A Possible Hayes Buyout?

[Howie58]

I respect Elliotte Friedman, but this seems a bit off-the-wall:

https://sports.yahoo.com/flyers-kevin-hayes-could-be-bought-out-in-offseason-190132365.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

Yes, there are cap savings.  But the hit lingers.  My gut says a trade would be better.  

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Howie58

[MaineFlyFan]

I would agree with your take on this Howie, except that I fear that NO ONE would take that kind of contract/player in a trade!....Hence the buyout?... Which also doesn't make much sense cuz of the continued cap hit.

 

I guess that's why most on here have been saying that we're STUCK with Hayes..... another horrible albatross contract by the "powers that be"

 

Bury him in the minors?!

[J0e Th0rnton]

3 minutes ago, MaineFlyFan said:

I would agree with your take on this Howie, except that I fear that NO ONE would take that kind of contract/player in a trade!....Hence the buyout?... Which also doesn't make much sense cuz of the continued cap hit.

 

I guess that's why most on here have been saying that we're STUCK with Hayes..... another horrible albatross contract by the "powers that be"

 

Bury him in the minors?!

Burying the teams top scorer when the entire farm is already up is kinda difficult lol

[MaineFlyFan]

45 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

Burying the teams top scorer when the entire farm is already up is kinda difficult lol

Astute observation J0e.

 

(for future reference, my final sentences (salvos) are generally pure sarcasm.....

[radoran]

Hayes' plan is for them to fire Fletch, buy him out, and then have Fletch sign him for seven years at his next team.

 

In all seriousness, they're going to kick Fletch upstairs, leave Briere to dig out from the wreckage and fire him in four years for not having made the Final yet.

 

Again.

[Samifan]

Buyout makes zero sense so that means Chuck is sure to do it….

[flyer4ever]

A duel at high noon outside the Wells Fargo Saloon. Hayes and the chucktard. May the worst man lose. 

[GrittyForever]

 

[OccamsRazor]

I am totally good moving on from him.

 

However doesn't he like have 29 points in 30 games or something like that?

 

I think it would be a better option if someone would take it to just eat 50% of his salary for the remainder of his contract than to buy him out.

 

But if it is the only option  yeah why not.

[Howie58]

I agree with Occ that salary eating may be part of any deal, if it happens. Several reporters have picked this up, but we are more reflective and actually look at what it means and the cost of doing it.

 

BTW, I think salary cap of demoted players is something like $925K. He could be buried but cost savings are minimal.

 

Along with the Atkinson news, this is kind of a distraction that is magnified because of the team's play.  Shoot, we dont even hear about Coots anymore, right? It's a blurry, blended Chuck Pudding.

 

 

 

[flyer4ever]

36 minutes ago, Howie58 said:

I agree with Occ that salary eating may be part of any deal, if it happens. Several reporters have picked this up, but we are more reflective and actually look at what it means and the cost of doing it.

 

BTW, I think salary cap of demoted players is something like $925K. He could be buried but cost savings are minimal.

 

Along with the Atkinson news, this is kind of a distraction that is magnified because of the team's play.  Shoot, we dont even hear about Coots anymore, right? It's a blurry, blended Chuck Pudding.

 

 

 

whats a chuck pudding without a little Ellis on top?

[radoran]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

However doesn't he like have 29 points in 30 games or something like that?

 

I think we've talked about players putting up points on bad teams before.

 

It's been shown amply over time what Hayes is and a point per game player isn't it. If teams needed to focus on him to shut down the Flyers they would (and have and will).

 

Torts' point is that Hayes' defensive liabilities aren't overcome by his points.

 

The fact that this is the prized signing of Fletch and his signature move to change the direction of the franchise is telling.

 

If nothing else, it certainly worked.

[icehole]

And why would there be a buyout? What's the harm of him being on the team? He's putting up numbers and hurting the team at the same time. It's a win win in my eyes. Maybe someone will take him off our hands and we will be free of a contract for once. Wouldn't it be nice if the flyers could actually put all of their money into players that play on the team?

[mojo1917]

1 minute ago, icehole said:

What's the harm of him being on the team?

gosh, where to start.

Everything I've ever heard about Kevin Hayes the person has been very positive.

Unfortunately, being a good dude doesn't outweigh the deficiencies in his game, of which there are many.

He makes 7.2m (almost) against the salary cap and hasn't ever performed to that salary level in his career.

He is meh at faceoffs.

He is not a fast skater.

He doesn't kill penalties anymore.

His shot is just okay.

