The Leino signing has been a disaster

[sabresfan129103]

If nothing else he is a contract to keep us above the cap floor for next season.

 

[SabresFan26]

We can loan him somewhere, but we're going to need contracts to stay above the floor

 

[Kyndig]

Hes making over a million dollars per goal. I'd call that a disaster. His best play this season was fumbling the puck off his stick to McCormick.

 

[wyldthing89]

That's something i said since day one but at that time i had a Connolly avatar and i get bulldoze all over saying he can't be worse than Timmy, guess what, he is 100 time worse !!!

He is lucky that the Flyers gave tons of money to Bryzgalov to avoid him the worse off seasons FA contract ever !!!

 

[Djp]

three options...

1. 2014...compliance buy out. Wipe off the salary cap
2. 2014...traditional buy out....$11M over 3 years $7.33M over 6 years $1.22M + recapture of $2.5M over 3 years ($0.833M each).
3. 2015....traditional buyout...$7M over 2 yrs....$4.66M over 4 years $1.16M + $2M recapture over 2 years ($1m each).

There's no recapture on Leino's contract. His contract is six years and recapture only happens with contracts seven years or longer

NO !!!! You have to account for the money paid out up front in a buy out.

You are confusing the rules. The rule you cite has to do with early retirement---not a buy out. If he retired then there wouldnt be the issue of recapture.

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

The purpose of that rule was to prevent cap circumvention. In the past if a team knew player X was only going to play 5 years they instead would sign him for 10 years which would lower the cap hit. then when he would retire there was no penalty to the team for its circumvention.

This rule assures that a long term contract of 7 years or longer if the player retires before the end the team still needs to get a cap hit for the front loaded contract. If its less than 7 then they can get away with an early retirement and not get the recapture...to a point....If the player is 35 and older there is another bag of clauses that kick in.

On Cap geek is the buy out calculator

http://www.capgeek.com/buyout-calculator/

Its also in the CBA above. 50.5 pg 268

If you buy out a play (NO MATTER THE NUMBER OF YEARS) the same rules apply.

How do you calculate the buy out....

1. actual salary for that year
2. cap hit for that year
3. buy out amount per year(*)
4. buy out cap savings = line 1- line 3
5. buy out cap penalty = line 2- line 4

(*) buy out amount is 2/3 the actual salary left on the contract (1/3 if 25 or younger) spread out over twice the years left on the contract


lets expand......

line 2 - line 4= line 2 - ( line 1 -line 3) = line 2 - line 1 + line 3


line 3= buy out amount
line 2 -line 1= cap hit - salary

this is recouping the front loaded salary paid on the contract over the remaining years of the contract.

In Leinos contract is a $4.5M cap hit where the salary was: 6, 6, 4, 4, 3.5, 3.5.

After this year the cap hit was 3* 4.5= 13.5 actual paid was $16M , thus a difference of 2.5M extra paid v2 the cap hit.

Thus line 2-line 1=cap hit- salary is

4.5-4= 0.5
4.5-3.5=1.0
4.5-3.5=1.0

0.5+1.0+1.0= 2.5....the exact same amount of up front salary they paid---i.e. the recapture

buy out over the last 3 years is $11M left in actual cash and 3 yrs left. Its $7.33M over 6 years or $1.22M per year

so in a buy out in 2014

14/15 0.5 + 1.22= 1.72
15/16 1.0 +1.22 = 2.22
16/17 1.0 +1.22 = 2.22
17/18 0 +1.22 = 1.22
18/19 0 +1.22 = 1.22
19/20 0 +1.22 = 1.22

If you buy him out in 2015

$7M over 2 years. $4.66M over 4 years or $1.16M each

15/16 1.0 +1.16 = 2.16
16/17 1.0 +1.16 = 2.16
17/18 0 +1.16 = 1.16
18/19 0 +1.16 = 1.16


With Gerbe's buy out...because his actual salary > cap hit in his buy out year produced a negative number against the cap geek because

cap hit- actual salary <0

Since the buy out for the year was effectively 1/6 of the contract amount for the year this amount was less that ths cap-salary difference...thus the Sabres actually got credit in the accounting....because the cap hit was negative

this will happen when the actual salary > 120% cap hit. for a player 25 or younger (1/3 of salary owed for buy out). If they are 26 or older (2/3 salary owed in buy out) then actual salary > 150% cap hit

 

[Le Messie]

Look at his stats, he had one ''good season''.
He was playing with the Flyers who had three amazing playmakers in Giroux, Brière and Richards.

