Salary Cap: Waivers

[hotpaws]

If we bought out Liles we would have less cap space this year.....Komisarek had a $4.5M cap hit.....We need cap space so it was the right player to buy out. A savings of $625,000.

I agree if he can trade him, we are a lot better off. Liles and Holzer for a 3rd round pick.

If we amnestied JML and did a regular b/o on Komi we'd have an extra 2 plus mil which should be enough to sign Franson and Raymond without having to deal anyone .

 

[tooncesmeow]

Bettman and NHL essentially implemented "the Burke rule " in the new CBA, so teams were punished for poor GM decisions like Connolly and Komisarek on big UFA contracts and sent to the AHL.

It wasn't fair to budget teams for rich teams spending foolishly and then it only costing money in the past to cover up those mistakes so the loophole was closed.

To compensate the NHL also offered get-out-of-jail-cap-free compliance buyouts to help GMs remove a couple contract mistakes without cap hits.

Some teams had more bad contracts then compliance buyouts and that left teams like our Leafs penalized further with JM Liles contracts now eating precious cap space with only minor cap relief ($925k) to send them to the AHL.

More apt to call it the Sather rule if we're being honest.

 

[Ari91]

If we amnestied JML and did a regular b/o on Komi we'd have an extra 2 plus mil which should be enough to sign Franson and Raymond without having to deal anyone .

I'm pretty sure you have your calculations wrong.

With your proposition, you eliminate 3.85M caphit from JML's contract and a regular buyout on Komi would be a caphit of 2.17M this year and then 1.17M next year.

That's a savings of 1.68M this year.

You amnesty Komi, you eliminate 4.5M caphit and a regular buyout on JML would be a caphit of 875K this year and 875K next year. That's a savings of 3.625M this year. Obviously using the amnesty on Komi rather than a regular buyout is the smarter thing to do in terms of salvaging much needed cap space this year and likely next year as well.

Considering that this year and possibly next year will probably the most restrictive in terms of the cap, a regular buyout is far more costly. While the Leafs could have used a regular buyout on Liles, his buyout caphit get significantly larger after year 2. Even with the likelihood of the salary cap increasing 3 years from now, it's best to avoid any more buyout figures on their tally. It's better to sell him for scraps than to have to deal with 1-2M+ buyout caphits from 2015-2019.

 

[Rielly4]

Hockeys not as big in certain wealthy states in the U.S... Its harder for them to make money therfore the NHL has to be a very fair when it comes to giving every team and equal opportunity for success. When a team like Phoenix, Nashville or even Pistburgh pre Crosby post Lemeiux is at the bottom of the league, they dont sell many tickets and thats not good for the league. Thats why the management side of our game is so complicated and fair compared to the MLB or other leagues.

 

[Ari91]

So it's okay to bend your morals if you can blame someone else ?

I'm pretty sure the frogren mess was left over from granpa .

Just because you may label long term front loaded deals and burying contracts as cap circumvention doesn't mean that they are one in the same. You may think it's okay to smoke weed but it's wrong to steal despite the fact that both are considered illegal.

Burke had a personal preference of not signing contracts longer than 5 years but has never taken issue with teams who sign players for longer than that. Burke has expressed issue with long term, front loaded contracts because it brings into question whether both sides intend to fully honour the long term contract being made. A buried contract is a matter after the fact...as is a buyout. If his issue is solely the belief that it's in bad faith to offer contracts with the expectation that it won't be fully honoured, then buying out or burying contracts is not bending his morals.

 

[ACC1224]

Because it was a loophole to get out of bad contracts.

Didn't the Players push for this change? The "Redden" rule.
Prevents guys from having to ride the bus because they were overpaid.

 

[WWB]

Just because you may label long term front loaded deals and burying contracts as cap circumvention doesn't mean that they are one in the same. You may think it's okay to smoke weed but it's wrong to steal despite the fact that both are considered illegal.

Burke had a personal preference of not signing contracts longer than 5 years but has never taken issue with teams who sign players for longer than that. Burke has expressed issue with long term, front loaded contracts because it brings into question whether both sides intend to fully honour the long term contract being made. A buried contract is a matter after the fact...as is a buyout. If his issue is solely the belief that it's in bad faith to offer contracts with the expectation that it won't be fully honoured, then buying out or burying contracts is not bending his morals.

But it is OK to smoke weed and it is wrong to steal regardless of the law


My question is, if a team goes over the cap by the allowed 10% in the summer, can't use the LTIR or find a trading partner to take a contract/salary to get under the cap, what happens?? Essentially if a GM screws himself and there's no way out of their cap bind what are the options?? Will they not be allowed to play games??

