Thread: Whose contract would you buy-out?

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

Can I build a time machine back to 1994 and buyout that stupid Gretzky contract that started this whole nonsense?

Yes, I saw that was included in the new CBA...on page 948.

Originally Posted by Helvetica

I don't know how buyouts work exactly, so could you expand your explanation? If the player is bought out, they receive 2/3rds of the remaining value of their contract. If the new contract pays them greater than 1/3rd of that past contract, wouldn't it be a net gain for the player? Im sure im messing something up, but lets say a player has 6 years remaining @ 5mil per, for a total of 30 mil. If they get bought out, they receive 20 mil, and leave 10 mil on the table. If the team then resigns them for 6 years @ anything above ~1.6 per year, they still get that 10 mil over the 6 year period. So, if we resigned a guy at 3mil per for 6 years, he gains an extra 8 mil over the course of those 6 years by agreeing to the buyout.

So what is the obvious mistake im making, because there must be one or teams would do this. I know in the past, teams were still responsible for some of the cap hit, but with these amnesty buyouts, that money comes off the books completely, no?

I'm not saying it can't be done under the rules or that it wouldn't make logical sense for both the player and the team. I'm saying no player would actually agree to do it.

Originally Posted by jt

Yes, I saw that was included in the new CBA...on page 948.

Sweet.

Originally Posted by jt

Yes, I saw that was included in the new CBA...on page 948.

On page 935 you are given permission to go back to 1993 and smack Marty McSorely upside the head before game 2 of the Finals.

None.

Maybe go back and buy out Cloutier again because he was a big ol' waste.

Originally Posted by jt

I'm not saying it can't be done under the rules or that it wouldn't make logical sense for both the player and the team. I'm saying no player would actually agree to do it.

Im not following you as to why. Why would they not want to if it stands to increase the size of their wallet and benefit the team at the same time. What is the reason(s) that they wouldn't agree to it?

Originally Posted by SuperCalo2000

On this team ? I dont think I see one. I see several on other teams though.

Thus Lombardi can trade for a couple of those schmucks and grab additional picks and then buy the scrubs out.

Basically, paying out money for extra picks in the 2013 draft.

Originally Posted by Helvetica

Originally Posted by jt

I'm not saying it can't be done under the rules or that it wouldn't make logical sense for both the player and the team. I'm saying no player would actually agree to do it.

Im not following you as to why. Why would they not want to if it stands to increase the size of their wallet and benefit the team at the same time. What is the reason(s) that they wouldn't agree to it?

It's not a logic thing. I'm just saying a player wouldn't do it. Why wouldn't Rob Blake waive his NTC and then re-sign? No good reason.....but he wouldn't.

Originally Posted by jt

It's not a logic thing. I'm just saying a player wouldn't do it. Why wouldn't Rob Blake waive his NTC and then re-sign? No good reason.....but he wouldn't.

Because he didn't want to move? Or play somewhere else?

The two situations are different. If it were allowed it would potentially mean more money to the player and he would still be in the same situation team wise for the same amount of years. Only difference would be the team could have more cap space to build around him.