It didn't matter which line he was on, he was surrounded by quality players.
Now he comes with the Sabres and he is asked to do the same thing ... I don't know what their thought process was but yeah ...

I don't understand why they don't let him play though.
It reminds me of the Gomez situation with Montreal. He was playing on the 4th line and they expected him to rack up points.
I'm even more surprised with the fact that your coach hasn't been fired already.

 

[jfb392]

NO !!!! You have to account for the money paid out up front in a buy out.

You are confusing the rules. The rule you cite has to do with early retirement---not a buy out. If he retired then there wouldnt be the issue of recapture.

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/PDF/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

The purpose of that rule was to prevent cap circumvention. In the past if a team knew player X was only going to play 5 years they instead would sign him for 10 years which would lower the cap hit. then when he would retire there was no penalty to the team for its circumvention.

This rule assures that a long term contract of 7 years or longer if the player retires before the end the team still needs to get a cap hit for the front loaded contract. If its less than 7 then they can get away with an early retirement and not get the recapture...to a point....If the player is 35 and older there is another bag of clauses that kick in.

On Cap geek is the buy out calculator

http://www.capgeek.com/buyout-calculator/

Its also in the CBA above. 50.5 pg 268

If you buy out a play (NO MATTER THE NUMBER OF YEARS) the same rules apply.

How do you calculate the buy out....

1. actual salary for that year
2. cap hit for that year
3. buy out amount per year(*)
4. buy out cap savings = line 1- line 3
5. buy out cap penalty = line 2- line 4

(*) buy out amount is 2/3 the actual salary left on the contract (1/3 if 25 or younger) spread out over twice the years left on the contract


lets expand......

line 2 - line 4= line 2 - ( line 1 -line 3) = line 2 - line 1 + line 3


line 3= buy out amount
line 2 -line 1= cap hit - salary

this is recouping the front loaded salary paid on the contract over the remaining years of the contract.

In Leinos contract is a $4.5M cap hit where the salary was: 6, 6, 4, 4, 3.5, 3.5.

After this year the cap hit was 3* 4.5= 13.5 actual paid was $16M , thus a difference of 2.5M extra paid v2 the cap hit.

Thus line 2-line 1=cap hit- salary is

4.5-4= 0.5
4.5-3.5=1.0
4.5-3.5=1.0

0.5+1.0+1.0= 2.5....the exact same amount of up front salary they paid---i.e. the recapture

buy out over the last 3 years is $11M left in actual cash and 3 yrs left. Its $7.33M over 6 years or $1.22M per year

so in a buy out in 2014

14/15 0.5 + 1.22= 1.72
15/16 1.0 +1.22 = 2.22
16/17 1.0 +1.22 = 2.22
17/18 0 +1.22 = 1.22
18/19 0 +1.22 = 1.22
19/20 0 +1.22 = 1.22

If you buy him out in 2015

$7M over 2 years. $4.66M over 4 years or $1.16M each

15/16 1.0 +1.16 = 2.16
16/17 1.0 +1.16 = 2.16
17/18 0 +1.16 = 1.16
18/19 0 +1.16 = 1.16


With Gerbe's buy out...because his actual salary > cap hit in his buy out year produced a negative number against the cap geek because

cap hit- actual salary <0

Since the buy out for the year was effectively 1/6 of the contract amount for the year this amount was less that ths cap-salary difference...thus the Sabres actually got credit in the accounting....because the cap hit was negative

this will happen when the actual salary > 120% cap hit. for a player 25 or younger (1/3 of salary owed for buy out). If they are 26 or older (2/3 salary owed in buy out) then actual salary > 150% cap hit

I have no idea what you're going on about and would recommend that you stay away from more complicated parts of the CBA, as I have seen you misinterpret it a few times now.

