I hearya but i believe there was every intention on resigning him to begin with. Have a lil faith in both parties & enjoy the resigning.
- Nighthawk

I wish i shared your enthusiasm, hope your right.

no, that's still not it.

What I'm saying, is don't consider the "Madden and a 2nd" when deciding to re-sign Toffoli. If the price to get him under contract is too high, in either dollars or term, then don't do the deal just because you paid to get him. If, on the other hand, you can get him under contract for a number you like, then I'm all for it.
- 1970vintage

I agree, a compliance buyout would be nice for fans of teams to get rid of guys they don't like, and it would be nice for GM's to undo one (some) of the mistakes they've made, but how does spending millions of dollars on an employee who isn't going to work for you anymore solving the problem of owners taking a serious hit in their finances? Make some of that money back?
- 1970vintage

Not a fan of compliance buyouts. They just helps the union and doesn't hold GMs responsible.

Compliance buyouts are a luxury for rich owners to get out from under their GM's terrible decisions.

The PA is not interested in finding ways for teams to terminate their members.

The league forgiving a cap recapture penalty because the team could really use that cap space...

I doubt that next season's salary cap will shrink. The number will stay the same, but players will be aware that their actual take home will probably be smaller, depending on where the revenue number ends up. The following year? Who knows.
- 1970vintage

That's one of his funniest bits in awhile.

no, that's still not it.

What I'm saying, is don't consider the "Madden and a 2nd" when deciding to re-sign Toffoli. If the price to get him under contract is too high, in either dollars or term, then don't do the deal just because you paid to get him. If, on the other hand, you can get him under contract for a number you like, then I'm all for it.
- 1970vintage

I still look at it as who would I rather have Toffoli at 5.5 or Sutter at 4.3

I move Sutter even if it costs me .

I still look at it as who would I rather have Toffoli at 5.5 or Sutter at 4.3

I move Sutter even if it costs me .
- VANTEL

Absolutely

I agree, a compliance buyout would be nice for fans of teams to get rid of guys they don't like, and it would be nice for GM's to undo one (some) of the mistakes they've made, but how does spending millions of dollars on an employee who isn't going to work for you anymore solving the problem of owners taking a serious hit in their finances? Make some of that money back?
- 1970vintage

Good question! The answer is that the best way to add to your revenue as an owner is to have 1)high ticket revenue, 2) high add revenue and 3) high merch revenue.

The best way to improve all those is to field a better team. A great way to help all teams be better and increase these revenue streams is to offer a compliance buyout. It only really helps teams that want to spend to the cap but that should be most teams anyway. Let the other teams move i say!

I still look at it as who would I rather have Toffoli at 5.5 or Sutter at 4.3

I move Sutter even if it costs me .
- VANTEL

This is what pisses me off about Benning, potentially having to pay more to get out of over-paying another player.

Not a fan of compliance buyouts. They just helps the union and doesn't hold GMs responsible.
- kaptaan

I'm not a fan either, but I don't think they help the union at all. It means up to 30 of their members are going to lose their job, which isn't what the union is about at all. Some of them might find other jobs, for much less money, but again, that's not what the union wants at all.

This is what pisses me off about Benning, potentially having to pay more to get out of over-paying another player.
- Marwood

Agree. But that's what GM s of rich clubs do

This is what pisses me off about Benning, potentially having to pay more to get out of over-paying another player.
- Marwood

IMO Sutter did his job. He sheltered Bo when the Sedins left.

The fact that they can move on from him a year early to me is a positive. They could remain the same and bring in Rafferty Mikey D and Lind and be compliant but do you want that many rookies?

Compliance buyouts are a luxury for rich owners to get out from under their GM's terrible decisions.

The PA is not interested in finding ways for teams to terminate their members.

The league forgiving a cap recapture penalty because the team could really use that cap space...

I doubt that next season's salary cap will shrink. The number will stay the same, but players will be aware that their actual take home will probably be smaller, depending on where the revenue number ends up. The following year? Who knows.
- 1970vintage

In this pandemic recovery situation couldn't it be considered as a stimulus measure? If so, why wouldn't teams propose other measures, like cap recapture, for their benefit, when the NHL will be in a recovery mode. Its a move that doesn't hurt the bottom line now or in the future.

On compliance measures rosters are not being reduced. It's not terminating members. Players get paid and can still find work if good enough and another better player gets paid to be on the roster.

Agree the contract market will shrink. Maybe the Cap stays the same as a stimulus measure. You're right if the numbers go down they will have no choice but to reduce the cap. So wouldn't both the NHL and PA want to take the measures suggested to avoid that?

Good question! The answer is that the best way to add to your revenue as an owner is to have 1)high ticket revenue, 2) high add revenue and 3) high merch revenue.

The best way to improve all those is to field a better team. A great way to help all teams be better and increase these revenue streams is to offer a compliance buyout. It only really helps teams that want to spend to the cap but that should be most teams anyway. Let the other teams move i say!
- neem55

Yeah, I just don't think that a compliance buyout is going to do any of those things, certainly not in the next few years.

IMO Sutter did his job. He sheltered Bo when the Sedins left.

The fact that they can move on from him a year early to me is a positive. They could remain the same and bring in Rafferty Mikey D and Lind and be compliant but do you want that many rookies?
- VANTEL

It shouldn't have to cost them to move him unless you are moving him for the sake of moving him.

In this pandemic recovery situation couldn't it be considered as a stimulus measure? If so, why wouldn't teams propose other measures, like cap recapture, for their benefit, when the NHL will be in a recovery mode. Its a move that doesn't hurt the bottom line now or in the future.

On compliance measures rosters are not being reduced. It's not terminating members. Players get paid and can still find work if good enough and another better player gets paid to be on the roster.

