can umberger be bought out

[aziz]

But my question is... is that *really* why he is he here?

Because he fills a role, where Hartnell did not. Umberger on the third line makes a lot a sense. Hartnell anywhere, really, was a "where else are you going to put him?" he got first line minutes because he needed high end players around him to produce, and his physical game isn't all that enough to make him a good checking player.

It was a swap of role players, a player who can play a role for a player who needs to have a specific role. It isn't so much about making the team better as it is about making the jobs to be filled clearer.

I agree that umberger isn't going to get first line minutes, but in the end, he's shown that he can produce the same numbers as Hartnell if given the same opportunities. He just still has something to offer elsewhere in the lineup.

[jammer2]

@aziz  Another nice part of the trade is Ummby can play center or wing....so if injuries happen, the Flyers dont' have to switch a current roster player from wing to center....which can be confusing for some, but Ummby has always taken that kinda switch in stride, so it would not affect him much.

[Vanflyer]

I can see the purpose of this trade being a salary dump. 

 

A salary dump that will not be realized until 4 years from now. On the other hand, Umberger does not have a NTC / NMC so, can always be moved at some point (ie. trade deadline). 

Edited June 30, 2014 by Vanflyer

[OccamsRazor]

A salary dump that will not be realized until 4 years from now. On the other hand, Umberger does not have a NTC / NMC so, can always be moved at some point (ie. trade deadline).

He does it came with him.

[caluso]

Yeah, but really, if they were to do that, why not just buy out Hartnell and let him go play where he wants (other than the years thing). 

they couldn't just buy hartnell out without having major cap implications.

as i understand it, umberger has a clause in his ocntract that allows him to be bought out and the cap hit will only be 2 mill.

[caluso]

they couldn't just buy hartnell out without having major cap implications.

as i understand it, umberger has a clause in his ocntract that allows him to be bought out and the cap hit will only be 2 mill.

here you go:

 

 

It would cost them $9 million in cash over the next three seasons to buy out Umberger. His current $4.6 million salary-cap hit would become $1.6 million for the next 3 years, then $1.5 million for the next 3 years after that. It's an immediate cap savings of $3 million.

With that Canadian television deal kicking in, the salary cap is expected to rocket to $75 million in 2015-16. Meaning that $1.6 million in dead space due to Umberger would be an increasingly smaller drop in the bucket each year the cap grows, which it will with continuously record-setting revenues.

So, why would the Flyers buy out Umberger after just trading for him? He's a lot cheaper to buy out than Scott Hartnell, who had 2 years more left on his deal. That's a savings of $10 million in cash for a team that is now internally pulling on the purse strings. The fourth-round pick in last week's trade would just be a bonus.

Umberger was in town last week and was not given any indication he would be bought out. Players must be bought out by 5 p.m. today.

Since the Flyers are desperate to rid themselves of a bad deal, Umberger makes even more sense than Lecavalier. A bad year for Lecavalier is 20 goals; it would be a borderline career year for Umberger to climb over that mark again

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20140630_Salary_cap_not_friendly_to_Flyers.html#TcgFT1DjpYAKp8uH.99

[Vanflyer]

He does it came with him.

 

1) that sucks. 2) what is a modified NTC? 

[flyercanuck]

@Vanflyer

 

 Modified means he can give a list of teams he does, or doesn't want to play for or there could be specific years when he could be traded without consent..

[Vanflyer]

Modified means he can give a list of teams he does, or doesn't want to play for or there could be specific years when he could be traded without consent..

 

Thanks (figured it out in the interim ....in reading about Spezza). 

 

cheers

[DaGreatGazoo]

According to CapGeek, RJ's trade clause may have been voided when he was traded.  I can't get anything definite other than that.  

 

"NTC (2012-13 and 2013-14); modified NTC (2014-15 through 2016-17); subsequent trade may have voided clause"

 

 

 

 

 

[Howie58]

here you go:

 

 

It would cost them $9 million in cash over the next three seasons to buy out Umberger. His current $4.6 million salary-cap hit would become $1.6 million for the next 3 years, then $1.5 million for the next 3 years after that. It's an immediate cap savings of $3 million.

With that Canadian television deal kicking in, the salary cap is expected to rocket to $75 million in 2015-16. Meaning that $1.6 million in dead space due to Umberger would be an increasingly smaller drop in the bucket each year the cap grows, which it will with continuously record-setting revenues.