First of all, recapture applies to contracts in excess of six years, which Leino's is not.
Second, you are also misunderstanding the buyout rules, as you're likely confused by the language used in them.
The "savings" talked about in the buyout language does not have anything to do with the recapture rule.

Even though Leino is not considered a Long-Term Contract, I should mention that recapture does not apply to a buyout of Long-Term Contract and this is covered in the CBA in Section 50.5 (d-ii-B-1).
It states that if a player does not fulfill his Long-Term Contract due to retirement, defection from the NHL, or any situation in which he is not playing and not receiving salary from his contract (excluding death), the recapture rule shall apply.
When a player is bought out, they are technically still receiving salary from their previous deal, albeit at a reduced amount, so the recapture rule would not apply.

Double-counting would be a.) unnecessarily harsh because buying out a player is almost always worse in terms of cap space and always worse in terms of real dollars than taking a recapture penalty and b.) against the spirit of the recapture rule, as it was put in place so that teams couldn't get out of unfulfilled long-term deals with zero consequences.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Healthy scratch an early sign Sabres will move on from Ville Leino

Not long ago, there was a belief among Buffalo Sabres fans – actually, looking back, it was probably more of a wish – a healthy and refreshed Ville Leino would succeed this season.

The signing, of course, has been a disaster. He has 10 goals and 32 points in 86 games since inking the huge deal.

 

[JLewyB]

I have no idea what you're going on about and would recommend that you stay away from more complicated parts of the CBA, as I have seen you misinterpret it a few times now.

First of all, recapture applies to contracts in excess of six years, which Leino's is not.
Second, you are also misunderstanding the buyout rules, as you're likely confused by the language used in them.
The "savings" talked about in the buyout language does not have anything to do with the recapture rule.

Even though Leino is not considered a Long-Term Contract, I should mention that recapture does not apply to a buyout of Long-Term Contract and this is covered in the CBA in Section 50.5 (d-ii-B-1).
It states that if a player does not fulfill his Long-Term Contract due to retirement, defection from the NHL, or any situation in which he is not playing and not receiving salary from his contract (excluding death), the recapture rule shall apply.
When a player is bought out, they are technically still receiving salary from their previous deal, albeit at a reduced amount, so the recapture rule would not apply.

Double-counting would be a.) unnecessarily harsh because buying out a player is almost always worse in terms of cap space and always worse in terms of real dollars than taking a recapture penalty and b.) against the spirit of the recapture rule, as it was put in place so that teams couldn't get out of unfulfilled long-term deals with zero consequences.

This is all true but I'm pretty sure this is also what DJP was trying to say. basically what both are trying to say/show is that the traditional buyout is not an affective way to circumvent the recapture penalty because we typically take a higher/comparable cap hit on those contract if we use a traditional buyout during the years that a recapture would apply if the player retires.

 

[Wizeman*]

Canucks fan here to add in my .02.

Sabres are rebuilding and Leino's contract was front loaded. You guys got lots of cap space and do not look to spend to the cap anytime soon. The 6mil years are paid. Might as well keep him as a warm body for the lower parts of the contract. Better than buying him out.

 

[Selanne00008]

Canucks fan here to add in my .02.

Sabres are rebuilding and Leino's contract was front loaded. You guys got lots of cap space and do not look to spend to the cap anytime soon. The 6mil years are paid. Might as well keep him as a warm body for the lower parts of the contract. Better than buying him out.

I think the only concern is if we just might need the cap space in the last year or so of his deal. He'll most likely not be tradable. Unless its to a team like Florida trying to get to the cap floor? Less dollars paid to the player, but the cap hit helps out Florida management.

 

[Yatzhee]

An absolute trainwreck. This man has brought nothing but unfulfilled expectations and overhyped praise for the seven plays he has made in his 24GP.

There was still a small contingency of fans backing him as recently as the start of the year. Is there anyone backing him now? Or can we all harmoniously agree (alliteration aside) that the Lein_ experiment has been abominably, abysmally atrocious?

Not sure on what to think about this situation. Meh, he'll help us reach the cap floor, hehehehehe

 

[Djp]

I have no idea what you're going on about and would recommend that you stay away from more complicated parts of the CBA, as I have seen you misinterpret it a few times now.

