do it this time? Well, I think it is really unlikely. However, a few things can happen. They can negotiate an extension of the CBA and offer CBOs as a part of that extension. Right. In addition, some owners will probably from the competitive=profitable perspective see a gain in a CBO. There are many bad contracts out there. But -- I recon 16 owners must support a CBO -- and is it possible to get that support?? Your guess is as good as mine of course, but it just seem implossible.

 

[Vitto79]

Compliance buy-outs seem v. unlikely to me.

If the cap stays the same then very few teams can give raises ... they almost have to allow 1-2 buyouts ... That would only affect 30-60 guys and those players could still sign elsewhere and make up some of the money lost

 

[Ola]

So we have a lot of time on our hands. Lets say that the PA and owners agree to an extension and that a CBO is a part of that extension, meaning that we actually get it -- who would we buy-out? Hank? Staal? I think its just as likely that we would agree to a trade and CBO.

Look, there is an extreme shortage of equity out there. Anyone can get loans, but a loan don't help your balance sheet. Everyone are scared a ton for what will happen to the balance sheet 2-3 years ahead. Even if you have a surplus of equity -- you don't want to spend it freely because the business opportunities for those that do are tremendous. It is in these situations, i.e. were someone has a surplus of resources while everyone else is pressed up against the wall, that real empires are built. Many owners will be penny pinching.

I easily think that you could get a 1st -- with perfectly decent upside, i.e. not like Boston or Washington's 1st, but from a team that actually could miss the POs -- for a trade and CBO. One year of Hank/Staal is nothing compared to 4 or 5 or 6 years of someone making 6-7m. Okposo, Gudbranson, Ladd, Lucic, Gardiner, Wennberg, Quick, Parise, Suter, Turris, Jones, Eriksson, Neal, Seabrook. I am sure I am missing many. How many owners are willing to ant up 10-20m to buy out those contracts? The GM's will come knocking on their door for sure, but how many will get a no?

From my perspective, it just seem like what we could get in a trade for taking on one of these guys probably would be a lot more than what we stand to gain in removing one year of Hank/Staal. Heck, we could even trade Hank (what 2.66m in real money buy-out) for someone like Neal (like 11.5m buy-out) and get a good return of picks.

 

[Vitto79]

I think Lundqvist is so competitive, he continues playing after his contract expires here (assuming he’s not bought out).

We saw early in the year he can still play. He’s just not a guy who can carry a crappy team on his back for 60 games a year like he used too.

He can for sure still play I just think he’s goinf to Sweden ... will only be a Ranger in the NHL

 

[Savant]

If CBO's are offered to teams, San Jose will probably use theirs on Jones, and therefore would theoretically be in the market for a goalie. Wonder what we could get from them for Hank @ 50% or Georgiev?

If CBO is on the table, Rangers are just going to use it on Hank