NHL Closes a Loophole The Leafs Might Have Used

[Kin]

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Also, nowhere did he say they'd be open to be involved in shenanigans that would allow the original team to keep their player at a lower cap hit.

Well, yeah, that's the other thing that doesn't make sense. If Yzerman said to Nonis "Here's the deal, you buyout Lecavalier, we give you X and then we sign Lecavalier back at a lower price" why wouldn't Nonis just say "Well, how about we buyout Lecavalier, you give us X and beyond that it has nothing to do with us"? Why would the Lightning re-signing Lecavalier have anything to do with their negotiations with the Leafs if the trade was being made with the tacit understanding that the contract would be bought out?

 

[Zee]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

 

[Redleaf]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Let me get this straight. If the Leafs intend on buying out his contract and trading Lecavalier anywhere but T-Bay (or keeping him?), this whole deal can go through league offices without a hitch. Its the trading back of Vincent to the Lightning that they're against?

 

[Zee]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Let me get this straight. If the Leafs intend on buying out his contract and trading Lecavalier anywhere but T-Bay (or keeping him?), this whole deal can go through league offices without a hitch. Its the trading back of Vincent to the Lightning that they're against?

Once you buy a player out he's no longer your property so you can't trade him.  Leafs would have bought him out since they have the money to do so and Tampa does not.  He would have then re-signed in Tampa at a lower price.  Leafs would have received some sort of compensation in getting the contract in the first place.

 

[Peter D.]

Wasn't this rumour floated around a couple weeks ago about the 3rd overall?

If the Leafs are going to be acquiring an asset for $30 million (aka bailing out Tampa Bay), it better well be a top pick/asset like the 3rd overall.

 

[Frank E]

Even $30 million dollars for 3rd overall?

Not so sure about that one...I call horsefeathers.

 

[Kin]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Right that's what I said. It's still a very far sight from "and we're willing to spend 30+ million" in the process. Saying that the team may be interested in a deal where they add an asset and a contract to buy out doesn't mean they'd be interested in any trade like that. We can still look at rumours and give them the ol' smell test.

 

[Deebo]

Even $30 million dollars for 3rd overall?

Not so sure about that one...I call horsefeathers.

It would be paid out at 2.14 Million per year for 14 years.

 

[Redleaf]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Let me get this straight. If the Leafs intend on buying out his contract and trading Lecavalier anywhere but T-Bay (or keeping him?), this whole deal can go through league offices without a hitch. Its the trading back of Vincent to the Lightning that they're against?

Once you buy a player out he's no longer your property so you can't trade him.  Leafs would have bought him out since they have the money to do so and Tampa does not.  He would have then re-signed in Tampa at a lower price.  Leafs would have received some sort of compensation in getting the contract in the first place.

So. theoretically, they could still do something like this to shed salary and cap space, but Tampa would lose Lecavalier. There still appears to be a loophole for the Leafs to take advantage of here.

 

[Corn Flake]

I feel the same thing...... and yet, as a Leafs fan, it would have been a lot of fun.

It would have been a lot of fun to buyout Lecavalier and add a marginal asset? Well, I guess there are rollercoasters at all speeds.

I think it would be more fun to get Lecavellier and a marginal asset.. and keep Lecavellier.

 

[Zee]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Let me get this straight. If the Leafs intend on buying out his contract and trading Lecavalier anywhere but T-Bay (or keeping him?), this whole deal can go through league offices without a hitch. Its the trading back of Vincent to the Lightning that they're against?

Once you buy a player out he's no longer your property so you can't trade him.  Leafs would have bought him out since they have the money to do so and Tampa does not.  He would have then re-signed in Tampa at a lower price.  Leafs would have received some sort of compensation in getting the contract in the first place.

So. theoretically, they could still do something like this to shed salary and cap space, but Tampa would lose Lecavalier. There still appears to be a loophole for the Leafs to take advantage of here.

It's not really a loophole, you can always trade for any player and then buy him out.  They didn't originally cover this scenario where a team trades a player, he's bought out and then signs with the original team again.  They covered the fact you couldn't buy out your own player and then re-sign him at a lower number.  Once he's bought out he has to sign with a different team.

