Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Buyout Offer Has Snider's Fingerprints

Thanks. Makes total sense as always.

It seems to me Pronger is the most likely candidate still. I believe/hope that Bryz is our guy for the long haul and that his play march will be closer to player we have. I suppose that if we are so lucky, we will have a shortened season in which to evaluate it. For me, despite his price tag, Danny is not going anywhere and that is a good thing.

The only thing I'll add is that the NHLPA is not going to be happy with the buyout counting against the players share.

The only thing I'll add is that the NHLPA is not going to be happy with the buyout counting against the players share.
- MJL

Agreed. But they'll go along with it, because it's the only way they can get the amnesty provision. Also, there will be players who will double-dip from being bought out AND from signing elsewhere as UFAs.

Agreed. But they'll go along with it, because it's the only way they can get the amnesty provision. Also, there will be players who will double-dip from being bought out AND from signing elsewhere as UFAs.
- bmeltzer

We'll see. I think were going to see the NHLPA counter proposal changing that to coming out of the Owners share. I won't be surprised to see them get it.

I have a question that I"m sure has been answered many of times but if we have no season at all this year, does that mean the players who would have been free agents at the end of this year still apply? (Shelley, Timonen, Lilja)

We'll see. I think were going to see the NHLPA counter proposal changing that to coming out of the Owners share. I won't be surprised to see them get it.
- MJL

I think you're right -- the owners solidarity is fracturing and the players are soon going to discover flexibility on many of the critical issues, where before they were faced with intransigence.

Agreed. But they'll go along with it, because it's the only way they can get the amnesty provision. Also, there will be players who will double-dip from being bought out AND from signing elsewhere as UFAs.
- bmeltzer

These buyouts also will help the smaller teams if the $ comes from the players side as well.....better chance to hit escrow with some big buyouts....less $ those teams have to payout....

Pronger has to be the choice. It's too big of a pill to swallow for 5 more years to have him on the summer cap and getting zero from him. Plus. The flyers can always fudge an injury with bryz and put him on LTIR if it gets that bad.

I think you're right -- the owners solidarity is fracturing and the players are soon going to discover flexibility on many of the critical issues, where before they were faced with intransigence.
- Tomahawk

I think Fehr senses blood now. And will use the leverage he has to recover whatever they can. Within reason. If the Owners truly weren't willing to stand by their statements and weren't willing to cancel the Season. They should've settled this a long time ago.

Pronger has to be the choice. It's too big of a pill to swallow for 5 more years to have him on the summer cap and getting zero from him. Plus. The flyers can always fudge an injury with bryz and put him on LTIR if it gets that bad.
- Just5

It depends on if it can be done to an injured player. And there is no fudging an injury to put a player on LTIR. It has to be legitimate.

Agreed. But they'll go along with it, because it's the only way they can get the amnesty provision. Also, there will be players who will double-dip from being bought out AND from signing elsewhere as UFAs.
- bmeltzer

Bill- I think that your idea of the players cap hit be the avg of the actual money owed from this point is so fantastically logical that I hope someone gets wind of it a proposes it as this disgrace comes to a resolution.

Have Ek pass info off to his people

Bill- I think that your idea of the players cap hit be the avg of the actual money owed from this point is so fantastically logical that I hope someone gets wind of it a proposes it as this disgrace comes to a resolution.

Have Ek pass info off to his people
- KINGKENZO

That would be Cap Circumvention and it would never fly.

I have a question that I"m sure has been answered many of times but if we have no season at all this year, does that mean the players who would have been free agents at the end of this year still apply? (Shelley, Timonen, Lilja)
- hoffa28

I believe after the 2004-05 lockout players' contracts (with the agreed upon salary rollback) rolled over to 2005-06. However, were credited with a year of NHL service time toward UFA eligibility, pensions, etc.

Until recently, Lilja was collecting his full salary for the 2012-13 season. That's because teams can't lock out players who are not medically cleared to play. I would not be surprised if that had something to do with why the Flyers initially said Lilja would be able to play in late October or early November even when Lilja's doctors said he'd be on a December timetable before he could be medically cleared to play (which actually proved to be the case).

Meszaros and Pronger have also been paid during the lockout.

I believe after the 2004-05 lockout players' contracts (with the agreed upon salary rollback) rolled over to 2005-06. However, were credited with a year of NHL service time toward UFA eligibility, pensions, etc.

Until recently, Lilja was collecting his full salary for the 2012-13 season. That's because teams can't lock out players who are not medically cleared to play. I would not be surprised if that had something to do with why the Flyers initially said Lilja would be able to play in late October or early November even when Lilja's doctors said he'd be on a December timetable before he could be medically cleared to play (which actually proved to be the case).

Meszaros and Pronger have also been paid during the lockout.
- bmeltzer

Player SPC's are purposely written as being based on a calendar year, not a playing Season. But something could be negotiated on that in the CBA with transition rules.

We'll see. I think were going to see the NHLPA counter proposal changing that to coming out of the Owners share. I won't be surprised to see them get it.
- MJL

I'm interested in seeing the NHLPA response and all the counters they'll likely make.

I'm interested in seeing the NHLPA response and all the counters they'll likely make.
- ob18

Me too! But I'm also afraid of it.

That would be Cap Circumvention and it would never fly.
- MJL

It would not be cap circumvention whatsoever. Well, it would be circumventing the OLD cap but not the new one.

