- DrChristianTroy

Not bad for a back up

- DrChristianTroy

There are a few Benjamins in there, but a lot of 1's. I wonder if lunongo would fall for a suitcase full of money, first layer is hundreds - all 1's after that!!

Not sure why you even take that chance when you can buy him out and write off the $1.5 million expense annually for the next 18 years.
- DrChristianTroy

I think things are still pretty sketchy as far as this goes as I don't think the CBA is even completed yet. But, if there was no penalty for a team that waived a player (and was claimed as opposed to sent to minors) then waiving Lu and saving $30 something million would be preferable.

I think things are still pretty sketchy as far as this goes as I don't think the CBA is even completed yet. But, if there was no penalty for a team that waived a player (and was claimed as opposed to sent to minors) then waiving Lu and saving $30 something million would be preferable.
- 1970vintage

You can't waive a player with a no movement clause.

You can't waive a player with a no movement clause.
- Scooby_Doo

Doesn't Lu have a NTC?

I think this has been asked and answered in every thread since the season ended.

We don't want to get rid of him, he's just the best player to move because:

1. He'd bring the biggest return.
2. He doesn't have a NTC.
3. We have the defensive depth to trade him for help up front.
- DrChristianTroy

good answers and I was curious, haven't followed most of Ian's blogs so I haven't seen these answers, only that so many value him so highly but seem to want him traded.

1. agreed, along with kesler he's one of your best trade chips
2. depends if Gillis can move him quickly enough, his no trade kicks in sometime in July doesn't it?

3. agreed again, although if Ballard is a buyout then you're going to need to fill a couple of spots, or rely on corrado and tanev to step it up. I will say I really like Tanev's game. He's not flashy but you need guys like him to play solid defense.

If Ballard is bought out and Edler moved for younger, cheaper forwards, then:

Hamhuis Bieksa
Garrison Tanev?
Corrado? Alberts? (think he's a ufa?)

that's a tough one, immediately the D looks a lot less solid depending what is available for low dollars as a UFA. Still better than a lot of teams currently though.

good answers and I was curious, haven't followed most of Ian's blogs so I haven't seen these answers, only that so many value him so highly but seem to want him traded.

1. agreed, along with kesler he's one of your best trade chips
2. depends if Gillis can move him quickly enough, his no trade kicks in sometime in July doesn't it?

3. agreed again, although if Ballard is a buyout then you're going to need to fill a couple of spots, or rely on corrado and tanev to step it up. I will say I really like Tanev's game. He's not flashy but you need guys like him to play solid defense.

If Ballard is bought out and Edler moved for younger, cheaper forwards, then:

Hamhuis Bieksa
Garrison Tanev?
Corrado? Alberts? (think he's a ufa?)

that's a tough one, immediately the D looks a lot less solid depending what is available for low dollars as a UFA. Still better than a lot of teams currently though.
- Isles_since_6

Shame on you and never miss another Ian blog

Ok I'm still unsure, I've read that you pay the player over twice the length of the contract and I've also read you have to pay the player as a LUMP SUM when you buy him out. As it was with the NBA deal which is where the compliance buyout idea came from.

"Don't get your hopes up on the Philadelphia Flyers using either of their two compliance buyouts on any single one of their players. The compliance buyout was introduced to the NHL world during the long and trialed collective bargaining process. It's sort of a "do-over" for each NHL Club, and it allows the team to wipe an overpaid player's contract clean off their books without it counting against the cap.

But don't believe for a second that that's where it stops.

See, in any form of the buyout, each Club owes the Player a lump sum of money. That amount is fixed by a percentage that's hashed out by what the Player is still owed in salary dollars and how many more years are left on his contract.

For instance -- if the Philadelphia Flyers were to buyout Ilya Bryzgalov, then Ed Snider & Co. would have to front a lump sum of 34-million dollars. That's ACTUAL dollars, no CAP dollars. And the only time a team can use their compliance buyout(s) is during the offseason's summer months.

So, Ed Snider pays $34-million of the franchise's private monies..... and THEN has to replace Bryzgalov with a competent netminder and whatever salary he'd earn in Year 1 of his deal. One who's either be signed as a UFA, or traded to Broad Street. In the end, the Philadelphia Flyers could wind up dropping 40-million in actual dollars on ONE roster spot in the span of 3-months.

The process of buying out a player's contract and then replacing him with even more money is not a smart financial decision for any business. And the Flyers are, after all, a business. Everyone seems to believe that this "do-over" buyout is music to every Club Owner's ears.

It isn't.

It's a money pit, and unless the team absolutely needs to use one (say, like.... the Montreal Canadiens on Scott Gomez, or the New York Rangers on Wade Redden), then they're not going to burn through what they collected through private or shared revenue streams. Only a handful of franchises can afford to do so anyway. Yes, the Flyers could be considered one of those Clubs, but at the same time, Ed Snider's not one to just chuck $34-million down a rabbit hole, pony up $4 - 6 million more and HOPE whatever free agent goalie he snagged can fill the shoes of Bryzgalov better than Ilya's been performing."