 

[Corn Flake]

Even $30 million dollars for 3rd overall?

Not so sure about that one...I call horsefeathers.

It would be paid out at 2.14 Million per year for 14 years.

if I'm getting McKinnon I would do it. That way I'm basically getting a franchise player. $30 mil would be worth it then. 

If I'm not? then, nope.  It's a ridiculous amount of cash for an asset like a pick or prospect.

 

[Corn Flake]

Why on earth would Toronto agree to a scenario where they acquire Lecavs, buy him out knowing he's going back to TB to sign again?  Help your conference rival out by giving them all kinds of cap space and paying for their giant mistake ... for a pick? 

Makes no sense. 

 

[bustaheims]

Why on earth would Toronto agree to a scenario where they acquire Lecavs, buy him out knowing he's going back to TB to sign again?  Help your conference rival out by giving them all kinds of cap space and paying for their giant mistake ... for a pick? 

Makes no sense.

Which is why the rumour never really passed the smell test. The odds of Tampa moving the 3rd overall pick just to be able to get a discount on Lecavalier? Extremely slim to none. The odds of the Leafs being willing to make that deal without the 3rd overall pick or equivalent asset being included as part of the deal? None to none. Thus rumour was pure fantasy right from the beginning. Even if was allowed, it never would have happened.

 

[pmrules]

Hold on a second...the article doesn't say that the Lightning and Leafs deal would not be allowed.  It just says that Lecavalier would not be allowed to re-sign with the Lightning. 

The loophole which allows the Leafs to acquire an "asset" to save another team real dollars from a buyout, according to the article, is still open. 

 

[sneakyray]

another dumb scenario...but I have to ask.

if toronto trades for lecavelier and something else and then buys him out...can he still re-sign with the leafs?  He just isn't allowed to re-sign with tampa right?  or is there maybe more to this rule than I read in a few characters on twitter?

 

[bustaheims]

another dumb scenario...but I have to ask.

if toronto trades for lecavelier and something else and then buys him out...can he still re-sign with the leafs?  He just isn't allowed to re-sign with tampa right?  or is there maybe more to this rule than I read in a few characters on twitter?

No, he wouldn't be able to re-sign with the Leafs, either.

 

[KW Sluggo]

  Even though Claude Loiselle said in an interview that the Leafs would be open to just such a move?

Loiselle said the Leafs would contemplate using a buy-out to add an asset. Not that they'd be willing to buy out one of the worst contracts in the NHL.

Question:  Would you be interested in acquiring a contract that you would buy out?

Loiselle:  We may.  We may.  We've talked about different scenarios.

Edit: from an interview on June 13 during TSN drive with Dave Naylor (Bryan Hayes fillling in).  You can listen for yourself.  He said they'd be open to acquiring a contract that they would then buy out.

Let me get this straight. If the Leafs intend on buying out his contract and trading Lecavalier anywhere but T-Bay (or keeping him?), this whole deal can go through league offices without a hitch. Its the trading back of Vincent to the Lightning that they're against?

Once you buy a player out he's no longer your property so you can't trade him.  Leafs would have bought him out since they have the money to do so and Tampa does not.  He would have then re-signed in Tampa at a lower price.  Leafs would have received some sort of compensation in getting the contract in the first place.

So. theoretically, they could still do something like this to shed salary and cap space, but Tampa would lose Lecavalier. There still appears to be a loophole for the Leafs to take advantage of here.

It's not really a loophole, you can always trade for any player and then buy him out.  They didn't originally cover this scenario where a team trades a player, he's bought out and then signs with the original team again.  They covered the fact you couldn't buy out your own player and then re-sign him at a lower number.  Once he's bought out he has to sign with a different team.

Actually the NHL only issued a decree based on its own interpretation of the CBA. It's a little like announcing you agree with yourself.

I doubt any team will challenge the edict (certainly not the Leafs) so it will stand unless the NHLPA opposes it.

 

[Kaberle15]

Tampa announced they are buying out Vinny, so, he will cost only money.