First of all, recapture applies to contracts in excess of six years, which Leino's is not.
Second, you are also misunderstanding the buyout rules, as you're likely confused by the language used in them.
The "savings" talked about in the buyout language does not have anything to do with the recapture rule.

Even though Leino is not considered a Long-Term Contract, I should mention that recapture does not apply to a buyout of Long-Term Contract and this is covered in the CBA in Section 50.5 (d-ii-B-1).
It states that if a player does not fulfill his Long-Term Contract due to retirement, defection from the NHL, or any situation in which he is not playing and not receiving salary from his contract (excluding death), the recapture rule shall apply.
When a player is bought out, they are technically still receiving salary from their previous deal, albeit at a reduced amount, so the recapture rule would not apply.

Double-counting would be a.) unnecessarily harsh because buying out a player is almost always worse in terms of cap space and always worse in terms of real dollars than taking a recapture penalty and b.) against the spirit of the recapture rule, as it was put in place so that teams couldn't get out of unfulfilled long-term deals with zero consequences.

You are buying him out...not him retiring.

You arent double counting....you are recouping the time when paid salary> cap hit.

page 269 and 270 show some buy out examples. In the formula you are still accounting for the front loaded part of the contract.

go on to cap keep and calculate a Leino buy out and explain it to me exactly how they came up with the amounts.....

You are "recapturing" the amount you front loaded in the contract by calculating cap hit- actual salary owed in the buy out years and adding that into the annual buy out amount.

 

[jfb392]

This is all true but I'm pretty sure this is also what DJP was trying to say. basically what both are trying to say/show is that the traditional buyout is not an affective way to circumvent the recapture penalty because we typically take a higher/comparable cap hit on those contract if we use a traditional buyout during the years that a recapture would apply if the player retires.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the hell he's even saying.
Whether he's trying to say that there's a base charge for a buyout and claiming that the caphit of the buyout is calculated using some recapture amount, it's convoluted and incorrect.

You are buying him out...not him retiring.

You arent double counting....you are recouping the time when paid salary> cap hit.

page 269 and 270 show some buy out examples. In the formula you are still accounting for the front loaded part of the contract.

go on to cap keep and calculate a Leino buy out and explain it to me exactly how they came up with the amounts.....

You are "recapturing" the amount you front loaded in the contract by calculating cap hit- actual salary owed in the buy out years and adding that into the annual buy out amount.

That's not recapture, that's just how a buyout works.
Stop using the term in that context and causing confusion.

 

[French Connection]

Look at his stats, he had one ''good season''.
He was playing with the Flyers who had three amazing playmakers in Giroux, Brière and Richards.

It didn't matter which line he was on, he was surrounded by quality players.
Now he comes with the Sabres and he is asked to do the same thing ... I don't know what their thought process was but yeah ...

I don't understand why they don't let him play though.
It reminds me of the Gomez situation with Montreal. He was playing on the 4th line and they expected him to rack up points.
I'm even more surprised with the fact that your coach hasn't been fired already.

So am I, and this is the management group that posters have said made this signing mistake and are trusting this so called "rebuild" to! Wow

 

[Oan]

Just a thought: what if Leino is still/again injured this offseason, and you can't buy him out? Do you still have him playing next season?

 

[Heretic]

Just a thought: what if Leino is still/again injured this offseason, and you can't buy him out? Do you still have him playing next season?

I think you normal buy him out and take the cap hit for the remainder of the contract (3 years). That way we can still get to the floor and we got rid of a really terrible player being on the ice. I mean we also want the 1st overall pick next year so we're probably better off keeping him 1 more year but I don't see Nolan keeping him around unless Murray tells him they need him for the tank.

 

[Hagged]

He'll most likely not be tradable. Unless its to a team like Florida trying to get to the cap floor? Less dollars paid to the player, but the cap hit helps out Florida management.

You mean the Panthers right? I think the Panthers' new ownership just announced they will be spending to the cap in near future. I expect some hefty UFA overpayments from them in the following off seasons.

With the expiring contracts and cap going up they will have 20 million to throw at two scoring wingers and a PMD they are rumored to be looking for. That should get their abysmal powerplay on NHL level even if they are overpayments. Also should help the rookie Barkov to produce at a higher clip than 0.5PPG on that first line (still leading the team in points).

