I don't know that they couldn't do jack poop about it. I think if this situation becomes more common in the future, it could cause some issues down the road.

For the record, I don't have a problem with Lecavalier sitting. I wouldn't play him right now either.
- MJL

Under current CBA rules not a thing could be done. And if that ever changes (which is highly unlikely) it probably wouldn't apply retroactively to contacts signed before a rule was put in place.

Realistically, if the NHLPA fought for something like that they would have to make an insanely large concession somewhere else.

Also true. I just think there should be some mechanism, where a team is better able to deal with this situation. Contracts can be mutually terminated, but that's normally when a player wants out of the NHL.
- MJL

That's what the NHL may have to do then. Mutual termination is pretty much the only level headed way to solve it.

Also true. I just think there should be some mechanism, where a team is better able to deal with this situation. Contracts can be mutually terminated, but that's normally when a player wants out of the NHL.
- MJL

I'd agree with that -- some teams would howl, but that really is what needs to happen. Mutual termination of these deals...they need to find a way to make that work. I'd even be fine with a penalty, maybe $1 million on the cap.

But my whole thing with this is that the Flyers shouldn't have to be the ones who eat a huge chunk of salary, or throw in a significant asset, to deal with this.

Vinny can just sit. Not saying it's ideal -- I understand your point. But if it was up to me, he'd sit first, because he's the one with the NMC, and he has the right to retire.

Under current CBA rules not a thing could be done. And if that ever changes (which is highly unlikely) it probably wouldn't apply retroactively to contacts signed before a rule was put in place.

Realistically, if the NHLPA fought for something like that they would have to make an insanely large concession somewhere else.
- hereticpride

I don't think you can say that. There is precedent for a rule put in place that affected contracts signed before the CBA came into effect. And there is also mechanisms built into the CBA for rules to be changed during the life of a current CBA. And I'd agree that it would be quid-pro-quo.

That's what the NHL may have to do then. Mutual termination is pretty much the only level headed way to solve it.
- hereticpride

That opens up an entire can of worms. I don't see the NHL setting a precedent for a team signing a player, having it not work out, with both sides being unhappy, and allowing the contract to be terminated. It's circumvention.

I'd agree with that -- some teams would howl, but that really is what needs to happen. Mutual termination of these deals...they need to find a way to make that work. I'd even be fine with a penalty, maybe $1 million on the cap.

But my whole thing with this is that the Flyers shouldn't have to be the ones who eat a huge chunk of salary, or throw in a significant asset, to deal with this.

Vinny can just sit. Not saying it's ideal -- I understand your point. But if it was up to me, he'd sit first, because he's the one with the NMC, and he has the right to retire.
- AllInForFlyers

In essence by letting him sit, the Flyers are eating a huge chunk of salary.

In essence by letting him sit, the Flyers are eating a huge chunk of salary.
- MJL

True, but only for the required length of the contract -- it's not ideal, but it's already a sunk cost for that term. But there's nothing ideal about this

My main issue with the heavy defensive use of Couturier is, and I feel this strongly, that it's been detrimental to the development of his overall game and stagnated his development as an offensive threat.

I fully understand he's a very good defensive guy and as such he's going to be asked to carry a big load.

That said, the sheer weight of his load is almost unique in the NHL when compared to other top 9 forwards. The disparity in his O-zone and D-zone starts is huge. I'd rather see Couturier become a 50 point player and see his zone starts more in line with the percentage that guys like Bergeron see, or even a bit more even in regards to his own teammates, rather than have him stay a 35-40 point guy while getting buried.
- Jsaquella

YES

The NMC is what really limits the Flyers options. If it wasn't for the NMC, the Flyers could waive and demote Lecavalier. If Lecavalier refuses the assignment, then he would be in violation of his contract, and they could agree to mutually terminate. The Flyers can't demote him without his approval. So how can Lecavalier approve the demotion, and then refuse to report? Big red flag.

I just wouldn't buy him out. I'd buy Umberger out, first.

But for me, Vinny sits. You can tell him to stay home if he wants. But the only thing that can make this worse for the Flyers is if they go above-and-beyond to shed the salary, and there are just too many years at a high rate left.

It sucks for him. I get that. But what does anybody want the Flyers to do, here? How many times do you have to pay for a mistake? It's a bad deal, and it's unfortunate, but the penalty should be carrying the cap hit, not giving up more to make it go away -- and believe me, I want this to go away
- AllInForFlyers

The savings to buy Lecavalier out are simply not worth it.

Vincent Lecavalier buyout from CapGeek.com

2015-16: $2,888,889
2016-17: $2,888,889
2017-18: $2,388,889
2018-19: $888,889
2019-20: $888,889
2020-21: $888,889

You only save $1.6mm in the first two years, then $2.1mm the third, then there's three additional years of near $900K in dead space.

That's not worth it, rather just carry the full cap hit for three more years and be done with it.

The savings to buy Lecavalier out are simply not worth it.

Vincent Lecavalier buyout from CapGeek.com

2015-16: $2,888,889
2016-17: $2,888,889
2017-18: $2,388,889
2018-19: $888,889
2019-20: $888,889
2020-21: $888,889

You only save $1.6mm in the first two years, then $2.1mm the third, then there's three additional years of near $900K in dead space.

That's not worth it, rather just carry the full cap hit for three more years and be done with it.
- Jsaquella

The cap will probably be 80M or higher in 18/19. 900K is peanuts. The Flyers are carrying 345K of bonus overage money this year on the cap, at 69M

The savings to buy Lecavalier out are simply not worth it.

