Forums/NHL Signings

Calgary Flames signed Michael Stone (1 Year / $700,000 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
Le graphique a été masqué

Options de sondage

 

11 sep 2019 à 16 h 48
#1
Michael Stone has signed a new contract with the Calgary Flames.
CONTRAT STANDARD
COMPARER CE CONTRAT
DURÉE: 1 YEAR
STATUT À L’ÉCHÉANCE DU CONTRAT: UFA
CONTRAT SIGNÉ AVEC: Flames de CalgaryFlames de Calgary
VALEUR: 700 000 $
% DU C.H. : 0,86
DATE DE SIGNATURE: 11 septembre 2019
SOURCE: CapFriendly
SAISONCLAUSECAP HIT AAV BONIS DE PERF. BONIS DE SIGN. SALAIRE DE BASE SALAIRE TOTAL SALAIRE DES LIGUES MINEURES
2019-20700 000 $700 000 $0 $0 $700 000 $700 000 $700 000 $
TOTAL700 000 $700 000 $0 $0 $700 000 $700 000 $700 000 $
11 sep 2019 à 16 h 51
#2
Lucic Apologist
Rejoint: fév 2018
Messages: 1,365
Mentions "j'aime": 489
Can someone let my dumb ass know how this is allowed?
F50marco, AndrewLadd, Greatestgame22 and 9 others a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 16 h 53
#3
Go Jets Go
Rejoint: mar 2018
Messages: 1,990
Mentions "j'aime": 744
Quoting: SmugTkachuk
Can someone let my dumb ass know how this is allowed?


Same! I thought the team that bought you out couldn't re-sign you for at least a year?
Greatestgame22, Boubou79, KubaH and 1 other person a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 16 h 53
#4
Epiman2
Rejoint: aoû 2019
Messages: 8
Mentions "j'aime": 16
Uhhh what..??!?! How is this allowed?!?!?!
Greatestgame22, Boubou79 et KubaH a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 16 h 56
#5
rivenate
Rejoint: jui 2019
Messages: 2
Mentions "j'aime": 6
Quoting: Rooney
Same! I thought the team that bought you out couldn't re-sign you for at least a year?


Due to the 2012–13 NHL lockout, the salary cap was not to increase to the projected $70.2 million, so each team was therefore granted two compliance buyouts to be exercised after the 2012–13 season and/or after the 2013–14 season that would not count against the salary cap in any further year in order to better comply with a lower than expected cap value, regardless of the player's age. After using an compliance buyout on a player, that player is prohibited from rejoining the team that bought him out for one year; the NHL deemed that the re-signing of a player following a trade and a subsequent compliance buyout would be ruled as cap circumvention.

Following the 2012–13 NHL lockout each team was granted one accelerated compliance buyout in order for teams to meet the lowered salary cap. This could be used on a player with a salary cap hit of US$3 million or more before the regular season began. If an accelerated compliance buyout is used, that team will only have one more compliance buyout left, and they must use it after the completion of the 2012–13 season (and before the start of 2013–14 season). The player's cap hit is applied in full to the team's salary cap for the 2012–13 season, but for no season after, regardless of contract length.

^ from wikipedia.

So if I'm understanding correctly, they can do it once.
Greatestgame22, Bf3351, Boubou79 and 3 others a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 00
#6
AwesomeMatthews
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 962
Mentions "j'aime": 716
I prefer Mark Stone
Jarmo, Greatestgame22, rootferdukes and 3 others a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 00
#7
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 17,250
Mentions "j'aime": 4,700
Quoting: rivenate
Due to the 2012–13 NHL lockout, the salary cap was not to increase to the projected $70.2 million, so each team was therefore granted two compliance buyouts to be exercised after the 2012–13 season and/or after the 2013–14 season that would not count against the salary cap in any further year in order to better comply with a lower than expected cap value, regardless of the player's age. After using an compliance buyout on a player, that player is prohibited from rejoining the team that bought him out for one year; the NHL deemed that the re-signing of a player following a trade and a subsequent compliance buyout would be ruled as cap circumvention.

