Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

RonJeremy

Can we buyout a stiff and sign an UFA ?

Recommended Posts

What are the buyout rules for the Flyers? Do we buyout one of our overpaid stiffs and free up cap space to go after an UFA? I know we need to keep one stiff to expose for the expansion draft. So do we buyout JVR and keep Jake for the expansion draft. Theres no point in paying guys 8 million to never score, we can call up some young cheaper guys to do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RonJeremy said:

What are the buyout rules for the Flyers? Do we buyout one of our overpaid stiffs and free up cap space to go after an UFA?

Used to be The cost is either 1/3 or 2/3 of the remaining salary, averaged out over twice as many years that were left on the contract. This is determined by the age of the player at the time of the buyout - if they are under 26, they get 1/3, if they are 26 or older they get 2/3.

 

Source:

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

to me this always seems like a long time to pay a player to not play for your team.

The guys you're talking about would be a minimum 2.7aav  of dead space for Jake and 2.4aav for JvR..That's a lot of dead money for a long time IMO

best case would be to try to work a trade and retain some salary for a year or two max. 

Also I don't think guys can be bought out mid-season, I think there is a window and it's in the summer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RonJeremy said:

What are the buyout rules for the Flyers? Do we buyout one of our overpaid stiffs and free up cap space to go after an UFA? I know we need to keep one stiff to expose for the expansion draft. So do we buyout JVR and keep Jake for the expansion draft. Theres no point in paying guys 8 million to never score, we can call up some young cheaper guys to do the same thing.

 

It may be easier to retain some salary in a trade of some sort than a buyout.

 

Someone else will have to crunch the numbers I'm stuck at work and for whatever reason it is blocking me from the capfriendly site...go figure.

 

Maybe some who is good with that can do the footwork.

 

@radoran might be that guy....

 

 

Edited by OccamsRazor
Thanks to who ever can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonJeremy said:

Theres no point in paying guys 8 million to never score,

 

Fun facts: JVR is tied for third on the team in goals with Couturier, 1 goal behind Giroux and Hayes, two behind team leader Konecny. Voracek is third on the team in points.

 

It's more a reflection on the team as a whole not scoring than specific individuals.

 

Here's the buyout on JVR:

SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS CAP HIT (Philadelphia Flyers PHI)
2020-21 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,777,778 $2,777,778 $4,222,222 $2,777,778
2021-22 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,777,778 $2,777,778 $4,222,222 $2,777,778
2022-23 $4,000,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,777,778 $2,777,778 $2,222,222 $4,777,778
2023-24 $0 $0 $0 $1,777,778 $1,777,778 -$1,777,778 $1,777,778
2024-25 $0 $0 $0 $1,777,778 $1,777,778 -$1,777,778 $1,777,778
2025-26 $0 $0 $0 $1,777,778 $1,777,778 -$1,777,778 $1,777,778

 

That's actually not bad from where I sit. The $1.77M hit for the outlying three years c/should be absorbed in the cap increases. The initial three years don't seem overly onerous for the Flyers.

 

This is Jake:

SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS CAP HIT (Philadelphia Flyers PHI)
2020-21 $2,250,000 $8,250,000 $4,000,000 $1,541,667 $5,541,667 $708,333 $7,541,667
2021-22 $7,500,000 $8,250,000 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 $5,958,333 $2,291,667
2022-23 $1,250,000 $8,250,000 $5,000,000 $1,541,667 $6,541,667 -$291,667 $8,541,667
2023-24 $7,500,000 $8,250,000 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 $5,958,333 $2,291,667
2024-25 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667
2025-26 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667
2026-27 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667
2027-28 $0 $0 $0 $1,541,667 $1,541,667 -$1,541,667 $1,541,667
TOTAL $18,500,000 $33,000,000 $9,000,000 $12,333,333 $21,333,333 $6,166,667 $26,833,336

 

This looks a little more onerous. Two big hits in the first four years.

 

With either of them, retaining salary in a trade might be more beneficial but the buyout looks better for JVR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, intheslot said:

What about G ..???

 

 

SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS CAP HIT (Philadelphia Flyers PHI)
2020-21 $7,200,000 $8,275,000 $0 $1,866,667 $1,866,667 $5,333,333 $2,941,667
2021-22 $4,000,000 $8,275,000 $1,000,000 $1,866,667 $2,866,667 $2,133,333 $6,141,667
2022-23 $0 $0 $0 $1,866,667 $1,866,667 -$1,866,667 $1,866,667
2023-24 $0 $0 $0 $1,866,667 $1,866,667 -$1,866,667 $1,866,667
TOTAL $11,200,000 $16,550,000 $1,000,000 $7,466,667 $8,466,667 $3,733,333 $12,816,668

 

I would hope they could get more for G in a trade situation (even with the NMC).

