Sign in with your NHL account:
  • Submit
  • Or
  • Sign in with Google

Jump to content


Photo

Poll: Which Flame Player Will Be Bought Out?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

Poll: Poll: Which Flame Player Will Be Bought Out? (14 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will be bought out?

  1. Babchuck (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  2. Stajan (5 votes [35.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.71%

  3. Other (5 votes [35.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.71%

  4. No One (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:06 AM

According to leaked reports the NHL as given the PA a counter offer that would allow for a single compliance buy-out that would not impact the salary cap. The Flames have a number of characteristics that may make them apt to take advantage of that:
  • High priced players they would likely want to be rid of
  • Close to the cap
  • Close to the 50-contract limit
  • Deep pocket owners that have shown a willingness to spend money
Assuming they choose to take advantage of this one time compliance buy-out (and assuming the reports are accurate and we actually have a season) then which player do you think they will buy-out?

#2 FlamesLogic

FlamesLogic

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:21 PM

The buyout is for the 2013/2014 season so babchuk isnt even under contract. Stajan will have one year left at a dollar hit of 2.5M and a cap hit of 3.5M.

Its hard to project things like this with a season (or half season as it may be) before it actually takes affect, especially with a new coach in town and own that should be a fair degree different than the previous regimes in terms of play style.

For all we know Hudler or Stempniak may be the bigger liabilities or more easily replaced parts. Maybe Wideman turns in a terrible effort. All have multi year contracts at significant dollars. All may be a path to better use of the exemption came 2013/2014 than a one year reprieve from a middling stajan.

#3 MWflames

MWflames

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

Assuming a Cap hit of 60M next season the Flames will have roughly 12M in Cap Space. The big names they'll need to replace/resign are Iginla (assuming he doesn't move), Cervenka (Maybe?). As well Backlund and Brodie will likely be subject to a sizeable salary increase.

Stajan is the most likely to go. He just has never established a place with the flames, and not too many people even consider him when looking at the flames future.

There is no point buying out Babchuck as his contract is finished after this year.

I doubt Hudler/Wideman will go barring a seriously poor performance or perhaps some bad chemistry in the locker room, although their contracts are quite large.

I could see that if the Flames decide they are desperate to resign Iginla after this season, that Cammalleri could be bought out given our depth at LW and his 6 Million contract. However, I'd imagine he could likely be traded at a discount before that happened.

#4 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

I think this conversation is a bit pre-mature, but since you brought it up...

First of all, it is important to keep in mind that they are proposing this for the 2013-14 season.

That being the case, Babchuk, Comeau and Butler's contracts would already expire. Also, total contracts are currently only $48M for 14 players, so it is quite possible that the answer would be no one.

But if it weren't no one, the obvious answer is Stajan (assuming someone - like Backlund, Reinhart, Cervenka, etc, - steps up and they aren't still short of Cs at that point)

#5 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

I don't believe this is for the 2013/2014 season. Lebrun states: http://espn.go.com/b...dec-27-proposal

Each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share


I read that as the 2013/14 being the deadline to use the buyout. Not as it is for the 2013/14. In other words you could use it immediately. Which would be consistent with the last CBA and make sense as this is part of the transition rules (from 1 CBA to the next).

That said is someone else has contradicting information let me know.

In my opinion the decision will depend on Hartley's assessment of Stajan and the other C. Stajan is arguable the only natural C on the team and he is previously a proven top 6. But if they don't see Stajan as a potential top 6 C or if they are ultra confident in the other guys penciled in then buying out Stajan makes the most sense due to the extra million and the extra year on his contract.

But personally I think it will be Babchuk. I think keeping Stajan as an option as a top 6C makes sense given the question marks at the position. I also don't see any room for Babchuk unless they have plans of moving out another D man.

#6 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,084 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:17 PM

It would depend on if a team were able to re-sign the bought out player to a more cap friendly contract (Alfredsson in 2008).
If so, either Cammy or JBo would be logical choices. Both would collect 2/3 of what's owed (over twice the length remaining) so signing either @ even 1/2 of current hit cuts $3 million of the cap while the player gets even more real $s. They'd come closer to recouping the money lost due to the stoppage then most so shouldn't have a problem doing this.
.
Babchuk it's the prorated part of this years hit (if kehatch's read on it is right) in a year the cap is @ 70.2 & we really don't need to save 1.425 (48 games leaves 57% of salary/hit).
Stajan it's again the prorated part & the 3.5.
We save as much/more with Cammy or JBo.