 

[Mess]

More apt to call it the Sather rule if we're being honest.

With Connolly @$4.75 mil and Komisarek @$4.5 mil that's > $9 mil of cap space in the NHL for the Leafs.

With the new rules with only a $925k credit per player NO NHL team was hit harder than the Leafs by the penalty for burring contracts loophole being closed in the new CBA punishing teams and GM for for their indiscretions.

Sather used a compliance buyout to correct his contract problem with no cap hit similarly how Nonis used one of his to remove Grabovski to comply with salary cap limits.

 

[hotpaws]

Just because you may label long term front loaded deals and burying contracts as cap circumvention doesn't mean that they are one in the same. You may think it's okay to smoke weed but it's wrong to steal despite the fact that both are considered illegal.

Burke had a personal preference of not signing contracts longer than 5 years but has never taken issue with teams who sign players for longer than that. Burke has expressed issue with long term, front loaded contracts because it brings into question whether both sides intend to fully honour the long term contract being made. A buried contract is a matter after the fact...as is a buyout. If his issue is solely the belief that it's in bad faith to offer contracts with the expectation that it won't be fully honoured, then buying out or burying contracts is not bending his morals.

Nicely worded but it doesn't change the fact that both long term back sliding deals and burying contracts in the minors were cap circumvention loopholes in the previous CBA that have now been closed for the most part .

Burke originally had a problem with long term deals because he believed it took away the incentive of the player and then he amended that when he pursued Richards . After the failed attempt to land Richards he went on and on about the back sliding deals that started to become popular but had no problem burying players in the minors to create cap space . Now if you want to split hairs to try to justify Burkes stance that's fine but at the end of the day both accomplish the same thing .

My personal view is you use the tools/loopholes that are available to you to build the best possible team regardless of if it goes against the spirit of the CBA and I still don't understand how the league can go back and retroactively punish teams for contracts they approved .

 

[hotpaws]

I'm pretty sure you have your calculations wrong.

With your proposition, you eliminate 3.85M caphit from JML's contract and a regular buyout on Komi would be a caphit of 2.17M this year and then 1.17M next year.

That's a savings of 1.68M this year.

You amnesty Komi, you eliminate 4.5M caphit and a regular buyout on JML would be a caphit of 875K this year and 875K next year. That's a savings of 3.625M this year. Obviously using the amnesty on Komi rather than a regular buyout is the smarter thing to do in terms of salvaging much needed cap space this year and likely next year as well.

Considering that this year and possibly next year will probably the most restrictive in terms of the cap, a regular buyout is far more costly. While the Leafs could have used a regular buyout on Liles, his buyout caphit get significantly larger after year 2. Even with the likelihood of the salary cap increasing 3 years from now, it's best to avoid any more buyout figures on their tally. It's better to sell him for scraps than to have to deal with 1-2M+ buyout caphits from 2015-2019.

I may be and probably am off on my calculation . I simply divided his cap hit by 2/3rds and then split that over 2 years which I thought is the formula used for regular b/o .

Anyway , going by your figures we'd still have an extra 1.7 this year and 2.7 next which should be still enough to get Franson signed to a reasonable deal and then Komi would be off the books .

 

[indigobuffalo]

I find it laughable that the OP thinks Liles is "an under-performing player" that the Leafs are saddled with, with no hope of any relief.

Like, ermigerd!

Just because Carlyle didn't use Liles, doesn't mean Liles underperformed. He was just under-utilized. And his contract is not ridiculous or restrictive. This part of the off-season is just heavily restrictive for assessing any market value for a player like Liles (should there even be a need to unload him) because teams all have their training camps starting soon, and want to see how their own prospects fare before ponying up to trade for a player like Liles.

Once training camps get underway, and prospects don't quite measure up to expectations, and holes in rosters start showing up, Liles will look more and more attractive.

The Leafs don't even need to trade him, and frankly Liles/Ranger or Liles/Fraser at the 5/6 pairing makes for a balanced roster, anyways. Liles is a solid option at 2nd or 3rd pairing.

The only reason Liles would need to be traded is if Rielly shows himself to be too good to not have on the roster.

At that point, the Leafs would have to unload him, which is easily doable so long as Leafs temper their expectations of compensation. If the Leafs are unloading Liles because they are clearing room for Rielly, then I would expect no better than a 4th round pick in exchange.

However, if the Leafs just want to trade him to clear a bit of cap space to get a 23-man roster instead of a 22-man roster, then once the training camps start wrapping up, the Leafs will likely trade him for about a 3rd, maybe a 2nd, as Liles is still the same player he was 2 years ago, but on a better contract, so the value should not have dropped significantly, and the cap is going up next year anyways.

