Yeah I dont think that will work. Orpik was a different scenario, and he didn't have any clauses

Never seen this thought process in a while, well done. It's always those 'what if' questions that makes you think that this could happen and it would be amazing for Toronto fans. Although, I think Gardiner would need a change in scenery. We don't always hate him, but we don't always love what he does on the ice either. Also, it would be a dream to trade and resign Marleau, but Brooks Orpik didnt have no clauses on his contract. Marleau signed that No Movement Clause for a reason. Good job tho.

The Caps also included Philip Grubauer, a young, starting caliber goalie with Orpik for the cap relief. Grubauer is worth much more than a 3rd and a 4th IMO.

I don't see why he would be opposed to waiving his NMC though? He won't have to pass through waivers to be bought out, so there's no risk of him not coming back to Toronto, and it would help the team, making it easier for him to win a cup, which at the end of the day is what he wants. He'll even be making slightly more money than he would've before.

Colorado also gave up a 2nd in the trade though.

The league would come down hard on Toronto and make an example of them.

Orpik was not on a +35 contract. There is no other way to explain the buyout (which yields $0 relief) of a 25 goal scorer other than collusion. This is not permitted.

Lol. *most likely*

I actually think that this could work, but you're going to have to give up a lot more. Orpik may have just won a Cup, but he isn't nearly as valuable to Washington as Marleau is to Toronto. And (like others have said) Washington gave up a lot to make it happen. What also hurts Toronto is that Marleau is on a 35+ contract so his cap hit doesn't go anywhere once its bought out. Maybe you could find a taker for Marleau thats willing to keep that cap hit, but I'd add a young player like Johnsson or Brown to further compensate them

You would be asking the Blues to eat 800000 in real cash but take a hit of 6.25 million in cap space. Because Marleau is a 35+ contract the cap hit it the aav of his contract for the reamining 1 year. That is a big chunk of change to ask a team to eat for a player that is not going to play for you.

I had the same thought a month ago and was told the biggest problem with this idea is that to buy out an NHL player that player must be cleared through waivers and even though it's very unlikely a team would claim him with that 6 million cap hit, there is still a slim chance which would mean Marleau says no to waiving his clause.

In Capfriendly's Buyout FAQ it states "If a player has a no-movement clause, the player can reject the option of waivers and proceed to the buyout process." So it would seem he has the ability to reject waivers and still get bought out.

As long as Toronto is willing to compensate them, the league has never punished teams for using their cap space to gain assets. Toronto still has to pay a price, and I don't believe it is all that different from Vegas acquiring Brassard solely to retain salary for Pittsburgh.

Once again because I think you missed it, Marleau is on a +35 contract that will receive no relief from a buyout. Both the avs and caps were investigated by the NHL but there was no collusion found in the deal.

How would you explain any team buying out marleau? Especially when he can be buried in the minors for a 1m savings that could be done after he waived his nmc.

He will no longer have an nmc if he is moved as he will have to waive it. But again there is no relief in a buyout but there is if he is buried so how do you explain a buyout without collusion.

NMC players can be bought out, as quoted, the player simply gets to skip waivers if they want to.

No, it’s collusion. Marleau can waive his nmc Toronto can trade him but they can not ask for him to be bought out

This is correct but in marleau’s case his NMC would need to be waived therefore the receiving team no longer needs to honour it. Being a +35 contract means that there would be know relief whatsoever from buying him out but could be buried for roughly 1m in savings.

Can a +35 contract be mutually terminated? By that I mean can the team escape the cap hit. Like let’s say marleau decides to retire... after winning the cup lol.

It can be yes, and he would be surrendering his salary, and the team would no longer need to pay him the salary he is owed, but because it is a multi year 35+ contract, the cap hit remains against the team.

That’s what I thought thank you.

Depending on the contract a player may have the option to waive a NMC once for the purposes of being traded to a specific team and not permanently. So this is a good point to consider, but depending on the contract he may be able to waive it once and then have it still in effect on his new team.

Also, there are still instances where teams elect to buyout a 35+ contract, where it could be to free up a roster spot, or because they want to cut the cost of actual dollars spent down, not just the cap hit. It’s entirely possible that the league may deem this as collusion, but I don’t feel like it’s a certainty that it would be viewed as such.

To free up a roster spot yes but you still have to pay out money owed. But you don’t really trade for someone to buy them out because you all of the sudden need a roster spot. Marleau produces and with his contract structure it just won’t be defendable. The caps were very lucky with orpik. The league was not pleased.