Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    Im so glad bettman and the owners took half of last year to reduce the cap to help the small market teams.  Only to watch teams buyout guys and other rich teams buy more guys.  What a joke the league has become.  a mistake the owners have done.  Fixed by more spending.  Why is it some teams run a good market and teams like philly and nyr make it a joke.  

    Congrats owners.  Find more ways to beat your own stupid cba.  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    While these Compliance Buy-Outs don't count against a teams cap, they do count towards the Player's Share.  I'm not sure exactly how that influences the cap, though.  Escrow?

    This is also only a two-time thing to account for the reduced Player's Share next year.  The richer teams are benefitting for the moment, but it won't last.

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    It's a one time thing, two per team, to offset the suddenly lower cap.

    Yes, some teams are using the buyout for non-camp contraint problems (Kaberle!), but that's the nature of the beast.  I'd be pumped if the B's bought out Peverley.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    While these Compliance Buy-Outs don't count against a teams cap, they do count towards the Player's Share.  I'm not sure exactly how that influences the cap, though.  Escrow?

    This is also only a two-time thing to account for the reduced Player's Share next year.  The richer teams are benefitting for the moment, but it won't last.

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --



    really?  Last cba it sure did, this one already has.  Smart rich owners continue to beat the system. Last one they fired them in the farm ie redden.  This one they can use buyouts.  So essentially flyers buy out two high paid guys and then replace with 2 high paid guys.  Why cant teams that use the buyout be placed on probation for a year.  I know it sounds stupid but there are 10 teams making money and keeping the rest of the league a float.  

    I applaud teams like boston and ottawa who seem to lock up their own and under the guidelines of the cba.  

    Rich teams will always benefit.  Just before the lockout these morons were signing huge tickets.  Massive arm chair deals.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    It's a one time thing, two per team, to offset the suddenly lower cap.

    Yes, some teams are using the buyout for non-camp contraint problems (Kaberle!), but that's the nature of the beast.  I'd be pumped if the B's bought out Peverley.



    NAS you know you are my boy but you and i will never be on the same side of this debate.  If you are in boston at the end of september we should hit the fours for a steak n cheese.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    Right.  And we knew this had to happen.  You had firm commitments that the teams had to honour to some degree and a system that woud be painful to correct.  What it means is a 1/3 reduction in real dollars to those players - a $50M savings.  In terms of players' share, it's 1/3 per annum just like the player receives and for the same length of time, so the Players' share (I think) takes a $50M hit over the next however long.  I thinkk there was some softening of that, too, but I can't recall.

    I don't think this is a new fresh hell; I think it's the necessary adjustment period.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Right.  And we knew this had to happen.  You had firm commitments that the teams had to honour to some degree and a system that woud be painful to correct.  What it means is a 1/3 reduction in real dollars to those players - a $50M savings.  In terms of players' share, it's 1/3 per annum just like the player receives and for the same length of time, so the Players' share (I think) takes a $50M hit over the next however long.  I thinkk there was some softening of that, too, but I can't recall.

    I don't think this is a new fresh hell; I think it's the necessary adjustment period.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!



    Cap is expected to reach 80 million in 2 yrs.  once again the rich getting richer.  Adjustment period my big fat behind.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    Instead of $91.5, which is what it would have been if the players kept 57% of the revenue.  We'll see what happens next year, but the assigned number was intended in part to reflect the lost revenues of this year since there was no accurate number to use in determining the players' share of what this year's full revenues might have been.

    The owners won a $10M/team or $300M annual clawback.  One year of $100M buyouts is nothing.  Not entirely sure where your anger comes from.  RCs are paid pretty well from what I hear.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

    really?  Last cba it sure did, this one already has.  Smart rich owners continue to beat the system. Last one they fired them in the farm ie redden.  This one they can use buyouts.  So essentially flyers buy out two high paid guys and then replace with 2 high paid guys.  Why cant teams that use the buyout be placed on probation for a year.  I know it sounds stupid but there are 10 teams making money and keeping the rest of the league a float.  

    I applaud teams like boston and ottawa who seem to lock up their own and under the guidelines of the cba.  

    Rich teams will always benefit.  Just before the lockout these morons were signing huge tickets.  Massive arm chair deals.  



    I think the idea is that they signed those deals in a situation where they did have that out - burying in the minors.  Once these two years/two buyouts are done, these teams will have no real recourse should a contract prove bad.  They can't demote the player to the minors, they can't frontload a contract to a point that an early retirement is likely, and even if they did (or trade the player to a cash-poor cap-space-rich team) they will get hit with the difference in what they payed vs what they got.  So these 2 Compliance Buyouts were agreed to as a "get out of previous CBA thinking jail card".