Saw this trade suggested elsewhere and I like it:

Edler (and maybe a prospect) to Carolina for 5th overall; Carolina has said they're willing to trade their 5th overall for a solid young Dman.

Then trade Luongo and that 5th overall to Florida for 2nd overall.

Effectively trading Edler and Luongo for 2nd overall (MacKinnon) and clears up a ton of salary space. Although if Colarado takes MacKinnon at #1 then that doesn't work out. Maybe Drouin is still worth it?

And another thought...

How about Maholtra as assistant coach to be groomed for head coach?
- hapalino

Very thoughtful

Another article says.

"Yeah, it costs them a good amount of cash bit up front, but it also saves money and gives them added flexibility down the road."

My bold move is Luongo Edler to NJD for Kovalchuk with the promise that he plays with the Sedins
- VANTEL

Holy fak I like that a lot. I don't like his contract but I would rather pay a top forward over a goalie. What happened to your Heatly idea have you given up on that one.

Saw this trade suggested elsewhere and I like it:

Edler (and maybe a prospect) to Carolina for 5th overall; Carolina has said they're willing to trade their 5th overall for a solid young Dman.

Then trade Luongo and that 5th overall to Florida for 2nd overall.

Effectively trading Edler and Luongo for 2nd overall (MacKinnon) and clears up a ton of salary space. Although if Colarado takes MacKinnon at #1 then that doesn't work out. Maybe Drouin is still worth it?

And another thought...

How about Maholtra as assistant coach to be groomed for head coach?
- hapalino

extremely wishful thinking

maybe the other way around'd make sense. If it were Luongo+2nd for 5th. No one wants Luongo's contract if he already has backup numbers

What now KB3?
Memphis got swept

Ok I'm still unsure, I've read that you pay the player over twice the length of the contract and I've also read you have to pay the player as a LUMP SUM when you buy him out. As it was with the NBA deal which is where the compliance buyout idea came from.

"Don't get your hopes up on the Philadelphia Flyers using either of their two compliance buyouts on any single one of their players. The compliance buyout was introduced to the NHL world during the long and trialed collective bargaining process. It's sort of a "do-over" for each NHL Club, and it allows the team to wipe an overpaid player's contract clean off their books without it counting against the cap.

But don't believe for a second that that's where it stops.

See, in any form of the buyout, each Club owes the Player a lump sum of money. That amount is fixed by a percentage that's hashed out by what the Player is still owed in salary dollars and how many more years are left on his contract.

For instance -- if the Philadelphia Flyers were to buyout Ilya Bryzgalov, then Ed Snider & Co. would have to front a lump sum of 34-million dollars. That's ACTUAL dollars, no CAP dollars. And the only time a team can use their compliance buyout(s) is during the offseason's summer months.

So, Ed Snider pays $34-million of the franchise's private monies..... and THEN has to replace Bryzgalov with a competent netminder and whatever salary he'd earn in Year 1 of his deal. One who's either be signed as a UFA, or traded to Broad Street. In the end, the Philadelphia Flyers could wind up dropping 40-million in actual dollars on ONE roster spot in the span of 3-months.

The process of buying out a player's contract and then replacing him with even more money is not a smart financial decision for any business. And the Flyers are, after all, a business. Everyone seems to believe that this "do-over" buyout is music to every Club Owner's ears.

It isn't.

It's a money pit, and unless the team absolutely needs to use one (say, like.... the Montreal Canadiens on Scott Gomez, or the New York Rangers on Wade Redden), then they're not going to burn through what they collected through private or shared revenue streams. Only a handful of franchises can afford to do so anyway. Yes, the Flyers could be considered one of those Clubs, but at the same time, Ed Snider's not one to just chuck $34-million down a rabbit hole, pony up $4 - 6 million more and HOPE whatever free agent goalie he snagged can fill the shoes of Bryzgalov better than Ilya's been performing."
- LeftCoaster

I agree.

I think that the buy-outs will be used for "bad contracts" in the 1-5 year range. After that, it becomes next to impossible to justify those dollars. Unless the team is cap-(frank)ed, I can't see any of the "mega deals" being bought out.

Ok I'm still unsure, I've read that you pay the player over twice the length of the contract and I've also read you have to pay the player as a LUMP SUM when you buy him out. As it was with the NBA deal which is where the compliance buyout idea came from.

"Don't get your hopes up on the Philadelphia Flyers using either of their two compliance buyouts on any single one of their players. The compliance buyout was introduced to the NHL world during the long and trialed collective bargaining process. It's sort of a "do-over" for each NHL Club, and it allows the team to wipe an overpaid player's contract clean off their books without it counting against the cap.