All existing contracts were signed under a cap calculation system that called for 57 percent of revenues to be devoted to salaries. It is not fair to retroactively punish teams for contracts signed (and accepted by the NHL) under the previous system.

There would be no additional real-dollar money paid outside the system. All cap hits would be based on the money still outstanding to the player. If it's a new deal that kicks in for 2012-13, the cap hit would be the same.

All you would really be doing is more accurately reflecting the real-dollar salaries remaining on deals that were signed in the past -- and some players' cap hits would actually go UP not down.

To me, it seems a bit unfair to go from a 57 percent to 50 percent capping system and yet count "aging" contracts from the old system as if they were signed under the new system. I think the league should account, for instance, for the fact that Briere's deal was signed way back in 2007 and has only $12 million of real dollar value left on it.

Under what I proposed, Briere's cap hit would be $4 million based on the $7 million he'd have been owed for 2012-13, $3 million for 2013-14, and $2 million for 2014-15. To count his cap hit at $6.5 million is to retroactively punish the Flyers for a deal signed under the previous system -- and LONG before a new CBA was imminent.

Cap hits are kind of a fake number anyway. The new cap will control variance to a much higher degree, but you can't go back and attack older back-diving deals.

That would be Cap Circumvention and it would never fly.
- MJL

Never fly with whom, the NHLPA, or the small market teams? The current cap is calculated primarily on the income generated by the league. The proposal is dropping the cap, arbitrarily, with out it being based on a drop of league revenue. Neither the player or the owner is gaining or losing money on adjusting the cap avg on a new cap figure.

The lowering of the cap is small market benefit. Why should higher spending teams lose players to become cap compliant. Why should teams have to buy out contracts and essentially allow that player to become an UFA and the only compensation the team receives is that they're cap compliant. It's an asinine concept.

Edit...yeah, what Bill said

It would not be cap circumvention whatsoever because there were be no real-dollar money paid outside the system. All cap hits would be based on the money still outstanding to the player. If it's a new deal that kicks in for 2012-13, the cap hit would be the same.

Also, all existing contracts were signed under a cap calculation system that called for 57 percent of revenues to be devoted to salaries. It is not fair to retroactively punish teams for contracts signed (and accepted by the NHL) under the previous system.

All you would really be doing is more accurately reflecting the real-dollar salaries remaining on deals that were signed in the past -- and some players' cap hits would actually go UP not down.

To me, it seems a bit unfair to go from a 57 percent to 50 percent capping system and yet count "aging" contracts from the old system as if they were signed under the new system. I think the league should account, for instance, for the fact that Briere's deal was signed way back in 2007 and has only $12 million of real dollar value left on it.

Under what I proposed, Briere's cap hit would be $4 million based on the $7 million he'd have been owed for 2012-13, $3 million for 2013-14, and $2 million for 2014-15. To count his cap hit at $6.5 million is to retroactively punish the Flyers for a deal signed under the previous system -- and LONG before a new CBA was imminent.
- bmeltzer

Teams who sign players to front loaded deals with low salary years on the back end, receive Cap savings on the front end due to lowering the Cap hit versus the actual salary paid out in those early years. As the players salary drops during the length of the contract, and his Cap hit drops with your proposal. Those Cap savings are never fully repaid on the back end. That would be deemed Cirumvention by the League.

Never fly with whom, the NHLPA, or the small market teams? The current cap is calculated primarily on the income generated by the league. The proposal is dropping the cap, arbitrarily, with out it being based on a drop of league revenue. Neither the player or the owner is gaining or losing money on adjusting the cap avg on a new cap figure.

The lowering of the cap is small market benefit. Why should higher spending teams lose players to become cap compliant. Why should teams have to buy out contracts and essentially allow that player to become an UFA and the only compensation the team receives is that they're cap compliant. It's an asinine concept.
- KINGKENZO

Never fly with the NHL. Small market teams would also see it as another benefit to the larger market teams.

Me too! But I'm also afraid of it.

- MJL

Yup but Fehr was right every time they've waited the offers have gotten better when the NHL said it wouldn't........now it's time to make it work and even have a small season, they simply can not cancel another season (but at this point I wouldn't be shocked)

Never fly with the NHL. Small market teams would also see it as another benefit to the larger market teams.
- MJL

I started a paragraph regarding the SMT, but deleted because they thoroughly frustrate me

Yup but Fehr was right every time they've waited the offers have gotten better when the NHL said it wouldn't........now it's time to make it work and even have a small season, they simply can not cancel another season (but at this point I wouldn't be shocked)
- ob18

That's the problem. Fehr has always acted as if he knew there was no way the League was prepared to cancel the Season. Now he really knows that. What's going to happen? Are they going to respond with a reasonable counter offer very close to the Owners offer. Or do they smell blood and go for more. Such as more Make Whole money. Which would absolutely infuriate the Owners.

That's the problem. Fehr has always acted as if he knew there was no way the League was prepared to cancel the Season. Now he really knows that. What's going to happen? Are they going to respond with a reasonable counter offer very close to the Owners offer. Or do they smell blood and go for more. Such as more Make Whole money. Which would absolutely infuriate the Owners.
- MJL

Yup Fehr knew from the start the owners didn't want to cancel the season and told the players this while saying the offers will get better. I really do think the owners felt they could push Fehr around and since it hasn't happened and they weren't prepared to cancel the season have to play ball and put forth a deal that is reasonable for both sides.