    We'll see what insane deals get made this year.  I'm sure there will be at least one.  Consider though what would happen to Minnesota if, 3 years from now, Parise's game falls off a cliff.  That's $7.5M in cap space they can't really do anything about.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

     

    really?  Last cba it sure did, this one already has.  Smart rich owners continue to beat the system. Last one they fired them in the farm ie redden.  This one they can use buyouts.  So essentially flyers buy out two high paid guys and then replace with 2 high paid guys.  Why cant teams that use the buyout be placed on probation for a year.  I know it sounds stupid but there are 10 teams making money and keeping the rest of the league a float.  

    I applaud teams like boston and ottawa who seem to lock up their own and under the guidelines of the cba.  

    Rich teams will always benefit.  Just before the lockout these morons were signing huge tickets.  Massive arm chair deals.  

     



    I think the idea is that they signed those deals in a situation where they did have that out - burying in the minors.  Once these two years/two buyouts are done, these teams will have no real recourse should a contract prove bad.  They can't demote the player to the minors, they can't frontload a contract to a point that an early retirement is likely, and even if they did (or trade the player to a cash-poor cap-space-rich team) they will get hit with the difference in what they payed vs what they got.  So these 2 Compliance Buyouts were agreed to as a "get out of previous CBA thinking jail card".

     

    We'll see what insane deals get made this year.  I'm sure there will be at least one.  Consider though what would happen to Minnesota if, 3 years from now, Parise's game falls off a cliff.  That's $7.5M in cap space they can't really do anything about.



    Well correct me if im wrong but cant a team eat mobey should they want to trade a dead weight contract.  If the cap hits 80 million in 2 yrs doesnt this benefit the higher end teams.  

    Book, its not anger.  Im just tired of the cba being cheated by the ones creating it.  i think the players are spoiled but its based on rich owners who can abuse their own system.  i sure hope this fixes things bc if you look at recent history there havent been many teams in the finals that havent been abusing it.  

    Chicago, nj, la, pitt, van, philly.  all playing the system.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    First a comment - I was wrong about the cap recapture on trades.  That only happens for retirements/defections.

    If the cap hits $80M yes, higher end teams benefit - but there will also be more revenue sharing, yes?  That should help.

    A team can eat half of the cap hit of a player when making a trade.  In the scenario I suggested, that still leaves Minnesota with nearly $4M in cap space they can't use.

    So there are ways to get relief, but none come without a cost (once the Compliance Buy-Outs are used up).

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to shuperman's comment:



    NAS you know you are my boy but you and i will never be on the same side of this debate.  If you are in boston at the end of september we should hit the fours for a steak n cheese.  



    Yes sir.  This is exactly how to handle different points of view.  It's called "civilized debate".  Most don't agree with my point of view being on the owners side.  Some go bananas and hate me for six months.  Others say, "I see it differently."  One way is clearly better than the other.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     



    NAS you know you are my boy but you and i will never be on the same side of this debate.  If you are in boston at the end of september we should hit the fours for a steak n cheese.  

     

     

     

     



    Yes sir.  This is exactly how to handle different points of view.  It's called "civilized debate".  Most don't agree with my point of view being on the owners side.  Some go bananas and hate me for six months.  Others say, "I see it differently."  One way is clearly better than the other.

     

     

     



    Yes, kumbuya.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    If they eat money, they eat equivalent cap hit.  You can always trade your mistakes of course, but that's not circumventing the system.  The system caps spending at two levels: team and league.  Traded cap hits affect team limits without effect on the league limit.  In that sense, yes, the rich have an advantage, and it's one built into the difference between the floor and the ceiling of the Cap.  If you can spend to the hilt, you're expected to use every dime to make your team better (regardless of whether this is logical - think back to the threads saying PC screwged up by leaving cap space unused).  If you're Phoenix, and you want to run a business, you only need to spend the minimum and you hope to compete well enough to earn that playoff revenue.

    The new system should make it harder for the rich teams to buy their way out of trouble and expand that gap on new contracts because there are fewer and fewer ways to pay a player without also suffering the Cap hit.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    Just looking at the big picture, ...there was serious delay in getting the game going because the industry just couldn't afford to pay.  The cap rollback really only affects about the top 6(obvious reasons), and the bottom 4(floor compliance).

    That saved money is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent on buyouts.  The math just desn't work.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    shupe - don't let him take you to a movie.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:



    NAS you know you are my boy but you and i will never be on the same side of this debate.  If you are in boston at the end of september we should hit the fours for a steak n cheese.  