So, why would the Flyers buy out Umberger after just trading for him? He's a lot cheaper to buy out than Scott Hartnell, who had 2 years more left on his deal. That's a savings of $10 million in cash for a team that is now internally pulling on the purse strings. The fourth-round pick in last week's trade would just be a bonus.

Umberger was in town last week and was not given any indication he would be bought out. Players must be bought out by 5 p.m. today.

Since the Flyers are desperate to rid themselves of a bad deal, Umberger makes even more sense than Lecavalier. A bad year for Lecavalier is 20 goals; it would be a borderline career year for Umberger to climb over that mark again

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20140630_Salary_cap_not_friendly_to_Flyers.html#TcgFT1DjpYAKp8uH.99

Greetings:

 

We are in a new era.  Discounted cash flow really matters to the decision makers. I also suspect Hextall is really eager to put his stamp on the franchise.

 

Howie

[brelic]

The difference between Umberger and Hartnell in terms of buyout is really the length of time they remain on the cap (6 years for Umby, 10 years for Hartsie), and of course, the amount of money they are owed. Plus, there is one year (2018-19) that Hartnell's dead cap hit would rise to $3.25M. 

 

Scott Hartnell buyout from CapGeek.com

2014-15: $1,250,000

2015-16: $1,250,000

2016-17: $1,250,000

2017-18: $1,750,000

2018-19: $3,250,000

2019-20: $1,500,000

2020-21: $1,500,000

2021-22: $1,500,000

2022-23: $1,500,000

2023-24: $1,500,000

 

R.J. Umberger buyout from CapGeek.com

2014-15: $1,600,000

2015-16: $1,600,000

2016-17: $1,600,000

2017-18: $1,500,000

2018-19: $1,500,000

2019-20: $1,500,000

[AJgoal]

I don't believe Umberger can be bought out anymore. The deadline is 5pm today, and he needs to pass through unconditional waivers first, which should be a 24 hour timeframe. I haven't heard any news of him being waived.

[Vanflyer]

NTC (2012-13 and 2013-14); modified NTC (2014-15 through 2016-17); subsequent trade may have voided clause"
 

 

As I learned today, the modified means he can list the teams he is willing to be traded to. Cap geek is still showing him with the lock sign meaning he can not be traded without a say. 

[DaGreatGazoo]

As I learned today, the modified means he can list the teams he is willing to be traded to. Cap geek is still showing him with the lock sign meaning he can not be traded without a say. 

 

Yeah, but the quote I listed is also from Capgeek....the part about the subsequent trade voiding the clause.  That's what I'm not sure of.  Based on the rules on Capgeek, if he waived his NTC, it's voided..unless the Flyers picked it up. The part I highlighted in red seems to apply to the Umberger situation.  

 

An NTC does not travel with a player if a) the player waives a full NTC or b) the player is traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC. In addition, if the player is traded before his NTC takes effect, it vaporizes unless — in rare circumstances — the acquiring club agrees in writing to be bound by it.

[Vanflyer]

An NTC does not travel with a player if a) the player waives a full NTC or b) the player is traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC. In addition, if the player is traded before his NTC takes effect, it vaporizes unless — in rare circumstances — the acquiring club agrees in writing to be bound by it.

 

I see your point now. What distinguishes the 2013-2014 season v. the 2014-2015 season? is it the conclusion of the Stanley Cup? 

[AJgoal]

I see your point now. What distinguishes the 2013-2014 season v. the 2014-2015 season? is it the conclusion of the Stanley Cup? 

 

The league year starts on July 1 every year.

[Vanflyer]

The league year starts on July 1 every year.

 

If thats the case, then in reading the verbiage from capgeek that you listed, it would seem that he had to have waived his NTC which was in effect 2013-2014 in order to move the Flyers. If that is so, then wouldn't that nullify the modified NTC for the 2014-2015 year? 

[AJgoal]

It should. However, the acquiring team has the option of whether or not to allow the clause to remain in effect after a trade. Players will often say "I'll waive my clause ONLY if you (the acquiring team) agree to keep it on the books."  No way to know if that happened.

[DaGreatGazoo]

If thats the case, then in reading the verbiage from capgeek that you listed, it would seem that he had to have waived his NTC which was in effect 2013-2014 in order to move the Flyers. If that is so, then wouldn't that nullify the modified NTC for the 2014-2015 year? 

 

I would seem to think so, Van.  Which means, they could trade him again.  Not likely, but it's another forward without a trade clause now.  All about cap space, getting flexibility right now.