Following the 2012–13 NHL lockout each team was granted one accelerated compliance buyout in order for teams to meet the lowered salary cap. This could be used on a player with a salary cap hit of US$3 million or more before the regular season began. If an accelerated compliance buyout is used, that team will only have one more compliance buyout left, and they must use it after the completion of the 2012–13 season (and before the start of 2013–14 season). The player's cap hit is applied in full to the team's salary cap for the 2012–13 season, but for no season after, regardless of contract length.

^ from wikipedia.

So if I'm understanding correctly, they can do it once.


I think you may have it wrong but Im also 100% not sure either ahahha
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 00
#8
Epiman2
Rejoint: aoû 2019
Messages: 8
Mentions "j'aime": 16
Quoting: rivenate
Due to the 2012–13 NHL lockout, the salary cap was not to increase to the projected $70.2 million, so each team was therefore granted two compliance buyouts to be exercised after the 2012–13 season and/or after the 2013–14 season that would not count against the salary cap in any further year in order to better comply with a lower than expected cap value, regardless of the player's age. After using an compliance buyout on a player, that player is prohibited from rejoining the team that bought him out for one year; the NHL deemed that the re-signing of a player following a trade and a subsequent compliance buyout would be ruled as cap circumvention.



Following the 2012–13 NHL lockout each team was granted one accelerated compliance buyout in order for teams to meet the lowered salary cap. This could be used on a player with a salary cap hit of US$3 million or more before the regular season began. If an accelerated compliance buyout is used, that team will only have one more compliance buyout left, and they must use it after the completion of the 2012–13 season (and before the start of 2013–14 season). The player's cap hit is applied in full to the team's salary cap for the 2012–13 season, but for no season after, regardless of contract length.

^ from wikipedia.

So if I'm understanding correctly, they can do it once.


Wow, I did not know that. And it looks like it can be done once per team so Calgary for the rest of their tenure in the league can not do this anymore interesting...
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 05
#9
Rejoint: sep 2016
Messages: 399
Mentions "j'aime": 47
My understanding is that it was only compliance buyouts that had the one year rule. Regular buyouts can occur at any time and you can sign the player after if you want.
The reason it was one year with compliance buyouts is that they didn't want a team buying somebody out and signing them for cheap the next day.
Kelandry et rivenate a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 15
#10
Almost Zach Parise
Rejoint: mar 2019
Messages: 4,383
Mentions "j'aime": 2,366
Lol and the NHL was mad at what the Caps did with Brooks Orpik
rootferdukes, The_Madhawk, SpaghettiPasta and 3 others a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 16
#11
rangersandislesfan
Rejoint: mar 2017
Messages: 27,514
Mentions "j'aime": 3,189
Why wouldn't this be allowed? And yes, i know they bought him out earlier this year. I haven't heard of this happening before but always assumed it was allowed.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 17
#12
hockeyhr
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 27
Mentions "j'aime": 25
and they could not find someone else to sign...
this is just stupid
they could have kept Fantenberg or they could try to sign Girardi. Even McQuaid would have been a better option.
Ville__Koho et rollie1967 a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 24
#13
The Enlightened One
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 5,566
Mentions "j'aime": 2,537
Quoting: Epiman2
Wow, I did not know that. And it looks like it can be done once per team so Calgary for the rest of their tenure in the league can not do this anymore interesting...


Quoting: F50marco
I think you may have it wrong but Im also 100% not sure either ahahha


Quoting: SmugTkachuk
Can someone let my dumb ass know how this is allowed?


Cf put out a tweet saying there is no rule against it. The rule only existed for compliance buyouts
Brian2016, SmugTkachuk, rootferdukes and 5 others a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 24
#14
Rejoint: déc 2017
Messages: 2,113
Mentions "j'aime": 882
Quoting: Rooney
Same! I thought the team that bought you out couldn't re-sign you for at least a year?


