Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Buyouts

Expand Messages
  • jamemcca
    The point is that to pay some one big bucks for nothing is proposterous. Say what you want about the cap it is the owners that made the mess in the first
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The point is that to pay some one big bucks for nothing is
      proposterous.

      Say what you want about the cap it is the owners that made the mess in
      the first place.
    • Dylan Sides
      --That s the way a buyout works. The player signed a deal in good faith, and because of the cap, the contract can t be honored anymore so it s bought out at a
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --That's the way a buyout works. The player signed a
        deal in good faith, and because of the cap, the
        contract can't be honored anymore so it's bought out
        at a lower level.

        Other sports do the same thing--for instace
        baseball--the contract might be 5 years, for example,
        with a team option for a sixth, for 15mil a year let's
        say. if the team doesn't want or can no longer afford
        the player, there is a buyout of the 6th year for say,
        5million.

        It's a way to trim payroll and or players. I have no
        prob with it an neither do the owners or players. It's
        the way business is done.

        dylan

        --- jamemcca <jamemcca@...> wrote:

        > The point is that to pay some one big bucks for
        > nothing is
        > proposterous.
        >
        > Say what you want about the cap it is the owners
        > that made the mess in
        > the first place.
        >
        >
        >




        ____________________________________________________
        Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
        http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      • Lloyd Davis
        As someone who has been on the receiving end of a couple of severance cheques, I d have to disagree with the premise that a buyout is paying someone for
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          As someone who has been on the receiving end of a couple of severance
          cheques, I'd have to disagree with the premise that a buyout is "paying
          someone for nothing" or that it is a "proposterous" [sic] policy.

          A buyout of any description means the employer is paying a lump sum to be
          excused from future commitments to the employee. There is value in this; at
          the everyday industrial/commercial level, the employer saves not only on
          salary or wages but on such overhead line items as health insurance,
          unemployment insurance, pension plan contributions, and so forth.

          In one of the cases where I received a buyout, it was because I was working
          in a union shop, and the employer wanted to bust the union and farm out the
          jobs. About ten months into the strike, the employer agreed to a cash buyout
          to make the union go away, disband the unit, end the strike, drop its case
          before the labour relations board and stop encouraging other unionized
          workers to boycott the product. The company wrote cheques for, I'd say,
          about $300,000. They'd probably spent that much on legal bills alone over
          the previous ten months.

          In sports, it's a quick way to drop a player whose productivity no longer
          matches his compensation, and clear a space on the roster for a player who
          delivers better bang for the buck. Over the long run, it can make sense.

          on 8/8/05 5:20 AM, jamemcca at jamemcca@... wrote:

          > The point is that to pay some one big bucks for nothing is
          > proposterous.

          --
          Lloyd Davis Communications
          304-115 Danforth Ave., Toronto, ON M4K 1N2
          416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
          ldavis@...
        • William Underwood
          You are not paying big bucks for nothing , you are paying big bucks tog e tout of a legally binding deal to someone who is under performing. And from the
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            You are not paying "big bucks for nothing", you are paying big bucks tog
            e tout of a legally binding deal to someone who is under performing. And
            from the players end, they are getting a large lump sum to take a hike
            and be able to seek employment where they are wanted.

            Buy outs did not come into being with a cap. They have always existed.
            You can rant all you want about owners but when you come right down to
            it, the issue sis simple. If we had a world with the old reserve clause
            that basically made players slaves for life you could ALWAYS offer a guy
            a one year deal and value him according to his performance. But the
            Stone Age is over. We have free agency. Teams will offer multi year
            deals, And even in the old days a team might do it to keep a star happy.
            But sports are funny, there is no real way to come even close to being
            able to predict when a guy might start to decline seriously. You can get
            a time frame but the human body and human nature has an odd way of
            surprising and a nasty sense of humor. You can't predict a guy blowing
            out a knee or shoulder or if he will come back off of it. John Leclair
            had a series of injuries that no one could have foreseen and there was
            just no way to know how much he would decline or how fast. On the other
            side of the coin most people had Gary Roberts Brian Berard done forever.
            Remember Al Secord and that abdominal condition? An Injury that we had
            never identified before comes around and reduces a guy to
            nothing...Without buy outs you are on the hook when stuff like this
            happens.

            So not offering multi year deals is the answer right? Legislate them out
            or collude? WRONG! Aside from the fact that this sort of collusion is
            illegal the NHLPA would NEVER agree to it! And it would never work from
            a practical point of view. As the reserve clause is DEAD and now illegal
            you will STILL have free agency. And you would have anarchy that makes
            even this summer look peaceful! Why would you spend any money at all to
            develop players when they can fly the coop in any given year? So
            development goes down hill. And you would have UTTER instability! There
            would be no master plan as at any given time your core of players could
            be plundered capo or no cap. Thus, all one year deals will not work in
            the end at the big league level. Then money that is involved is more
            than the minor pro level. And that is in part due to the product being
            more stable. Sure with free agency you have turn over but not wholesale
            year after year like the minors where even a title winning team can
            expect over 40 % turn over!

            So do we go to football and have a series of one year deals? The NHLPA
            will say "no". Football has them due to the risk of injury and that they
            have been there forever in that sport. And even in football there are
            fees to end a deal as well as a cap penalty.