Agree the contract market will shrink. Maybe the Cap stays the same as a stimulus measure. You're right if the numbers go down they will have no choice but to reduce the cap. So wouldn't both the NHL and PA want to take the measures suggested to avoid that?
- NuckUp

No and stop trying to be so dramatic. You clearly miss acting class.

In this pandemic recovery situation couldn't it be considered as a stimulus measure? If so, why wouldn't teams propose other measures, like cap recapture, for their benefit, when the NHL will be in a recovery mode. Its a move that doesn't hurt the bottom line now or in the future.

On compliance measures rosters are not being reduced. It's not terminating members. Players get paid and can still find work if good enough and another better player gets paid to be on the roster.

Agree the contract market will shrink. Maybe the Cap stays the same as a stimulus measure. You're right if the numbers go down they will have no choice but to reduce the cap. So wouldn't both the NHL and PA want to take the measures suggested to avoid that?
- NuckUp

How many teams need additional cap space because of a recapture penalty? Go ahead, I'll wait while you do your research.

Yes, I'm still waiting.

How does a compliance buyout help the bottom line? Hey Franco, just spend this $7-$8million extra to get rid of Lui, and then we'll spend $30m on Toffy, instant savings!

Neither compliance buyouts, nor waiving the recapture penalty (for one team) will have any effect on if the salary cap goes up/down/stays the same.

Good question! The answer is that the best way to add to your revenue as an owner is to have 1)high ticket revenue, 2) high add revenue and 3) high merch revenue.

The best way to improve all those is to field a better team. A great way to help all teams be better and increase these revenue streams is to offer a compliance buyout. It only really helps teams that want to spend to the cap but that should be most teams anyway. Let the other teams move i say!
- neem55

Nice breakdown from my previous response

Yeah, I just don't think that a compliance buyout is going to do any of those things, certainly not in the next few years.
- 1970vintage

Compliance buyout will give immediate relief to the situation. I think money will be tight for the next few years and GMs will need to get a lot smarter than they have
been.

TB has 4.8 mil in cap space next year with 15 players signed . They need to go buy 4 Dmen.

TOR has 4 mil in space and 16 players.

Numbers have to come down.

It shouldn't have to cost them to move him unless you are moving him for the sake of moving him.
- Marwood

We both know we look at this differently.

When Bo says he would want to choose Sutter as the player he would want to be isolated with makes me think Sutter was a good influence.

Canucks chose between Gaudette and Madden . There wasn't room for both.

Zack looks like he will be staying so another prospect added. Next year Pod 2021 will be playing here. I will put money on it

We really are a young team and all the prospects won't make it because of simple math.

I see your frustration I really do understand

Compliance buyout will give immediate relief to the situation. I think money will be tight for the next few years and GMs will need to get a lot smarter than they have
been.

TB has 4.8 mil in cap space next year with 15 players signed . They need to go buy 4 Dmen.

TOR has 4 mil in space and 16 players.

Numbers have to come down.
- VANTEL

Compliance buyout would give immediate relief for "Cap" problems, not salary problems. The owner still have to spend that money, and buying out a player means paying two players to do one job. That doesn't help the bottom line.

Teams will be forced to go younger. As you said, all the Canucks have to do is add a few rookies and they're compliant.

How many teams need additional cap space because of a recapture penalty? Go ahead, I'll wait while you do your research.

Yes, I'm still waiting.

How does a compliance buyout help the bottom line? Hey Franco, just spend this $7-$8million extra to get rid of Lui, and then we'll spend $30m on Toffy, instant savings!

Neither compliance buyouts, nor waiving the recapture penalty (for one team) will have any effect on if the salary cap goes up/down/stays the same.
- 1970vintage

Believe 3 teams (FLA, NJ) so far with the Canucks carrying the heaviest burden. However, other teams are in jeopardy as well. Again, its something the team can propose as a stimulus measure. The NHL will be looking to aid recovery not hamper it. They have made moves in the past to help individual teams its still within the realm of possibility. Which is where we are talking speculatively. As such your speculative denial is fair but not absolute.

The stimulus measures are not cash hand outs per say but improvement to product that helps generate more revenue to improve the bottom line. Again these stimulus measures are not about punishing GM's for past mistakes. The focus is on recovery to generate revenue. Freeing teams up to be competitive and excite fans to buy in helps that.

I'm not a fan either, but I don't think they help the union at all. It means up to 30 of their members are going to lose their job, which isn't what the union is about at all. Some of them might find other jobs, for much less money, but again, that's not what the union wants at all.
- 1970vintage

Normally I’d agree other than the cap is a finite number & will be spent on players anyways. Idc if older players are washed up & rather be rid of them.

Compliance buyout would give immediate relief for "Cap" problems, not salary problems. The owner still have to spend that money, and buying out a player means paying two players to do one job. That doesn't help the bottom line.

Teams will be forced to go younger. As you said, all the Canucks have to do is add a few rookies and they're compliant.
- 1970vintage

I think compliance buyout is not too much different than Canada's Emergency Fund. Sorry I hate mixing politics in here . This is an unusual circumstance that threw everyone for a loop. It will help now but you better get your sh1t together because it won't be there in the future.

I wish i shared your enthusiasm, hope your right.
- VanHockeyGuy

It’s a good marriage imo
The price? 5/6.2m my guess

Yeah, I just don't think that a compliance buyout is going to do any of those things, certainly not in the next few years.
- 1970vintage

If, for example, Canucks were able to re-sign marky, tanev and toffoli. You don’t think more people would go to games than if they were unable to sign those guys? Or of Calgary could afford to sign Hall might be an even bigger example