Vincent Lecavalier buyout from CapGeek.com

2015-16: $2,888,889
2016-17: $2,888,889
2017-18: $2,388,889
2018-19: $888,889
2019-20: $888,889
2020-21: $888,889

You only save $1.6mm in the first two years, then $2.1mm the third, then there's three additional years of near $900K in dead space.

That's not worth it, rather just carry the full cap hit for three more years and be done with it.
- Jsaquella

That's how I'm approaching this: Finality. Be done with it, once and for all. Hell, if you even want to keep Umberger for that reason, then do that, too. Then, in two years, be done with that, too.

Then, moving forward, be smart about these effing contracts and what you take on -- nobody's perfect and I absolutely own the fact that I thought Lecavalier would be better than this -- but there were enough red flags where the franchise didn't have to concede term AND the NMC at Lecavalier's age.

I understand wanting the player, but damn. This should be a lesson learned, and that's all right.

That opens up an entire can of worms. I don't see the NHL setting a precedent for a team signing a player, having it not work out, with both sides being unhappy, and allowing the contract to be terminated. It's circumvention.
- MJL

If its mutual then who or what is it actually circumventing? I just don't see the reason for it being taboo in the NHL I guess.

That's how I'm approaching this: Finality. Be done with it, once and for all. Hell, if you even want to keep Umberger for that reason, then do that, too. Then, in two years, be done with that, too.

Then, moving forward, be smart about these effing contracts and what you take on -- nobody's perfect and I absolutely own the fact that I thought Lecavalier would be better than this -- but there were enough red flags where the franchise didn't have to concede term AND the NMC at Lecavalier's age.

I understand wanting the player, but damn. This should be a lesson learned, and that's all right.
- AllInForFlyers

That's more my view of it, as well. The $889K or whatever isn't much, but it drags out for three additional years. I want it to be over, ASAP. If that means trading Vinny on July 2nd and eating $2.25mm per year for three years and losing a 4th rounder, so be it. I'd also rather pay Umberger's buy out for 4 years than Vinny's for 6, even if the 4th year of Umberger's is $600K more for that one year, because then it's over and done with.

If its mutual then who or what is it actually circumventing? I just don't see the reason for it being taboo in the NHL I guess.
- hereticpride

It's not taboo, it happens every season. It's just usually a younger player, who is leaving for a deal in Europe and not making a large salary here in the NHL. I think Damien Brunner is probably the most expensive deal that was terminated.

The cap will probably be 80M or higher in 18/19. 900K is peanuts. The Flyers are carrying 345K of bonus overage money this year on the cap, at 69M
- MJL

Remember when you told me the flyers aren't going to carry 2.9 mil of dead money on the cap in a buyout? Good times

If its mutual then who or what is it actually circumventing? I just don't see the reason for it being taboo in the NHL I guess.
- hereticpride

It's just going to allow an automatic out. Player isn't working out, team sits the player, the player becomes unhappy and wants out. The player has to be willing to give up the money, but otherwise it's complete circumvention. It becomes a free buyout for the team, both in terms of cap space and salary paid to player.

Players have retired such as Kovalchuk, and others have refused assignment, and violated their contract such as in the Brunner situation, but he isn't giving up a ton of money. He gave up about 1.65M

Remember when you told me the flyers aren't going to carry 2.9 mil of dead money on the cap in a buyout? Good times
- Just5

Nope, refresh my memory.

It's not taboo, it happens every season. It's just usually a younger player, who is leaving for a deal in Europe and not making a large salary here in the NHL. I think Damien Brunner is probably the most expensive deal that was terminated.
- Jsaquella

There has to be an out, the player has to retire, or be in violation of his contract, for the NHL and NHLPA to agree to mutual termination.

We're stuck with these two contracts. Stay the course. VL is only owed $8.5 million after next years signing bonus. If he can show a pulse at some point that might become tradable. Just 2 more years of Umberger so wait that out.

We're stuck with these two contracts. Stay the course. VL is only owed $8.5 million after next years signing bonus. If he can show a pulse at some point that might become tradable. Just 2 more years of Umberger so wait that out.
- jstross

You buy them out. the lineup will soon have many entry level deals. By the time those entry level deals are up the cap hits on the buyouts are minimal. You just can't keep these guys around they are too much of a drag.

Nope, refresh my memory.
- MJL

I'm not into thread hunting

You buy them out. the lineup will soon have many entry level deals. By the time those entry level deals are up the cap hits on the buyouts are minimal. You just can't keep these guys around they are too much of a drag.
- Just5

I can see that with VL, but Umberger only has 2 years left. I'd leave him on the 3rd or 4th line as was suggested.

We're stuck with these two contracts. Stay the course. VL is only owed $8.5 million after next years signing bonus. If he can show a pulse at some point that might become tradable. Just 2 more years of Umberger so wait that out.
- jstross

Yep, after the Flyers pay that $2mm bonus, and assuming they eat another $2.25mm per year, that's a miniscule amount of salary for another team to absorb.

I can see that with VL, but Umberger only has 2 years left. I'd leave him on the 3rd or 4th line as was suggested.
- jstross

The pro to keeping Umberger is, maybe he can be dealt when he has only one year left on his deal, as well. They can also buy out the last year and deal with dead cap space for one year, if worst comes to worst