 

[indigobuffalo]

With Connolly @$4.75 mil and Komisarek @$4.5 mil that's > $9 mil of cap space in the NHL for the Leafs.

With the new rules with only a $925k credit per player NO NHL team was hit harder than the Leafs by the penalty for burring contracts loophole being closed in the new CBA punishing teams and GM for for their indiscretions.

Sather used a compliance buyout to correct his contract problem with no cap hit similarly how Nonis used one of his to remove Grabovski to comply with salary cap limits.

Sather also traded Scott Gomez for actual assets, one of which turned into a top 4 defenseman and possibly a top 2.

People act like Liles is somehow untradeable. There are worse contracts out there that will be traded and have been traded and Liles will get moved if/when he needs to be. He doesn't currently need to be.

 

[Mess]

I may be and probably am off on my calculation . I simply divided his cap hit by 2/3rds and then split that over 2 years which I thought is the formula used for regular b/o .

Anyway , going by your figures we'd still have an extra 1.7 this year and 2.7 next which should be still enough to get Franson signed to a reasonable deal and then Komi would be off the books .

Actually Komisarek saved us more Cap this year by the way Nonis handled this contract inherited hell.

Liles regular buyout in years 1 @ 2 would only have cost the Leafs $875k .. While Komisarek had a $4.5 mil cap his front load salary contract that paid him $5.5 mil and $6.0 mil early on would have had a $2.25 mil cap hit in year 1.

Also Komisarek was given a No Movement clause : it prevented a demotion to the AHL without his consent, whereas Liles can get the Connolly treatment this year and Leafs take a $2.95 cap hit penalty where a Komisarek regular buyout hit of $2.25 mil would be only $700k difference more cap now by your suggestion..

 

[satyr9]

I may be and probably am off on my calculation . I simply divided his cap hit by 2/3rds and then split that over 2 years which I thought is the formula used for regular b/o .

Anyway , going by your figures we'd still have an extra 1.7 this year and 2.7 next which should be still enough to get Franson signed to a reasonable deal and then Komi would be off the books .

There's a tiny bit more to it. CG has a buyout calculator: http://capgeek.com/buyout-calculator/

Basically the cap savings for buyouts has a separate provision for front-loaded deals that gets dumped onto the last year of the deal too, although I have no idea why that is.

So if we'd bought out Liles this offseason is would've cost 7.5m (the 2/3rd of owed salary) and been spread out over 6 years (double the length of his contract), but you have to subtract the cap savings from the cap hit of the years prior to the final year of the contract too.

875k (1.25 - 375k)
875k (1.25 - 375k)
2.375m (1.25m + (375k *3)
1.25m
1.25m
1.25m

If you were to do it after this offseason:

791667 (1.166667 - 375)
2.291667 (1.16667 + 1.125)
1.166667
1.166667

 

[phg]

I find it laughable that the OP thinks Liles is "an under-performing player" that the Leafs are saddled with, with no hope of any relief.

Like, ermigerd!

Just because Carlyle didn't use Liles, doesn't mean Liles underperformed. He was just under-utilized. And his contract is not ridiculous or restrictive. This part of the off-season is just heavily restrictive for assessing any market value for a player like Liles (should there even be a need to unload him) because teams all have their training camps starting soon, and want to see how their own prospects fare before ponying up to trade for a player like Liles.

Once training camps get underway, and prospects don't quite measure up to expectations, and holes in rosters start showing up, Liles will look more and more attractive.

The Leafs don't even need to trade him, and frankly Liles/Ranger or Liles/Fraser at the 5/6 pairing makes for a balanced roster, anyways. Liles is a solid option at 2nd or 3rd pairing.

The only reason Liles would need to be traded is if Rielly shows himself to be too good to not have on the roster.

At that point, the Leafs would have to unload him, which is easily doable so long as Leafs temper their expectations of compensation. If the Leafs are unloading Liles because they are clearing room for Rielly, then I would expect no better than a 4th round pick in exchange.

However, if the Leafs just want to trade him to clear a bit of cap space to get a 23-man roster instead of a 22-man roster, then once the training camps start wrapping up, the Leafs will likely trade him for about a 3rd, maybe a 2nd, as Liles is still the same player he was 2 years ago, but on a better contract, so the value should not have dropped significantly, and the cap is going up next year anyways.

I have to say I didnt see much from Liles under Wilson either!

 

[topched]

My favourite thing about all of this is that none of the contract rules, like this one, or the 7 year limit etc was proposed by the NHLPA.

It's NHL owners protecting themselves for themselves. Give your GM the check book and say "do what you want" and then go over their head during the CBA process saying "don't let my gm be able to do a,b,c and d"