As good as Leino has been in the play-offs, I don't think he would be one of those scoring wingers they will be looking at.

 

[Selanne00008]

You mean the Panthers right? I think the Panthers' new ownership just announced they will be spending to the cap in near future. I expect some hefty UFA overpayments from them in the following off seasons.

With the expiring contracts and cap going up they will have 20 million to throw at two scoring wingers and a PMD they are rumored to be looking for. That should get their abysmal powerplay on NHL level even if they are overpayments. Also should help the rookie Barkov to produce at a higher clip than 0.5PPG on that first line (still leading the team in points).

As good as Leino has been in the play-offs, I don't think he would be one of those scoring wingers they will be looking at.

You're right, I heard that as well. Not sure if my original post was before or after that.

Eitherway we should buy him out. I guess the question is if he helps us get to the cap floor, does he hurt is before the contract is over if we are ready to make a splash with a UFA signing?

Also, I kinda wanna buy him out for spite. Like a, I'd rather pay you to NOT play for us. That's what we think of you kinda thing.

 

[jBuds]

I'm anxious to hear how and what Leino does or says to trash the organization on his way out, Kozlov style.

 

[toejam56]

I'm anxious to hear how and what Leino does or says to trash the organization on his way out, Kozlov style.

He has been given every opportunity in every situation and has accomplished diddly.
If he chooses to speak negatively of Buffalo, his words will be a gigantic waste of air...just as he has been a gigantic waste of skin.

 

[brian_griffin]

I have no strong opinion on the Leino situation for the 2014 offseason. There are arguments both for and against buying him out.

Remember the movie Platoon, and the closing scene at daybreak after the airstrike? The camera pans from survivor to survivor. One of them takes his own Ka-bar and stabs himself in the thigh in order to get a medical flight out of the war.

There are only 3 games remaining. With injured players returning, Leino may not have to dress tonight vs. NYR.

Any chance Leino does something like that?

 

[Shmuffalo]

I wrote this on ****** a while ago, and this may be a little far-fetched, but if you look at how the dominos fell, it is kind of true..

Not only did he ruin our playoffs, but his signing was the catylyst of placing the entire organization into a rebuild. Imagine if the Sabres signed Brad Richards instead Lein0. We probably would still have Ruff, Darcy, Vanek, Pominville, Miller, Roy, and Gaustad.

This is not to say that Richards would have given the Sabres the driving force to remain competitive, but we would at least have had a player that could produce respectable numbers, and remain a fringe playoff contender/2nd round contender.

His signing may have been a bad decision, but as bad as the Sabres are now, we are slotted with high draft picks and quality prospects to help the team rebuild. Without signing Leino, we would probably be entering the rebuild now, and be years behind with far fewer blue chip prospects.

So thanks Ville, for ****ing up the Sabres just enough so that we might be competitive again in 3 years.

TLDR: The 0 in Lein0 is for 0 goals. Sabres suck.

 

[Ralonzo]

I have no strong opinion on the Leino situation for the 2014 offseason. There are arguments both for and against buying him out.

The main argument for buying Leino out for me has been watching him play. He's so terrible. Continually fumbling the puck away, falling down, passing it nowhere, failing to catch passes, my God. I'd rather give John Scott that power play time, at least he has a role he can play in front of the net.

I don't care how hard up we are to hit the salary floor or how much we want to tank the season next year. You just cannot justify paying this kind of money to a guy who has no hope of playing any useful role on even the worst team in the NHL (Gotta wonder how his paycheck plays in that locker room too)

Throw Leino's money at any other FA if you have to, ala Florida. Just stop giving it to Leino.

 

[Paxon]

[...]
If they were to resign Moulson or Ott then buying out Leino is more realistic. But Im concerned about being below the cap floor and having to over pay for a marginal free agent.
[...]

Why is concern over potentially overpaying for a marginal free agent reason to keep overpaid, marginal Ville Leino? At least in that scenario Murray would be choosing a player he feels is a good fit for the rebuilding team. So long as they keep it 3 years or under it doesn't really matter.