#7 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:23 PM

Another potential quirk in the new CBA (same LeBrun/ESPN source quoted above) is

Ability for Clubs to retain/allocate Salary and Cap Charges in the context of Player
Trades within specified parameters.


This could open the door to trade a player like Stajan instead of a buy-out. Especially with his actual salary down to 2.5 M in his final two years.

It also re-opens a door for a possible Bouwmeester trade. But that is for another thread.

#8 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,231 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

No one has brought up Wideman but if he stinks up the joint in his first year, then he's likely the front runner to be gone, right handed shot or not. Because if he was a left handed shot, he'd be nothing more than a 3/4/5 guy at $3.25-mil per.

Hudler has a lengthy contract as well so if he doesn't pan out either, then it's a great opportunity to cut him loose... no pun intended. Hope his neck heals 110%.

#9 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

No one has brought up Wideman but if he stinks up the joint in his first year, then he's likely the front runner to be gone, right handed shot or not. Because if he was a left handed shot, he'd be nothing more than a 3/4/5 guy at $3.25-mil per.

Hudler has a lengthy contract as well so if he doesn't pan out either, then it's a great opportunity to cut him loose... no pun intended. Hope his neck heals 110%.


I will wait and see them play in a Flames uniform before I start thinking buy-out. Besides, I don't think they are great candidates anyway. They would both prove to be very expensive buy-outs. Either would have to be very dreadful for the Flames to consider buying them out a year out from signing long term deals.

#10 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 07:26 PM

I don't believe this is for the 2013/2014 season. Lebrun states: http://espn.go.com/b...dec-27-proposal



I read that as the 2013/14 being the deadline to use the buyout. Not as it is for the 2013/14. In other words you could use it immediately. Which would be consistent with the last CBA and make sense as this is part of the transition rules (from 1 CBA to the next).

That said is someone else has contradicting information let me know.

In my opinion the decision will depend on Hartley's assessment of Stajan and the other C. Stajan is arguable the only natural C on the team and he is previously a proven top 6. But if they don't see Stajan as a potential top 6 C or if they are ultra confident in the other guys penciled in then buying out Stajan makes the most sense due to the extra million and the extra year on his contract.

But personally I think it will be Babchuk. I think keeping Stajan as an option as a top 6C makes sense given the question marks at the position. I also don't see any room for Babchuk unless they have plans of moving out another D man.

Even if you could do it prior, why buy out Babchuk? The propsed cap limit for this year is $70.2M and next year is $60M. Babchuk's contract is gone next year so no need to buy him out at all.

#11 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:04 PM

It would depend on if a team were able to re-sign the bought out player to a more cap friendly contract (Alfredsson in 2008).
If so, either Cammy or JBo would be logical choices. Both would collect 2/3 of what's owed (over twice the length remaining) so signing either @ even 1/2 of current hit cuts $3 million of the cap while the player gets even more real $s. They'd come closer to recouping the money lost due to the stoppage then most so shouldn't have a problem doing this.
.
Babchuk it's the prorated part of this years hit (if kehatch's read on it is right) in a year the cap is @ 70.2 & we really don't need to save 1.425 (48 games leaves 57% of salary/hit).
Stajan it's again the prorated part & the 3.5.
We save as much/more with Cammy or JBo.

If a team were able to buyout and resign the player, Wideman would be the guy to do that with. Those other guys you mentioned have less than half the contract.

#12 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,231 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

If a team were able to buyout and resign the player, Wideman would be the guy to do that with. Those other guys you mentioned have less than half the contract.

Holy cap circumvention batman! Buy him out and then re-sign him to 4-years at league minimum?? He gets the cash up front. Flames get the cap hit long term.

#13 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

Even if you could do it prior, why buy out Babchuk? The propsed cap limit for this year is $70.2M and next year is $60M. Babchuk's contract is gone next year so no need to buy him out at all.


The Flames are the fourth highest in terms of cap. They are also at 47 contracts and have to keep at least one to sign Ramage. They are short on actual roster spots as well and it looks like NHL 1-ways n the AHL will count against the cap. They don't need to buy him out. But if they aren't going to play him it makes more sense to do that then pay him to play in the AHL.


If a team were able to buyout and resign the player, Wideman would be the guy to do that with. Those other guys you mentioned have less than half the contract.


Normally you can't resign a player for X period after buying them out. Specifically to avoid this type of cap circumvention.

#14 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:42 PM

The Flames are the fourth highest in terms of cap. They are also at 47 contracts and have to keep at least one to sign Ramage. They are short on actual roster spots as well and it looks like NHL 1-ways n the AHL will count against the cap. They don't need to buy him out. But if they aren't going to play him it makes more sense to do that then pay him to play in the AHL.