Orpik? WASH clearly circumvented the cap to keep him last year. Was this similar in any way? Also, I see that the owe him over $1M from the buyout. Seems like a lot of shenanigans to save about $500k over 2 seasons. But, I guess they need every penny to sign Tkachuk, right?
rebecca et Rooney a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 25
#15
The Enlightened One
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 5,566
Mentions "j'aime": 2,537
Quoting: AndrewLadd
Lol and the NHL was mad at what the Caps did with Brooks Orpik


I think they were mad because his buyout cap hit was on the avs. This way has his buyout and his new salary on the team. I'd argue it is still circumvention but I don't get the impression Gary cares what I think.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 26
#16
Rejoint: déc 2017
Messages: 2,113
Mentions "j'aime": 882
Is this the same thing the Caps did last year w/ Brooks Orpik? They sent him to the Avs, who bought him out, and then they re-signed him for $1M. Pretty creative!
SpaghettiPasta a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 29
#17
The Enlightened One
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 5,566
Mentions "j'aime": 2,537
Quoting: Brian2016
Is this the same thing the Caps did last year w/ Brooks Orpik? They sent him to the Avs, who bought him out, and then they re-signed him for $1M. Pretty creative!


No. Orpiks buyout salary was on the avs, while stones buyout is with the flames. That is why the league is okay with this and not the orpik thing, although I still think it is circumvention
Brian2016 a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 38
#18
Nylander is a GOD
Rejoint: fév 2018
Messages: 3,933
Mentions "j'aime": 1,498
You couldn’t live with your failure, and where has that lead you? Back to me…Stone Probably…
OrangeMallard a aimé ceci.
11 sep 2019 à 17 h 52
#19
Rejoint: mai 2019
Messages: 408
Mentions "j'aime": 176
So Stone misses out on just over 400k in real money, and the Flames have 1.167M in dead cap next year, but otherwise nothing changes. What a weird situation...
At effectively a $1.9M cap hit, I don't like it, but ignoring the buyout part as that's a sunk cost then 700k for Stone to be a 6/7D seems like a decent idea. They already know his game and his fit in the locker room vs. signing some other league min veteran.
11 sep 2019 à 18 h 09
#20
i hope ur hungry now
Rejoint: oct 2017
Messages: 2,220
Mentions "j'aime": 874
Hey that's illegal!
11 sep 2019 à 18 h 15
#21
Hugh Hefner of CF
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 4,456
Mentions "j'aime": 2,716
How can Flames do this ?!?!

I wanted Stone under a PTO on Leafs.
11 sep 2019 à 19 h 52
#22
Rejoint: jui 2019
Messages: 11
Mentions "j'aime": 3
Because it was the same player, it became a $833K cap circumvention in 19-20... but he gets $1.166M in extra money both this year and next (so 3M overall) even w/o a 20-21 contract.

....... or he's now trade stock for CGY to re-tool.
12 sep 2019 à 7 h 43
#23
habs_fan
Rejoint: jan 2018
Messages: 2,721
Mentions "j'aime": 587
im sorry what
12 sep 2019 à 9 h 44
#24
Rejoint: jan 2019
Messages: 254
Mentions "j'aime": 56
Quoting: AndrewLadd
Lol and the NHL was mad at what the Caps did with Brooks Orpik


They didn't do the same like the Flames. They traded Orpik to the Avalanche. Avs bought him out, and then Caps signed him as a free agent.
12 sep 2019 à 21 h 39
#25
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 94
Mentions "j'aime": 18
this further taints the Luongo recapture penalty debacle. How something legal for 4 years is then changed and punished while these shenanigans by Calgary and the Orpik deal are allowed. Hell even the penalty Jersey was supposed to pay for Kovalchuk was drastically reduced (and kept secret for a year-before it became public).
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Soumettre les modifications du sondage