 

I just can't see them buying him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, we buyout the the guy who we cant trade.  We hope Jake is taken in draft. Shop G, if the offer is too good, trade him, if not keep him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave Giroux alone. You can retool this team by moving JVR, Jake and Ghost. In that order

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gretzky was traded. So it's not like ZOMG can't trade G...the scenario where the team is actually better in the short to medium term is hard for me to imagine. Also, after that trade EDM wasn't a juggernaut any longer. they had two more decent years and then they've been in the wilderness since.

So there would need to be better luck with whatever high draft pick(s) the team gets and the pu-pu platter of players would be a bunch of "those guys" that would ultimately become footnotes.

The team would be different for certain.

I think it would need a lot of shrewd drafting and other deal making to make a trade with Giroux successful. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 10:15 AM, RonJeremy said:

What are the buyout rules for the Flyers? Do we buyout one of our overpaid stiffs and free up cap space to go after an UFA? I know we need to keep one stiff to expose for the expansion draft. So do we buyout JVR and keep Jake for the expansion draft. Theres no point in paying guys 8 million to never score, we can call up some young cheaper guys to do the same thing.

 

Can't Buyout anyone until Summer.

JVR's buyout would be weird and would take 6 years. 

You could do it, but it jumps oddly after the first two years of a just under $3million cap hit and the third year his cap it is almost 5 million. Then it drops below 2 for the last 3 years.  

 

Doing the above could make resigning Hart, Sanheim and Myers a bit easier, but it's not a key to doing so AND bringing in a new guy.

 

As far as we know, with Fletcher, it might already be part of the plan.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

after that trade EDM wasn't a juggernaut any longer. they had two more decent years

 One in which they won a Cup. 

 

They've been almost consistently horrible since, with the exception of 2006.   But is that the direct result of the Gretsky trade, or is that just horrific ownership and management?  Is it just that the 80s Oilers were better players than executives?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Gretzky was traded. So it's not like ZOMG can't trade G...the scenario where the team is actually better in the short to medium term is hard for me to imagine. Also, after that trade EDM wasn't a juggernaut any longer. they had two more decent years and then they've been in the wilderness since.

So there would need to be better luck with whatever high draft pick(s) the team gets and the pu-pu platter of players would be a bunch of "those guys" that would ultimately become footnotes.

The team would be different for certain.

I think it would need a lot of shrewd drafting and other deal making to make a trade with Giroux successful. 

 

 

 

Didn't the Oilers win the cup the next year?  

 

Anyway, Trading Giroux is no path to making this team better.  He's not putting up huge numbers, but I think too many people are watching the stat sheets and seeing the problem and not noticing how much he does in the games.  

 

He's often the guy who starts the play that three other guys get the points on.  His shooting % is oddly terrible this year, but  he's dominant in generating opportunities and driving the play.

 

The line with him and Hayes and TK got a goal, but gave up (I think) three last night, so maybe that doesn't need to continue, but as far as I'm concerned, very little good can come out of trading Giroux.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Didn't the Oilers win the cup the next year?  

 

Anyway, Trading Giroux is no path to making this team better.  He's not putting up huge numbers, but I think too many people are watching the stat sheets and seeing the problem and not noticing how much he does in the games.  

 

He's often the guy who starts the play that three other guys get the points on.  His shooting % is oddly terrible this year, but  he's dominant in generating opportunities and driving the play.

 

The line with him and Hayes and TK got a goal, but gave up (I think) three last night, so maybe that doesn't need to continue, but as far as I'm concerned, very little good can come out of trading Giroux.  

 

This is a good take, and one that I, myself, need to remember.

 

The truth is he has among the best corsi and fenwick on the team.  And he has less offensive zone starts and more defensive zone starts than Hayes, who is supposed to be two-way as well.

 

If he were to get his shooting percentage closer to his normal, there wouldn't be the discussion.   He's--very quietly--doing everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

 One in which they won a Cup. 

 

They've been almost consistently horrible since, with the exception of 2006.   But is that the direct result of the Gretsky trade, or is that just horrific ownership and management?  Is it just that the 80s Oilers were better players than executives?

