Buyout on retired players

[snugerud]

Here is a question,  lets say I decided to buyout pronger now, if he retire later would I get the option to finish the buyout at the 40%?

[PigsRule]

Here is a question,  lets say I decided to buyout pronger now, if he retire later would I get the option to finish the buyout at the 40%?

great Q, snugerud! short answer - No.


thought about that but as there are several buy out types (only recently intro'ed), i believe keeping it relatively straight forward without mixing buy out types is best.

so, if you decide to buy out pronger now (pre-retirement announcement) at 66.66%, your team will not be able to claim an additional discount if pronger later officially announces his retirement (which would qualify for the 40.0% buy out).

[Drew]

So I can buyout Lidstrom at 40% of his contract?

[PigsRule]

So I can buyout Lidstrom at 40% of his contract?

the buy out rule for retired players goes into effect Oct.11'12 (what's expected to be the first day of the NHL season).

[thunderblade]

Last year Lidstrom was a free agent and there were numerous bidders for his services. The successfull bidder was Drew. We all knew his age, and uncertainty of how much longer he would be playing in the NHL. A contributing factor of Drew winning the league last year was Lidstrom's contributions. You knew the baggage from the get go. I believe the buyout for Lidstrom should be at 66 % for him. There should not be a discount buyout for him. The rules were set it stone. Going forward, if changes are made, then all future contracts are applicable. No animosity intended.

[Drew]

Last year Lidstrom was a free agent and there were numerous bidders for his services. The successfull bidder was Drew. We all knew his age, and uncertainty of how much longer he would be playing in the NHL. A contributing factor of Drew winning the league last year was Lidstrom's contributions. You knew the baggage from the get go. I believe the buyout for Lidstrom should be at 66 % for him. There should not be a discount buyout for him. The rules were set it stone. Going forward, if changes are made, then all future contracts are applicable. No animosity intended.

I actually acquired Lidstrom via trade last year but I see what your saying.

[snugerud]

I actually agree with thunderblade on this one as much as it would hurt me on Pronger.  With the exception of inherited contracts everyone was responsible for their own signings/trades etc and should suffer the consequence of a bad signing. 

[snugerud]

BTW, this should be re-worded to 0% ,  the current wording may lead to confusion that the team buying the player out would need to cover 100% of their salary.

NEW Death: NHL eligible players who have passed away can be bought out at 100.0% (x 1.00) of their contract value, standard b/o policy applies.
rationale: standard practice to render a contract null & void in cases of death and since teams cannot foresee this, they should be released from the financial burden.

[PigsRule]

real world NHL: player retires and their contract is null n void since the player cannot fulfill their obligation to play, thus the team doesn't have to pay.

the Kovie contract :NJD: of the NHL signed him to originally was way too long and front end loaded over 17yrs and the guy would've retired 5-7yrs before the contract expired. that was cap circumvention.

that's why in FNHL, a retiree cannot be a 100% buy out coming off the books. there needs to be a financial commitment by the team that might've signed them via FA knowing full well the player would retire after only 1yr of a newly signed FA 3yr deal.

currrently, I see Selanne likely headed for a 3yr FA contract but we know he might retire at season's end so FNHL needs to hold the team somewhat accountable, but there still should be a slight better buy out rate.

ultimately, everyone had a chance to bid on Lidstrom during last yr's free agency period so everyone would have a chance to receive the 40% buy out rate this season now that Nick has left the game.

[snugerud]

I agree to a point that you cant control when a player retires and that Cap circumvention is a way of life right now in the NHL but on the flip side we have a 5 year max for our contracts.   Selanne is signed to a 1 year deal in the NHL , I am sure if the ducks went and made him a 3 year offer right now to lower his cap hit per year the league would investigate that as cap circumvention. 
By reducing the cap hit you are encouraging the cap circumvention. I will explain
lets say , as a contending team I wanted to sign selanne to a 1 yr contract at say 5.5million. 
Under the current rules though I would be better off to sign him for a 6 million bid spread over 3 years.  2 million the first year, and then either use the amnesty clause or the retirement clause you pay only .8 million for the final 2 years.
I could go as high as a 9 million bid and still pay out less in the long run. 3 million + 1.2+1.2= 5.4 .

There are always good's and bad's to every rule change, I am just playing devils advocate on this one.