But don't believe for a second that that's where it stops.

See, in any form of the buyout, each Club owes the Player a lump sum of money. That amount is fixed by a percentage that's hashed out by what the Player is still owed in salary dollars and how many more years are left on his contract.

For instance -- if the Philadelphia Flyers were to buyout Ilya Bryzgalov, then Ed Snider & Co. would have to front a lump sum of 34-million dollars. That's ACTUAL dollars, no CAP dollars. And the only time a team can use their compliance buyout(s) is during the offseason's summer months.

So, Ed Snider pays $34-million of the franchise's private monies..... and THEN has to replace Bryzgalov with a competent netminder and whatever salary he'd earn in Year 1 of his deal. One who's either be signed as a UFA, or traded to Broad Street. In the end, the Philadelphia Flyers could wind up dropping 40-million in actual dollars on ONE roster spot in the span of 3-months.

The process of buying out a player's contract and then replacing him with even more money is not a smart financial decision for any business. And the Flyers are, after all, a business. Everyone seems to believe that this "do-over" buyout is music to every Club Owner's ears.

It isn't.

It's a money pit, and unless the team absolutely needs to use one (say, like.... the Montreal Canadiens on Scott Gomez, or the New York Rangers on Wade Redden), then they're not going to burn through what they collected through private or shared revenue streams. Only a handful of franchises can afford to do so anyway. Yes, the Flyers could be considered one of those Clubs, but at the same time, Ed Snider's not one to just chuck $34-million down a rabbit hole, pony up $4 - 6 million more and HOPE whatever free agent goalie he snagged can fill the shoes of Bryzgalov better than Ilya's been performing."
- LeftCoaster

Where's that quoted portion from? I disagree with almost all of it.

First of all... 2/3rds of what's remaining on Bryzgalov's contract is $23,000,000... Not $34 million. Spread that over 14 years for an annual payment of just under $1.65 million (which since the Flyers are a profitable business = write off, making it beneficial to the business as opposed to a money pit).

PS, I still haven't found one single NHL reference to a compliance buyout lump sum. Every reference to a lump is an NBA comparison made before it was common knowledge that NHL compliance buyouts would follow regular NHL buyout parameters except for the cap hit.

PPS, the Flyers were profitable under this year's cap... Next year's is almost $7 million dollars lower. Bryzgalov's buyout is a write off PLUS even if you add it to next season's $64.3 million dollar cap (which I expect them to spend every penny of), they're still spending over $5 million dollars less than they did this season.

PPPS (unrelated), I keep hearing about the Flyers using a compliance buyout on Danny Briere... That makes absolutely no (frank)ing sense. His superficial cap hit is the problem for Philly... However his actual salary should make him an attractive trade bait target for any team with cap room. He's a cash bargain at only $3 million in 13/14 and $2 million in 14/15. If I'm Holmgren, I give Briere's agent my blessing to seek a suitor... Anywhere he wants to go that has room to take him in.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'll research it more.
- LeftCoaster

It appears as though he is right.

There were a few articles claiming that the buyout term is the original contract term but that is not accurate.


This is from the CBA - not including the amendment for the buyouts before the season started.

During the Ordinary Course “Buy-Out” periods following the 2012/13 season and 2013/14 season,
in addition to any other Ordinary Course “Buy-Outs” a Club may elect to effectuate pursuant to
Paragraph 13 of the SPC, Clubs may elect to terminate and “buy-out” the already existing SPCs of
up to two (2) additional Players (in the aggregate over the two (2) years) on a Compliance basis (a
“Compliance Buy-Out”). Such Compliance Buy-Out(s) would be effectuated on the same terms as
are set forth in Paragraph 13 of the SPC, except that the amounts paid under such “buy-out(s)” will
not be charged against the Club’s Cap in any of the years in which the payments are made to the
Player. Amounts paid under such Compliance Buy-Out(s) will, however, be counted against the
Players’ Share during any League Year in which the “buy-out” payments are made. A Player that
has been bought out under these Compliance Buy-Out provisions shall be prohibited from re-joining
the Club that bought him out (via re-signing, Assignment, Waiver claim or otherwise) for the duration
of the 2013/14 League Year (if the Player was bought out in 2013) and the 2014/15 League Year (if
the Player was bought out in 2014).

Kovy probably scores 50 again with the twins...maybe 60....

Thing is...on that line who crashes the net and does the dirty work come playoff time?

Also I'm not sure NJ wants to take on that much of a long-term salary commitment, I remember their financial situation being not that great.
- Tweek

IMO - Not the type of player which is required for that line. I'd rather see a Lucic type on that line. Someone who can score, pass and bring a physical element as well.

extremely wishful thinking

maybe the other way around'd make sense. If it were Luongo+2nd for 5th. No one wants Luongo's contract if he already has backup numbers
- TheNugeIsHuge