I feel Kreider is more essential to the Rangers, and less of a detriment.

Fox and Lundkvist is the top 2 on the right side in a year, paying 8M for a 3rd pair dman is easily the choice to CBO if they could imo

Exactly what I was going to say.

Yea I would prob say I’d agree just because 8 mil is a tough pill if nils will be in the 2RHD spot and we’ve got Schneider coming as well. Also that 8 mill would do so much for us.

That CBO would be brutal for the Rangers. Best bet is trading giving Trouba to Seattle along with a bunch of picks

Best case for you guys imo is Trouba waives his no-move and you guys pay SEA to take him



Troubas NMC complicates that a fair bit

I agree 100% with all of the above. Plus, Kreider is only going to be 35 or 36 when that contract runs out. He should be alright until then.

Compliance buyouts are different than actual buyouts. They did them post-lockout a little while back. It's essentially a ticket to get out of a bad contract and not have any of the cap hit. Can't remember what percentage of the players contract still had to be paid, but it was just straight cash, no hit.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/jacob-trouba

Is is this? or something different

Different, CBOs do not affect cap at all, but the team still pays the player, his cap hit would be non-existant

What @Salzy said

Compliance buy-outs are rare, one-time things. They wouldn't count against cap.
Its been talked about in the case that the salary cap goes down next year. But unlikely if we have flat cap.
If NHL and NHLPA agree on one CBO per team, there may also be strings attached to it this time (ie, draft picks) so will be harder to use.

Got it, thanks.

Similar to what happen with Kovalsuck?

No, Kovy was early "retirement", so it was a recapture penalty. Those were for avoiding longer deals that spread salary over more years than a player would play to reduce cap hit. (ie, player plans on playing 4 more years, but signs 8-year front-loaded deal to spread cap hit). But have since been altered.

Compliance buy-outs are given when there is a change in collective bargaining agreement...(like starting salary cap) that could ding some teams more than others. Like Vincent Lecavalier, who TB used a CBO on in 2013, after year 4 of an 11-year contract. His buyout period is through 2026-27, but annual charge doesn't count against Lightning cap.

If a CBO is agreed to by NHL/NHLPA, it would probably be given if the salary cap goes down (ie, down to $75 million). But both players and most owners don't really want a CBO, so they would likely make it very painful to use (ie, if you buyout X amount, it costs this pick, if you buyout Y amount, if costs that pick). It could also potentially be a tradeable asset, though that is unclear.

Got it. I remember the Devils losing some picks due to the Kovy situation.

They gave up a 1st and 3rd. The 1st would have been Ehlers. They eventually got a late 1st back but NJD got hosed. Just like with Mogilny rule, Broduer rule (trapezoid rule), Kovy penalties, there was a period with previous ownership where Devs had Bettmans target on their back.

Damn that hurts