He is not in the top 10 of any major statistical categories.

He is not a good defensive player.

When he was signed, it was pre covid when the understanding of NHL economics didn't include 3 years of COVID salary cap stagnation.

With the emergence of some of the young talent ( now known to be meh in their own right or even out of the league ) the Hayes signing would be an overpayment, but he was going to be a solid 35-50 point player that could play up and down the top 9 and while not ideal it was not on its own a crippling contract.

The money being spent on him could be used better elsewhere. 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

Torts' point is that Hayes' defensive liabilities aren't overcome by his points

 

I'm good with it.

 

It is what we wanted years ago with Giroux and Jake.

 

It in my mind is the only way it works is to hold everyone one accountable.

 

I stand by his decision.

 

Hopefully it sends the right message to the whole team.

 

And I don't care how Hayes feels.

 

I also am good if this is his last year in Philly.

[OccamsRazor]

15 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

gosh, where to start.

Everything I've ever heard about Kevin Hayes the person has been very positive.

Unfortunately, being a good dude doesn't outweigh the deficiencies in his game, of which there are many.

He makes 7.2m (almost) against the salary cap and hasn't ever performed to that salary level in his career.

He is meh at faceoffs.

He is not a fast skater.

He doesn't kill penalties anymore.

His shot is just okay.

He is not in the top 10 of any major statistical categories.

He is not a good defensive player.

When he was signed, it was pre covid when the understanding of NHL economics didn't include 3 years of COVID salary cap stagnation.

With the emergence of some of the young talent ( now known to be meh in their own right or even out of the league ) the Hayes signing would be an overpayment, but he was going to be a solid 35-50 point player that could play up and down the top 9 and while not ideal it was not on its own a crippling contract.

The money being spent on him could be used better elsewhere. 

 

 

 

 

And all that listed and well sounds like they already had a guy like that and his name was JVR.

 

Won't ever miss either of them...

[radoran]

36 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Won't ever miss either of them...

 

Humperdinck Lives.

 

[icehole]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

gosh, where to start.

Everything I've ever heard about Kevin Hayes the person has been very positive.

Unfortunately, being a good dude doesn't outweigh the deficiencies in his game, of which there are many.

He makes 7.2m (almost) against the salary cap and hasn't ever performed to that salary level in his career.

He is meh at faceoffs.

He is not a fast skater.

He doesn't kill penalties anymore.

His shot is just okay.

He is not in the top 10 of any major statistical categories.

He is not a good defensive player.

When he was signed, it was pre covid when the understanding of NHL economics didn't include 3 years of COVID salary cap stagnation.

With the emergence of some of the young talent ( now known to be meh in their own right or even out of the league ) the Hayes signing would be an overpayment, but he was going to be a solid 35-50 point player that could play up and down the top 9 and while not ideal it was not on its own a crippling contract.

The money being spent on him could be used better elsewhere. 

 

 

Again, what's the harm in keeping him on the team? Any player that's bad, is good for the team moving forward. Seriously, why would you sacrifice any cap space years down the road to put the team in a better position to get a worse draft pick?

Don't get me wrong, I want Hayes's contract off the books, but why buy him out now? If someone will take him, give him away for free. If not, keep him until the team is ready to start progressing forward. They're still going backward.

[ruxpin]

Look, I'm not a Hayes guy.  I wasn't in favor of the signing, though in honestly I didn't appreciate the enormity of the bad idea it was.   Some on here -- @flyercanuck--explained it well in real time.

 

So, I'm not here defend him but really, since his signing he's been made to be the guy.  Giroux is gone.  We've killed Couturier.  Our draft picks either haven't materialized yet (Frost, Laughton, et al.) in the way we hoped or have fallen apart piece by piece (Patrick, Moran, as examples).   So, while arguably someone being paid $7.2M should be able to be the guy, it wasn't intended to be his role.   His role was overpaid 3rd line center, possibly slide up if needed as a reasonably short-term fill in.

 

Okay, that plan was insane on its face, but it's become astronomically worse given what has happened since then.

 

All that said, I don't think buying him out is a great move.   Not yet, anyway.  I don't think the residual cap hit hurts the Flyers in the near term.  E don't need to resign people like Konecny and Provorov until 2025-26.  At that point, maybe you take a look at buying Hayes out if you absolutely need the room and the inept GM hasn't been able to move him by then.   But for now, next year we have a bunch of RFAs that have proven nothing and probably get only a nominal bump at best.  (Cates, MacEwen, Frost, and York).    The following year is TIppet, again RFA.   For UFAs, there's Brown, Willman, Braun next year and Deangelo and Seeler the year following.   I dont need to sign a single one.

