Sean Maloughney: The Significance of A Potential Compliance Buyout For The Oilers

Even if Lucic is bought out by Calgary i'm pretty sure his retained salary will still count against the cap. Whatever happens with a player afterwards doesn't change the conditions of a deal.

Even if Lucic is bought out by Calgary i'm pretty sure his retained salary will still count against the cap. Whatever happens with a player afterwards doesn't change the conditions of a deal.
- redseerpf

If a contract is bought out, the conditions of the retention are still effected by the buyout. If it were a normal buyout and Calgary bought Lucic out, the Oilers would incur a 687,500 hit, 500,000, and 687,500 in each of the last 3 years along with a 62,500 cap penalty in the three years following. Capfriendly is my source (https://www.capfriendly.c...lator/milan-lucic#results)

As compliance buyouts are most simply described as cap-exempted buyouts, I'm pretty sure that this goes for both portions of any existing contract that gets bought out. Don't think there's been an example to prove either belief, though.

That having been said, I don't know if I'd be too certain of a Lucic buyout. From what I understood at the time of the trade, part of the Flames' motivation for making the trade was that their management had no interest in spending the money on a buyout. This is part of why they traded for a player that better fit their roster needs at the cost of being a buyout nightmare. Had they thought buyouts were an option, one reckons they'd have done it last year or held onto Neal for one more year to shorten the buyout penalty.

Obviously a compliance buyout offers enough additional benefit to the team that maybe their ownership could be amenable to it but, if money for a buyout wasn't available last year, hard to imagine it suddenly being more available after a now-shortened season.

Sean Maloughney: The Significance of A Potential Compliance Buyout For The Oilers
- freelancer

Good blog Sean. 👍

That having been said, I don't know if I'd be too certain of a Lucic buyout. From what I understood at the time of the trade, part of the Flames' motivation for making the trade was that their management had no interest in spending the money on a buyout. This is part of why they traded for a player that better fit their roster needs at the cost of being a buyout nightmare. Had they thought buyouts were an option, one reckons they'd have done it last year or held onto Neal for one more year to shorten the buyout penalty.

Obviously a compliance buyout offers enough additional benefit to the team that maybe their ownership could be amenable to it but, if money for a buyout wasn't available last year, hard to imagine it suddenly being more available after a now-shortened season.
- MaximumBone

I still feel the Flames would buy out Lucic if the opportunity presented itself. Then promptly sign Rinaldo.

A strong chance they won't be bumping up the cap? Going out on a limb with that one. What would have to happen in the next few months to cause a scenario in which the cap would be increasing? Not all teams really need a buyout. I don't see that happening.

A strong chance they won't be bumping up the cap? Going out on a limb with that one. What would have to happen in the next few months to cause a scenario in which the cap would be increasing? Not all teams really need a buyout. I don't see that happening.
- Hardbalz

I think the NHLPA has a lot of incentive to agree to such a thing. Those who get bought out still get 2/3rds of their pay (iirc) and a whole swath of new cap space opens up for the RFAs and UFAs up for contracts this year that might otherwise not be seeing nearly as much.

Every team didn't need them back after the 2012-13 lockout but they still made it an option as a result of the cap dropping. The reasoning isn't quite as dire given the cap is more likely to stay the same, but the argument could be made that because predictions were for an increase that GMs would've planned for that and therefore it pretty much acts as a decrease. Not perfect reasoning, but I can see a valid case for it.

I still feel the Flames would buy out Lucic if the opportunity presented itself. Then promptly sign Rinaldo.
- Wildschwein

If the problem is an underlying money problem then I fail to see how they would do it. Again, I'm not aware of there being a problem, but that was part of what I heard regarding the Flames at the time of the trade.

If the problem is an underlying money problem then I fail to see how they would do it. Again, I'm not aware of there being a problem, but that was part of what I heard regarding the Flames at the time of the trade.
- MaximumBone

Doubt it has anything to do with Ownership buying out a contract. It was more of an optics that Treliving just gave Neal a 5 year deal who proceeded to play way below the value of the contract in the first year & had an issue with coaches. It became a bad situation for the dressing room. Treliving really couldnt go to ownership saying I need you to cut a big cheque for the buyout less than a year after doling that contract out.

A compliance buyout should apply to Lucic with no cap consequences to either team. Hence the whole point of a buyout giving the financial situation of the NHL & the league & players trying to figure out where the revenue model is going to fall to.

I'm not so sure a Russel trade will be as hard as you think. Russell has a 4 million cap hit next year, but is only owed 2.5 million in actual salary. Look at a team like Ottawa, they have about 41 million in cap space next year with Boedker, Hainsey and Anderson coming off the books. If they get a compliance buyout, they can buy out Ryan's 7.5 million contract and all of a sudden Russel is important to a team like Ottawa. Keeps their salary cap up, but also keeps actual salary going out down. Even without Ryan it would seem Edmonton and Ottawa could work something out.

With how the roster is shaping out, I think Russell will be the odd man out regarding d-corps.

Solid blog, Sean!