Normally you can't resign a player for X period after buying them out. Specifically to avoid this type of cap circumvention.

- But the Flames aren't over the cap next season. It's for teams trying to get under the cap of 60 million in the 2013-14 season. It would be a waste to use it on Babchuk. If anything, maybe a budget team can trade their buyout candidate to the Flames with another asset.

- I agree. That doesn't seem like something the NHL would want to condone.

#15 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:03 PM

But the Flames aren't over the cap next season. It's for teams trying to get under the cap of 60 million in the 2013-14 season. It would be a waste to use it on Babchuk. If anything, maybe a budget team can trade their buyout candidate to the Flames with another asset.


On second thought I agree they may choose to save it until later in the season or next off season to make sure they can stay cap compliant when the salaries do drop. It is likely not the right decision to waste a penalty free buyout on a 2.5 million dollar player with a single season on his contract.

Fortunately the Flames are in a position where they don't have any contracts that are likely to haunt them come next season. Stajan's is really the only one and I think it is a smarter decision to hold on to him due to our uncertainty at C.

The Flames have Giordano, Hudler, Wideman, and Tanguay signed long term. I don't see any of them as a candidate for a buy-out. Past next season they also have Cammalleri, Stajan, Stempniak, Jones, Jackman, Bouwmeester, Sarich, and Smith. Stajan, Bouwmeester, Sarich, and Cammalleri could be candidates if they don't play well this season but I would wait until the season is complete.

So I guess I change my answer to nobody. Unless they really want to get rid of Stajan.

#16 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,049 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:38 PM

I don't see anyone being bought out. Maybe if a deal fell in their lap for a #1 center or something and it forced them to but other than that I don't see them doing it.

2 years ago you might have said Stajan. After the injuries last season I can't see him on that list.

You may see Vancouver doing something like this with Roberto Luongo because they have pretty much replaced him already and his huge contract. We have no one in the same or a similar situation.

#17 cross16

cross16

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,219 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:47 AM

I took this to understand that this is for the 2013 offseason and not fon sr the remainder of this season should it be played. From what I understand most of the changes they are proposing in the new CBA would take place next season with this season being played under different paramters than the remainders. Could be wrong of course thats just my interpretation.

If we use the assumption that this is for the 2013 season then I would say no one would be bought out becuase I dont' see the value in spending the money up front. They have plenty of contracts coming off the books so there 50 won't be a problem, they have cap space and really the only long term contracts they have are all Feaster negotiated and i can't see him willing to buy out guys like Wideman/Hudler without giving them a chance to play for a least a full season.
One player I could see that hasn't been brought up would be Stempniak. with hudler, potentially Iginla and Baertschi all in the fold another RW at 2.5 is not a fantastic investment. It's a stretch becuase I don't see enough value in it but it's a possibilty.

One scenario that I'm a little intrigued with is looking at potentially buying out Jay Bouwmeester. 2013/14 is his last contract year and no question he is not worth the 6.8 under the old CBA let alone a new one. Buying him out over one year would not cost a lot of money up front and then they could negotiate a multi year extension and probably save the money they would pay him up front. Say a 4 year 5.5 mill/yr package, he gets close to what he'll probably get anyway at the end of the season but would actually get paid more than the 6.8 he was due anyaway and the Flames get some cap savings as well. I'd love for him to take less but I cna't see him wanting less than Wideman but maybe they could even get him to go down closer to 5 mill.

#18 The_People1

The_People1

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 11,231 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

From what I understand most of the changes they are proposing in the new CBA would take place next season with this season being played under different paramters than the remainders.

Isn't it funny though? The NHLPA wanted to play this season while negotiating a new CBA. The NHL says 'no'. Then the NHL comes along and presents the idea that the first season of the CBA be played under the old CBA and the new CBA will kick in next season.

#19 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,084 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:13 PM

Isn't it funny though? The NHLPA wanted to play this season while negotiating a new CBA. The NHL says 'no'. Then the NHL comes along and presents the idea that the first season of the CBA be played under the old CBA and the new CBA will kick in next season.

But it would be played with a signed CBA rather then 1 where Fehr can send the players on strike @ playoff time if played without a CBA. That's a big hammer to hand to the NHLPA.

I'd rather have no season rather then a full season that leaves us in limbo with no playoffs.

#20 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,080 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:19 PM

But it would be played with a signed CBA rather then 1 where Fehr can send the players on strike @ playoff time if played without a CBA. That's a big hammer to hand to the NHLPA.

I'd rather have no season rather then a full season that leaves us in limbo with no playoffs.


Exactly...