Potential Buyouts

[TML fan]

Gomez utterly failed to live up to his previous contract that saw him get paid a ton of money for nothing.

That's a bit of an overstatement. For the first three years of his contract he averaged 62 points a year and produced at a good clip in the playoffs. That's still not up to the value of his contract but it's only a million or a million and a half over market value. He's been bad the last two years, absolutely, but that's still largely beside the point.

His more recent performance is more relevant to his future, I would think. If you want to call it an overstatement, fine. I still don't think he "deserves" anything. If a team thinks he's worth a shot, they will give it to him on a tryout basis. Montreal has to cover themselves, too.

 

[bustaheims]

Better yet, can the Habs buy him out still if he retires, or will they be forced to eat his cap hit until his contract is up?

I believe he would fall under the cap recapture formula, but it would only be for ~$1M split over 2 seasons if he retired right now. If he retires after this season, he'd come off the cap completely.

 

[bustaheims]

For what it's worth, the Rangers are reportedly doing the same thing to Wade Redden.

 

[Kin]

Thank you for reminding me to be more sympathetic to the plight of Scott Gomez.

I just think that, occasionally, people should be able to say "Oh, that's unfortunate for him" without jealous loudmouths reminding everyone what they take home.

And I know it was largely discouraged among the pro-players contingent here during the lockout but now that it's over you could try to look at these guys as businessmen, as opposed to, you know, poor mistreated labourers from the early 19th century.

I think it's a very good sign of how mixed up that issue made people that "Owners should be allowed to pay their employees whatever they want" was taken as a "pro-player" stance as opposed to, you know, anti-trust.

 

[Bullfrog]

And I know it was largely discouraged among the pro-players contingent here during the lockout but now that it's over you could try to look at these guys as businessmen, as opposed to, you know, poor mistreated labourers from the early 19th century.

Hyperbole aside, I'd definitely consider them labourers and not businessmen.

 

[Kin]

I still don't think he "deserves" anything. If a team thinks he's worth a shot, they will give it to him on a tryout basis. Montreal has to cover themselves, too.

But after a few months of no hockey it'll be a long time since Gomez played, let alone played well. For me it has nothing to do with what Gomez "deserves" or a criticism of the Canadians and their actions but rather a simple statement that the way the buy-out clause was written led to some unfortunate situations, like this one.

 

[TML fan]

I still don't think he "deserves" anything. If a team thinks he's worth a shot, they will give it to him on a tryout basis. Montreal has to cover themselves, too.

But after a few months of no hockey it'll be a long time since Gomez played, let alone played well. For me it has nothing to do with what Gomez "deserves" or a criticism of the Canadians and their actions but rather a simple statement that the way the buy-out clause was written led to some unfortunate situations, like this one.

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect some team will give him a look. He can still keep himself in shape. It seems to me only his earning potential will be immediately affected. It's really not that different from a long term injury. In Gomez's case, the injury was sucking.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm generally dispassionate about such things too, but I do feel for someone like Gomez. Being denied the opportunity to play purely based on his salary really sucks, particularly in a career that can be measured, generally, in only a few years; a decade for the lucky ones.

 

[Kin]

So maybe he'll get lucky and someone will invite him to camp?

Sure. But, again, it's a situation that entirely arose from the needlessly restrictive way the buyout clause was written. It would have been easy as pie to allow the Habs to buy-out Gomez right now and give Gomez the opportunity to ply his trade elsewhere.

 

[TML fan]

I'm generally dispassionate about such things too, but I do feel for someone like Gomez. Being denied the opportunity to play purely based on his salary really sucks, particularly in a career that can be measured, generally, in only a few years; a decade for the lucky ones.

The bottom line is he wouldn't be in this situation if he had performed better. This has as much to do with his ability as it does with his salary.

 

[TML fan]

So maybe he'll get lucky and someone will invite him to camp?

Sure. But, again, it's a situation that entirely arose from the needlessly restrictive way the buyout clause was written. It would have been easy as pie to allow the Habs to buy-out Gomez right now and give Gomez the opportunity to ply his trade elsewhere.

Gomez could have played better and not been bought out at all, or at least the decision could have been made later on.

 

[Kin]

Gomez could have played better and not been bought out at all, or at least the decision could have been made later on.

Nobody is taking issue with Gomez being bought out or the existence of buy-outs.

 

[hap_leaf]

Gomez deserves his fate more than the fringe player that has 48 games to prove himself and then a reduced cap year next year.  There will be lots of guys 30+ years old that will never see the NHL again.  With a reduced cap teams will migrate to young guys to fill those roles for the same price (cheap).

 

[TML fan]

Gomez could have played better and not been bought out at all, or at least the decision could have been made later on.

Nobody is taking issue with Gomez being bought out or the existence of buy-outs.

No, but you're blaming the league for something that is Scott Gomez's problem. His poor performance is why he's being bought out. The league rules are in place to help team be salary cap compliant, not to give teams a free pass to get rid of problem contracts. If he didn't suck, he would be playing.

 

[Kin]

No, but you're blaming the league for something that is Scott Gomez's problem.

No, I'm not. The way the buy-out process was written was a result of negotiation between the two sides and not being able to buy-out injured players is more something the PA would have wanted more than the owners. I'm taking issue with a needlessly restrictive clause in the CBA, not assigning blame for it to anyone specifically.

His poor performance is why he's being bought out. The league rules are irrelevant. If he didn't suck, he would be playing.

Being on the other side of this from me isn't saying "Scott Gomez sucks" over and over. It's thinking there's a specific reason that the buy-out clause needs to exist as is.

 

[Beowulf]

Am I missing something here? If they're paying the guy anyway and his cap hit counts, I don't see the harm in letting him at least show up to training camp and see what he's got. It's not like the habs are stocked with elite forwards that Gomez wouldn't have a chance to contribute. I mean I know it's a long shot that he can still be useful, but what's the harm?

 

[TML fan]

No, but you're blaming the league for something that is Scott Gomez's problem.

No, I'm not. The way the buy-out process was written was a result of negotiation between the two sides and not being able to buy-out injured players is more something the PA would have wanted more than the owners. I'm taking issue with a needlessly restrictive clause in the CBA, not assigning blame for it to anyone specifically.

His poor performance is why he's being bought out. The league rules are irrelevant. If he didn't suck, he would be playing.

Being on the other side of this from me isn't saying "Scott Gomez sucks" over and over. It's thinking there's a specific reason that the buy-out clause needs to exist as is.

It's not needlessly restrictive. It's in place so players don't suffer from buyouts because of situations beyond their control.

 

[bustaheims]

Am I missing something here? If they're paying the guy anyway and his cap hit counts, I don't see the harm in letting him at least show up to training camp and see what he's got. It's not like the habs are stocked with elite forwards that Gomez wouldn't have a chance to contribute. I mean I know it's a long shot that he can still be useful, but what's the harm?

If he gets injured and isn't declared fit to play by the time the buyout window closes, he can't be bought out.

 

[Kin]

It's not needlessly restrictive. It's in place so players don't suffer from buyouts because of situations beyond their control.

So Scott Gomez's decline as a player was within his control? He's choosing not to be as good as he could be?

 

[bustaheims]

No, I'm not. The way the buy-out process was written was a result of negotiation between the two sides and not being able to buy-out injured players is more something the PA would have wanted more than the owners. I'm taking issue with a needlessly restrictive clause in the CBA, not assigning blame for it to anyone specifically.

The PA was also concerned that allowing buyouts now would leave bought out players without enough time to find contracts.