If the problem is an underlying money problem then I fail to see how they would do it. Again, I'm not aware of there being a problem, but that was part of what I heard regarding the Flames at the time of the trade.
- MaximumBone

A money problem no, but I can’t see Calgary ignoring a way to rid itself of Lucic with an expansion draft looming.

With how the roster is shaping out, I think Russell will be the odd man out regarding d-corps.

Solid blog, Sean!
- EdmHockeyMan

I think he'll end up being the #7. As much as I'd love to see him traded to free up some space, I don't see it being likely given the cap situation around the league. I'd be curious about running 11F/7D. Might lighten the load on all the Dmen.

Doubt it has anything to do with Ownership buying out a contract. It was more of an optics that Treliving just gave Neal a 5 year deal who proceeded to play way below the value of the contract in the first year & had an issue with coaches. It became a bad situation for the dressing room. Treliving really couldnt go to ownership saying I need you to cut a big cheque for the buyout less than a year after doling that contract out.

A compliance buyout should apply to Lucic with no cap consequences to either team. Hence the whole point of a buyout giving the financial situation of the NHL & the league & players trying to figure out where the revenue model is going to fall to.
- Kevin R

That's plausible and a fair counter. Thanks!

A money problem no, but I can’t see Calgary ignoring a way to rid itself of Lucic with an expansion draft looming.
- Wildschwein

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Seattle expansion goes down given the success of Vegas out of theirs.

I think he'll end up being the #7. As much as I'd love to see him traded to free up some space, I don't see it being likely given the cap situation around the league. I'd be curious about running 11F/7D. Might lighten the load on all the Dmen.
- MaximumBone

Perhaps. He would provide competition for the youngsters for spots on the lineup. That's always a good thing.

Chicago ran 7D this/last year I believe. They had mixed results from what I've read/seen. Might be worthwhile to look into them.

As for Russell, I think he might be traded this off-season. There might be a few teams out there that may want him to hit the cap floor or for other reasons

Kinda off-topic but I've been experimenting with using a backhand curve for my hockeystick (using a right-handed stick as a left hand). No, this isn't a metaphor.

I think it just might be an interesting idea for centers regarding faceoffs. Even in general once you get used to the curve. Helps your backhand immensely and it helps insanely with slapshots.

Perhaps. He would provide competition for the youngsters for spots on the lineup. That's always a good thing.

Chicago ran 7D this/last year I believe. They had mixed results from what I've read/seen. Might be worthwhile to look into them.

As for Russell, I think he might be traded this off-season. There might be a few teams out there that may want him to hit the cap floor or for other reasons
- EdmHockeyMan

I think the 7D issue poses some issues with respect to chemistry but, if our D corps stays the same year over year, I think there's been enough interplay between the players that it could work. I think it's a method that can ease the burden of huge minutes on some of our guys who I think would perform better playing 2 or 3 minutes less.

I don't think the cap floor thing will be much of a problem for those teams. Plenty of teams will have cap casualties that are either better than Russell or will be willing to pay more to be rid of their cap problems.

I don't think the cap floor thing will be much of a problem for those teams. Plenty of teams will have cap casualties that are either better than Russell or will be willing to pay more to be rid of their cap problems.
- MaximumBone

To further elabolate on this point, it's pretty much only Ottawa that'll have any difficulty getting to the floor with their 42mil in cap space going into next year and no big money RFAs to sign. Resigning Tierney, Brown and Duclair likely takes at least 10mil leaving them around 11mil to go before they hit the floor and a few low-cost RFAs still to sign which likely brings them to around 7 or 8 mil that they NEED to fill up.

I could see Melnyk being interested in Russell's 1.5mil pay on a 4mil cap hit (after the July 1st bonus) and kinda fills the same role as Hainsey. If Holland were to retain 1mil or 2mil that's 1/4 to 1/2 of the 1.5mil also covered. However, gotta think Russell and his agent would be aware of this and ensure that Ottawa is on their no-trade list.

With the lost revenues from this year, I don't think many other teams will be in a hurry to add unnecessary cap hits like Russell's.

To further elabolate on this point, it's pretty much only Ottawa that'll have any difficulty getting to the floor with their 42mil in cap space going into next year and no big money RFAs to sign. Resigning Tierney, Brown and Duclair likely takes at least 10mil leaving them around 11mil to go before they hit the floor and a few low-cost RFAs still to sign which likely brings them to around 7 or 8 mil that they NEED to fill up.

I could see Melnyk being interested in Russell's 1.5mil pay on a 4mil cap hit (after the July 1st bonus) and kinda fills the same role as Hainsey. If Holland were to retain 1mil or 2mil that's 1/4 to 1/2 of the 1.5mil also covered. However, gotta think Russell and his agent would be aware of this and ensure that Ottawa is on their no-trade list.

With the lost revenues from this year, I don't think many other teams will be in a hurry to add unnecessary cap hits like Russell's.
- MaximumBone

I guess we'll just have to see what Holland has in mind heading into the offseason. Also gonna be interesting to see what the league does regarding cap space, buyouts, etc.