            It is not "paying big bucks for nothing". It is paying money to end a
            situation that is no longer working. Can we avoid these situations? Only
            if the league hires Nostradamous and his ability to see the future as a
            consultant! This is a field with a high injury risk and where at a
            certain point abilities decline. You can't really predict it all that
            accurately. It is also a competitive field. The highest paid employees
            ARE the product... there is no design or technology here! So a buy out
            is almost like the costs of shutting down a product line that is no
            longer viable. You pay a lump sum now to cost you less later.

            Finally as a fan do you want to continue to pay a guy who is no longer
            able to pull his weight and have him take up roster space for say three
            more years? Now THAT is a stupid thing for a GM or owner to do! Legally
            you can't just say "get out" as he has that contract...so what other
            answer is there than a buy out? There is NONE. The courts say that. The
            only other way is to do like minor pro hockey and have all short term
            deals and have no plans for the future. Is that what we want? And in
            THAT sort of MESS how many guys will get overpaid for a year cap or not?
            Teams would have to go ape each year to just keep their best guys. And
            the chance of having a good team tow years in a row would be almost
            impossible! Chemistry would be wrecked on a routine basis and it would
            be almost a case of starting from scratch. This would carry over to
            ticket sales. In many places it would be a COMPLETE roller coaster ride
            and an utter nightmare. But even talking about this is silly as the
            NHLPA would NEVER give on this one! It might take tow or three years of
            no hockey to get to that...we already lost one year, so do you want to
            lose two more?

            So we are stuck with buy outs....they are there for a VERY good reason.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: hockhist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of jamemcca
            Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:20 AM
            To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [hockhist] Re: Buyouts

            The point is that to pay some one big bucks for nothing is
            proposterous.

            Say what you want about the cap it is the owners that made the mess in
            the first place.




            To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
            hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Jamie McCallum
            so Hatcher, Whitney and Amonte were all under performing? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 15, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              so Hatcher, Whitney and Amonte were all under
              performing?





              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
              http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
            • William Underwood
              In this case there was the salary cap to deal with. Philly or Detroit could not ice a full team unless guys were bought out. Detroit was right up against the
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 15, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                In this case there was the salary cap to deal with. Philly or Detroit
                could not ice a full team unless guys were bought out. Detroit was right
                up against the new cap and Philly could not have singed all of their
                restricted guys much less make any moves without the buy outs. Detroit
                flat out was not going to make it under the cap. The rules are simple,
                you need to ice 18 and 2 and you should have a 23 man roster, ALL in
                under the cap. Detroit was not going to be able to do that. Philly
                wanted to make changes AND had to re sign several restricted FA's.
                Amonte is still a good player but not what he was before that
                deal--Philly signed him on the down side of his career, he is a speed
                guy that is at that age where the speed is declining. This is why he had
                a pay cut in his new deal. He is no longer a 40 goal range player...

                So was either dumb? No. Detroit HAD to get rid of people to ice a team,
                they had NO CHOICE but to buy some people out. Hatcher has been injured
                a lot and Whitney is a smallish older player on the downside. Thus they
                were prime candidates. Philly HAD to get rid of some people to dip below
                the cap and finish icing a team. Leclair was a no brainer. Amonte and
                Roenick were the next two to look at as older guys in decline. They
                dumped Amonte and traded Roenick. Why dump Amonte and not trade him?
                Because at his old contract value which Philly paid him based upon the
                Tony Amonte of 3-4 years ago no one wanted that cap value. They
                obviously found that some teams DID have an interest in Roenick. Calgary
                signed Amonte but at a lower cap hit. With no buy out that big cap hit
                would have made him unmarketable...With those buy outs and trade they
                got Forsberg who is probably worth all three of those guys now when
                healthy AND added Rathje and Hatcher. Are they a bit light on wing? Yes.
                But then again they would have been light on D had they not signed the
                two D and Roenick was what gave them cap space for Forsberg. Now Lecalir
                opened the space for the new FA's but Amonte opened the space to get
                Esche and Gagne back into the fold...So without the Amonte buy out you
                may have risked not coming to terms with those guys and someone doing an
                offer sheet. Or you could have used that Leclair money to do it, maybe
                not be able to get Forsberg and STILL be light on D-- all to keep an
                aging wing.

                Under a cap decisions HAVE to be made when you are up near the cap and a
                lot of players have a new and lower value. Philly and Detroit had no
                real choice but to do buy outs.

                In a cap scenario it is more than under achievement that comes into
                play. You only have so much money to work with and HAVE to make
                decisions particularly the first year of the cap and when you are a club
                who has had a free spending culture thus is less prepared for a cap.
                Would you have had the Wings dress 14 guys or maybe ice a half dozen
                AHLers to keep these guys? Or Philly maybe have to kiss say a Gagne good
                bye and/or do no face lift? All of these are older guys in
                decline...PERFECT buy out candidates. Their play is not likely to be an
                upward trend but a downward one over the next few years...

                -----Original Message-----
                From: hockhist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Jamie McCallum
                Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:06 AM
                To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hockhist] Re: Buyouts

                so Hatcher, Whitney and Amonte were all under
                performing?





                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
                http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



                To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
                hockhist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Yahoo! Groups Links
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.