     

     



    Yes sir.  This is exactly how to handle different points of view.  It's called "civilized debate".  Most don't agree with my point of view being on the owners side.  Some go bananas and hate me for six months.  Others say, "I see it differently."  One way is clearly better than the other.

     



    I hate you for longer than that.  Shupe too.  Have fun at The Fours.  Dez and I are meeting at The Harp and will be looking for you guys in the parking lot afterwards.

    I expect it to go down something like this:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/426608ab8c/bat-fight

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to shuperman's comment:

       What a joke the league has become.  a mistake the owners have done.  Fixed by more spending.  Why is it some teams run a good market and teams like philly and nyr make it a joke.  

    Congrats owners.  Find more ways to beat your own stupid cba. 




    Their own worst enemies!

     

    @Fletch - Ferrel has to do a "Ric Flair" spoof movie...WOO!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

     

     

    @Fletch - Ferrel has to do a "Ric Flair" spoof movie...WOO!


    Damn right.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stuke50. Show Stuke50's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.


    I sure hope when the next lockout occurs, the owners don't come to the table and plead poverty with the kind of monies they are wasting on the buyouts. There needs to be some kind of  accountablity from within their group. If they have so much money for buyouts, then don't raise the ticket prices for the fans. A bunch of jackals they are. They eat their own.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    Certainly you must know I believe in the right of a capitalist to do as he/she wishes.  Certainly JJ has the right given the fact he built TD Garden with his finances.  Kudos.  I also give him credit for working to make the Cap a major player in developing parity in the NHL.  I do NOT give him credit for not using the buyout system on Peverly even Kelly.  Yes it was his stance in the last CBA not to give buyouts, looking at the buyout of the banking industry, I simply concur.  Yet the NHL is not the banking industry.  JJ made huge amounts of money with the Bs going to the Stanley Cup.  So why did Horton decided to hit the market, why did PC feel the urge to do a public admonishment of Seguin, and why has the media market say the Bs need a right winger but lack the Cap space, cause JJ decided to not to do buyouts.  Dollar for Dollar the Bs have outproduced the Flyers in recent years. So why is Snider smarter than JJ, he wants a Cup. JJ has a recent Cup and almost a second given the injury of Bergeron as a rationale for not doing so.  JJ please realize the money you have made, let the CBA stance subside, and move onto a competitive Bs team next year.   BUYOUT PEVERLY!

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    It's a one time thing, two per team, to offset the suddenly lower cap.

    Yes, some teams are using the buyout for non-camp contraint problems (Kaberle!), but that's the nature of the beast.  I'd be pumped if the B's bought out Peverley.

     




     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to islamorada's comment:

    Certainly you must know I believe in the right of a capitalist to do as he/she wishes.  Certainly JJ has the right given the fact he built TD Garden with his finances.  Kudos.  I also give him credit for working to make the Cap a major player in developing parity in the NHL.  I do NOT give him credit for not using the buyout system on Peverly even Kelly.  Yes it was his stance in the last CBA not to give buyouts, looking at the buyout of the banking industry, I simply concur.  Yet the NHL is not the banking industry.  JJ made huge amounts of money with the Bs going to the Stanley Cup.  So why did Horton decided to hit the market, why did PC feel the urge to do a public admonishment of Seguin, and why has the media market say the Bs need a right winger but lack the Cap space, cause JJ decided to not to do buyouts.  Dollar for Dollar the Bs have outproduced the Flyers in recent years. So why is Snider smarter than JJ, he wants a Cup. JJ has a recent Cup and almost a second given the injury of Bergeron as a rationale for not doing so.  JJ please realize the money you have made, let the CBA stance subside, and move onto a competitive Bs team next year.   BUYOUT PEVERLY!

     



    What's your definition of smart?  Jacobs has Chiarelli as his GM, Snider has Holmgren.  Win Jacobs.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Lockout last year. 100m in buyouts.

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     



    NAS you know you are my boy but you and i will never be on the same side of this debate.  If you are in boston at the end of september we should hit the fours for a steak n cheese.  

     

     

     

     



    Yes sir.  This is exactly how to handle different points of view.  It's called "civilized debate".  Most don't agree with my point of view being on the owners side.  Some go bananas and hate me for six months.  Others say, "I see it differently."  One way is clearly better than the other.

     

     

     



    I hate you for longer than that.  Shupe too.  Have fun at The Fours.  Dez and I are meeting at The Harp and will be looking for you guys in the parking lot afterwards.

     

    I expect it to go down something like this:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/426608ab8c/bat-fight

     



    Huge Will fan.  Good find. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share