 

Granted, we'll need to sign replacements, but we are a few seasons away from being competitive.  Swallow the $7M for the next two years through spring of 2025.   At that point, trade and retain a portion if you can.   If not, There's one year left on his deal and maybe you consider it at that point if Hayes is in the way of signing Konecny, Provorov and someone to go with them.

[flyercanuck]

10 hours ago, GrittyForever said:

 

 

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

Again, what's the harm in keeping him on the team? Any player that's bad, is good for the team moving forward. Seriously, why would you sacrifice any cap space years down the road to put the team in a better position to get a worse draft pick?

Don't get me wrong, I want Hayes's contract off the books, but why buy him out now? If someone will take him, give him away for free. If not, keep him until the team is ready to start progressing forward. They're still going backward.

I was answering a question you asked.

 

I would prefer a trade also.

Hayes can't be a team's best player. 

He can't be paid like he's the best player.

Right now, he is one but not even close to the other. 

 

I would be in favor of keeping some salary in a trade in decreasing fashion over time to get him off the team.

 

I think keeping him around when the coach is trying to create a style of play that Kevin is resistant to makes the coaches' job harder.

Kevin's salary makes it harder to sign other players who may be better fits and better players.

 

As to why now? How much longer do you want the team to be objectively terrible?

I'm ready for things to turn around. I think the sooner the core group of players who can scaffold the next group of young guys is identified- the sooner the building can begin.

I don't think Kevin is a part of the plan going forward.

Why just keep him around just because?

I'm not going to the rink to watch him play, I don't think I'm alone with that sentiment.

Time to cut bait and fish.

 

@ruxpin

that's a good post I can see your reasoning.

I disagree.

I want the guy gone.

Maybe I'm too emotional about it, but seeing him hanging out at the blue line for 12 minutes a night makes my ****** blood boil. 

I want him somewhere else where he can be funny and cool and not my team's problem.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by mojo1917

[icehole]

55 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I was answering a question you asked.

 

I would prefer a trade also.

Hayes can't be a team's best player. 

He can't be paid like he's the best player.

Right now, he is one but not even close to the other. 

 

I would be in favor of keeping some salary in a trade in decreasing fashion over time to get him off the team.

 

I think keeping him around when the coach is trying to create a style of play that Kevin is resistant to makes the coaches' job harder.

Kevin's salary makes it harder to sign other players who may be better fits and better players.

 

As to why now? How much longer do you want the team to be objectively terrible?

I'm ready for things to turn around. I think the sooner the core group of players who can scaffold the next group of young guys is identified- the sooner the building can begin.

I don't think Kevin is a part of the plan going forward.

Why just keep him around just because?

I'm not going to the rink to watch him play, I don't think I'm alone with that sentiment.

Time to cut bait and fish.

 

@ruxpin

that's a good post I can see your reasoning.

I disagree.

I want the guy gone.

Maybe I'm too emotional about it, but seeing him hanging out at the blue line for 12 minutes a night makes my ****** blood boil. 

I want him somewhere else where he can be funny and cool and not my team's problem.

 

 

 

I think the fear of Hayes interfering with what Torts wants to build is legit. I'm not too concerned with it though because I don't think, at least I hope they aren't trying to build with what they have now. This is a bad group of players that I hope isn't around when they do start to rebuild. I like Torts and hope the clock isn't ticking until he is given something to work with.

Typically I'd be right with you ready to ship Hayes off somewhere even if I have to retain salary or live with a buyout cap hit for the next ten years. I don't like his game. I think he's lazy. But this year, more than any other year in flyers history, is the year to take your lumps to set up for the future. Nobody is expecting this team to do anything, so there shouldn't be pressure to do anything. If you want to start the rebuild now, you don't do that by retaining salary or attaching long term cap money to a guy that will never help the team. You pay him what he's owed and hope he plays well enough to get taken off your hands. If he doesn't, you pay him until you really need his money for something that will help the team.

 

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

@ruxpin

that's a good post I can see your reasoning.

I disagree.

I want the guy gone.

Maybe I'm too emotional about it, but seeing him hanging out at the blue line for 12 minutes a night makes my ****** blood boil. 

I want him somewhere else where he can be funny and cool and not my team's problem.

 

I completely sympathize. 

 

He's Mike York 2.0

[flyercanuck]

14 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I completely sympathize. 

 

He's Mike York 2.0

 

Peppermint Slowie?