|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Aug 15, 2013 21:51:47 GMT -5
One question: The way this is worded if we sign someone age 33 to a 4 year deal and eventually have to buy him out because he retires/defects/recieves a career ending injury the buyout would be no cap hit. Correct? Being as it is worded no more then half of a contract and not half or more of a contract. Just want to make sure I fully understand this. That is correct |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 17:44:04 GMT -5
Do you retain someone's rights until they return, or only for the length that you signed them for? It does seem a little illogical that you would hold a player's rights longer by buying them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Aug 18, 2013 15:10:40 GMT -5
Do you retain someone's rights until they return, or only for the length that you signed them for? It does seem a little illogical that you would hold a player's rights longer by buying them out. You hold their rights until they return. It is kinda like the NHL's Nashville Predators with Radulov. He defected, so the Preds did not have to pay him, but they still owned his rights. Should he ever come back, he would have to honour his contractual obligations to the Preds. The staff had discussed various methods of how to accomplish this effect and we decided that this method was the easiest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 18:52:47 GMT -5
Fair enough. Although the Radulov rule in the NHL is because he is at RFA age, and not UFA age. But not important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Aug 18, 2013 21:06:39 GMT -5
Fair enough. Although the Radulov rule in the NHL is because he is at RFA age, and not UFA age. But not important. Actually, the RFA status had nothing to do with it. Radulov broke a contractual agreement with the Preds and he oweda year to the Predators because his NHL contract had not been fulfilled. Take Tim Thomas... had the Isles not needed his cap hit to artificially increase their cap, they could have tolled the last year on his contract because he had not yet fulfilled his last season. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Blackhawks on Aug 21, 2013 9:53:32 GMT -5
What would the ruling of Sean Avery be, Im not sure if he has "officially" retired, however he has stated it and he hasnt played since December 2011
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Aug 21, 2013 10:33:55 GMT -5
What would the ruling of Sean Avery be, Im not sure if he has "officially" retired, however he has stated it and he hasnt played since December 2011 He is an inactive player and can be bought out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 14:50:13 GMT -5
Do you retain someone's rights until they return, or only for the length that you signed them for? It does seem a little illogical that you would hold a player's rights longer by buying them out. You hold their rights until they return. It is kinda like the NHL's Nashville Predators with Radulov. He defected, so the Preds did not have to pay him, but they still owned his rights. Should he ever come back, he would have to honour his contractual obligations to the Preds. The staff had discussed various methods of how to accomplish this effect and we decided that this method was the easiest. But that is flawed logic. Radulov left his team, the team did not buy him out. They retain his rights and don't have to pay him. Once he returns to the NHL his contract kicks back in and he needs to be paid and has a cap hit. I'd be happy to let teams do that, but if they choose to buy a player out and have no "legal" requirement to honor the preexisting contract then i say kick that player loose. |
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Aug 21, 2013 15:11:38 GMT -5
You hold their rights until they return. It is kinda like the NHL's Nashville Predators with Radulov. He defected, so the Preds did not have to pay him, but they still owned his rights. Should he ever come back, he would have to honour his contractual obligations to the Preds. The staff had discussed various methods of how to accomplish this effect and we decided that this method was the easiest. But that is flawed logic. Radulov left his team, the team did not buy him out. They retain his rights and don't have to pay him. Once he returns to the NHL his contract kicks back in and he needs to be paid and has a cap hit. I'd be happy to let teams do that, but if they choose to buy a player out and have no "legal" requirement to honor the preexisting contract then i say kick that player loose. As I mentioned, the staff discussed many options, and this is the option we chose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 15:13:22 GMT -5
But that is flawed logic. Radulov left his team, the team did not buy him out. They retain his rights and don't have to pay him. Once he returns to the NHL his contract kicks back in and he needs to be paid and has a cap hit. I'd be happy to let teams do that, but if they choose to buy a player out and have no "legal" requirement to honor the preexisting contract then i say kick that player loose. As I mentioned, the staff discussed many options, and this is the option we chose. well hopefully it is not beneath the staff to take suggestions and look at getting decisions right and thinking about what may work the best. Not saying it is what i've suggested but i do think that this could be tweaked to work better. |
|