 

This is the thing.  They won a cup right away without him (beat the Bruins and Andy Moog and our old Pal Reggie Lemelin I think) but in the years after, there was a cascade of players exiting (Messier, Coffey, Tikkanen, Kurri, Graves) and other guys started aging out (Huddy, Lowe, Fuhr) of their effectiveness and the organization got little in return for any of it.  They were an epic Dynasty and it's extremely difficult to have the lengthy run they did (based almost 100% on skill)  and be able to refuel yourself with talent so a few years of tanking was inevitable.  

 

Their managemenet has done little in 30 years though to take advantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

This is the thing.  They won a cup right away without him (beat the Bruins and Andy Moog and our old Pal Reggie Lemelin I think) but in the years after, there was a cascade of players exiting (Messier, Coffey, Tikkanen, Kurri, Graves) and other guys started aging out (Huddy, Lowe, Fuhr) of their effectiveness and the organization got little in return for any of it.  They were an epic Dynasty and it's extremely difficult to have the lengthy run they did (based almost 100% on skill)  and be able to refuel yourself with talent so a few years of tanking was inevitable.  

 

Their managemenet has done little in 30 years though to take advantage. 

 

Seriously, think about the other dynasties from that era:   Montreal and Islanders.   Other than the Habs in 93, what has either franchise done since those dynasties?   Similar happened to both.  It's actually kind of bizarre when you put them in that context and realize, but all three plummeted and have rarely bobbed back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

 

Seriously, think about the other dynasties from that era:   Montreal and Islanders.   Other than the Habs in 93, what has either franchise done since those dynasties?   Similar happened to both.  It's actually kind of bizarre when you put them in that context and realize, but all three plummeted and have rarely bobbed back up.

 

The Redwings cups were a bit more spread out and could be attributed more to an approach to the entire game from management, to coaching to players than to a specific talent pool.  The Devils cups  in a historical context (forgive me) come down to Clutch and Grab and Brodeur.  The Blackhawks appear to mostly have been the right group at the right time (which has passed) and the same for the Kings teams.  

 

I will not even mention the other team that has won multiple cups in recent decades.  I don't want to get into a whole thing... and that will definitely get me into a whole thing.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I will not even mention the other team that has won multiple cups in recent decades.  I don't want to get into a whole thing... and that will definitely get me into a whole thing.  

 

yeah, I'd take a flyer on that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

The Redwings cups were a bit more spread out and could be attributed more to an approach to the entire game from management, to coaching to players than to a specific talent pool.  The Devils cups  in a historical context (forgive me) come down to Clutch and Grab and Brodeur.  The Blackhawks appear to mostly have been the right group at the right time (which has passed) and the same for the Kings teams

 

Yeah, these are all slightly different from the late 70s/80s dynasty teams and their fate.   Redwings and Devils were both somewhat spread out.   Blackhawks are similar in terms of rise and fall, but at least they have the salary cap excuse.   But I mean, the Isles and Oilers, in particular, just fell off a cliff and just kind of stayed on the rocks below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

This is a good take, and one that I, myself, need to remember.

 

The truth is he has among the best corsi and fenwick on the team.  And he has less offensive zone starts and more defensive zone starts than Hayes, who is supposed to be two-way as well.

 

If he were to get his shooting percentage closer to his normal, there wouldn't be the discussion.   He's--very quietly--doing everything else.

 

 

Also... He's got 18 goals and 31 points and a plus 7.   It's not like he's producing horrible numbers!  

 

Yzerman scored less when the Redwings finally started winning cups.  

 

And you're definitely right about the "puck luck"  I think when it's this prolonged, it's more than luck, but it's not like he's slacking off out there.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 One in which they won a Cup. 

 

They've been almost consistently horrible since, with the exception of 2006.   But is that the direct result of the Gretsky trade, or is that just horrific ownership and management?  Is it just that the 80s Oilers were better players than executives?

 

You and King have sort of-kinda helped to solidify my point.

Gretzky was traded for who or what that made the Oil better ?

Nothing and no one.

Yes, they were still a wagon for a few years but that was as you have both stated, Messier, Coffee, Kuri. were still around and as I said that team was a wagon.

Then once those guys had their diaspora there weren't picks from 99's trade that turned into any one of note.

Trading their best player netted zero. Any success was residual from his time there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

 

You and King have sort of-kinda helped to solidify my point.

Gretzky was traded for who or what that made the Oil better ?

Nothing and no one.

Yes, they were still a wagon for a few years but that was as you have both stated, Messier, Coffee, Kuri. were still around and as I said that team was a wagon.

Then once those guys had their diaspora there weren't picks from 99's trade that turned into any one of note.

Trading their best player netted zero. Any success was residual from his time there.

 

Yeah, I was actually starting to think in these terms even as I was posting.

