Forums/NHL Signings

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

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options

 

Sep 11 at 4:48
#1
Michael Stone has signed a new contract with the Calgary Flames.
STANDARD CONTRACT
COMPARE THIS CONTRACT
LENGTH: 1 YEAR
EXPIRY STATUS: UFA
SIGNING TEAM: Calgary FlamesCalgary Flames
VALUE: $700,000
C.H.% : 0.86
SIGNING DATE: September 11, 2019
SOURCE: CapFriendly
SEASONCLAUSECAP HIT AAV P. BONUSES S. BONUSES BASE SALARY TOTAL SALARY MINORS SALARY
2019-20$700,000$700,000$0$0$700,000$700,000$700,000
TOTAL$700,000$700,000$0$0$700,000$700,000$700,000
Sep 11 at 4:51
#2
Lucic Apologist
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 404
Can someone let my dumb ass know how this is allowed?
F50marco, AndrewLadd, Greatestgame22 and 9 others liked this.
Sep 11 at 4:53
#3
Go Jets Go!
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 332
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 liked this.
Sep 11 at 4:53
#4
Epiman2
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 2
Likes: 6
Uhhh what..??!?! How is this allowed?!?!?!
Greatestgame22, Boubou79 and KubaH liked this.
Sep 11 at 4:56
#5
rivenate
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 2
Likes: 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 liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:00
#6
AwesomeMatthews
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 637
Likes: 447
I prefer Mark Stone
Jarmo, Greatestgame22, rootferdukes and 3 others liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:00
#7
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,189
Likes: 3,506
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
Sep 11 at 5:00
#8
Epiman2
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 2
Likes: 6
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...
Sep 11 at 5:05
#9
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
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 and rivenate liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:15
#10
Formerly klondikebar
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 953
Lol and the NHL was mad at what the Caps did with Brooks Orpik
rootferdukes, The_Madhawk, SpaghettiPasta and 3 others liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:16
#11
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,660
Likes: 2,770
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.
Sep 11 at 5:17
#12
hockeyhr
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 19
Likes: 16
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 and rollie1967 liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:24
#13
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 1,478
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 liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:24
#14
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 550
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 and Rooney liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:25
#15
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 1,478
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.
Sep 11 at 5:26
#16
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 550
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 liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:29
#17
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 1,478
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 liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:38
#18
#FireBlowman
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 708
You couldn’t live with your failure, and where has that lead you? Back to me…Stone Probably…
OrangeMallard liked this.
Sep 11 at 5:52
#19
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 339
Likes: 156
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.
Sep 11 at 6:09
#20
The worst AGMs
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 624
Hey that's illegal!
Sep 11 at 6:15
#21
BtZ's buttercup
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 1,040
How can Flames do this ?!?!

I wanted Stone under a PTO on Leafs.
Sep 11 at 7:52
#22
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
Likes: 2
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.
Sep 12 at 7:43
#23
habs_fan
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 458
im sorry what
Sep 12 at 9:44
#24
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 147
Likes: 18
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.
Sep 12 at 9:39
#25
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 86
Likes: 15
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).
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Submit Poll Edit