Because like you said, Gretsky was traded from not just a Cup team, but a dynasty Cup team that still had mileage. 

Obviously, Giroux wouldn't be getting traded from a Cup team.  

 

If I'm trading Giroux--and I don't think I am---picks are tertiary.  I want one or two solid younger players--players that the other team's GM would be insane to trade for Giroux.

 

I mean, Giroux is no Gretsky, so there's that, too.  But I get the comparison in the context it was made.

Edited by ruxpin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Anyway, Trading Giroux is no path to making this team better.  He's not putting up huge numbers, but I think too many people are watching the stat sheets and seeing the problem and not noticing how much he does in the games.  

 

If this was just the numbers, I would've gladly looked the other way.  But something about the way he is playing this year is just off.  I can't put my finger on it, but he is just not himself this year.  In the previous years when he was not scoring, he was always hustling (he was one guy I didn't have to worry about playing hard), creating and making plays... And his passing has always been accurate.  This year, I don't see much of that at all.  And what bothers me the most, he seems to be taking shifts off and avoiding contact.  Not always.  Not even in every game.  But enough to make me wonder that there may be something going on with him that we don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good takes in this discussion. For me, trading G sends the wrong message to this group of players. I think dealing the captain, who is a "face of the franchise" player makes all other players question their future

 

You dont need to move him. He is still a dominant face off man, plays good two way hockey, and has great skill. Im sure hes lost a step, but what we are seeing is a player in declune more because of whats around him, and less because he has lost it 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with CoachX that moving G might be gut-wrenching/counterproductive.  But I don't see anyone else as untouchable.  The question is their "movability," even as rentals.   They still have a long time left on the contracts.

 

I agree with some of the pundits that JVR may be the biggest albatross.  Scoring is about his only calling card.  If that dries up, his value is zilch. I hope we aren't seeing LeClair/Umberger/Simmonds Redux. Shelf life of power forwards seems to shorter than others. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Gretzky was traded. So it's not like ZOMG can't trade G...the scenario where the team is actually better in the short to medium term is hard for me to imagine. Also, after that trade EDM wasn't a juggernaut any longer. they had two more decent years and then they've been in the wilderness since.

 

 

Well... Decent with another Cup win thrown in there.    ;)

 

But yeah, they had a long period of sucking other than the late 90s, where they were competitive. What would help the Flyers is that their head of scouting doesn't live in Mexico, and (presumably) actually watches hockey games.

 

Also good: the Flyers scout the World Juniors. Edmonton didn't do that until 2007.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 2
      Post
      One in which they won a Cup.    They've been almost consistently horrible since, with the exception of 2006.   But is that the direct result of the Gretsky trade, or is that just horrific ownership and management?  Is it just that the 80s Oilers were better players than executives?
    • 2
      Post
      Also... He's got 18 goals and 31 points and a plus 7.   It's not like he's producing horrible numbers!     Yzerman scored less when the Redwings finally started winning cups.     And you're definitely right about the "puck luck"  I think when it's this prolonged, it's more than luck, but it's not like he's slacking off out there.  
    • 2
      Post
      Lots of good takes in this discussion. For me, trading G sends the wrong message to this group of players. I think dealing the captain, who is a "face of the franchise" player makes all other players question their future   You dont need to move him. He is still a dominant face off man, plays good two way hockey, and has great skill. Im sure hes lost a step, but what we are seeing is a player in declune more because of whats around him, and less because he has lost it 
    • 1
      Post
      Used to be The cost is either 1/3 or 2/3 of the remaining salary, averaged out over twice as many years that were left on the contract. This is determined by the age of the player at the time of the buyout - if they are under 26, they get 1/3, if they are 26 or older they get 2/3.   Source: Hidden Content Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.   to me this always seems like a long time to pay
    • 1
      Post
      Fun facts: JVR is tied for third on the team in goals with Couturier, 1 goal behind Giroux and Hayes, two behind team leader Konecny. Voracek is third on the team in points.   It's more a reflection on the team as a whole not scoring than specific individuals.   Here's the buyout on JVR: SEASON INITIAL BASE SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT SIGNING BONUS BUYOUT COST POST-BUYOUT EARNINGS SAVINGS
    • 1
      Post
      Well... Decent with another Cup win thrown in there.      But yeah, they had a long period of sucking other than the late 90s, where they were competitive. What would help the Flyers is that their head of scouting doesn't live in Mexico, and (presumably) actually watches hockey games.   Also good: the Flyers scout the World Juniors. Edmonton didn't do that until 2007.  

Game Room 1

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...