• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Jared Cowen on waivers for purpose of a buyout

TBLeafer said:
The overall cap cost difference of a credit of $650K off the cap and a charge of $750K against the cap is $100K and yes it really can be that simple.
Click to expand...

Except that's not at all how it works or what the article you link to is saying. The value difference is $100K. The overall cap cost? That's not really a thing. Cap values are a finite, season to season number. The $650K credit in 16/17 can only be applied in 16/17. It has no relation to the $750K penalty in 17/18 other than the fact they originate from the same transaction. The net result is, assuming a flat cap (which may be unlikely, but not impossible - but it's also the only real number we have to work with right now) is $1.4M less in cap space in 17/18 than the team has in 16/17 (and, again, this is working in a scenario where Cowen's pre-buyout hit is assumed to be off the books). That $100K number? It doesn't factor into any meaningful or useful cap calculations, or real dollar calculations.
 
TBLeafer said:
bustaheims said:
TBLeafer said:
He's wrong in this case though.  Presently, meaning as of right now, Cowen currently is costing us $3 100 000 against the cap.  We aren't just about to clear $650K off the cap as he is under it presently.  We are about to clear $3 750 000 against the cap.  That is what is about to come off our cap as soon as we buy him out.  His buyout going against the cap next season, compared to this one after the buyout?  A mere $750K, compared to the $3 100 000 we would have had to pay him this season.

The difference is $100K.
Click to expand...

You really need to check your math on that one, because, what you're suggesting does not leave a difference of $100K - they make a difference of $3M, which is also a meaningless number, because the cap doesn't work that way. Also, that $100K number is still meaningless. The individual season cap numbers are what have meaning. The only numbers that matter are the $3.1M the Leafs will shed regardless of whether or not they trade Cowen, the $650K cap credit that goes to the team that buys him out (which can be added to the Leafs total savings, if they retain him - but, these are the only numbers that can be added for any meaningful purpose), and the $750K cap penalty next season that stands on its completely on its own.
Click to expand...

That's right.  The guys that write articles over at MLHS are a bunch of idiots that don't know what they are talking about and you are smarter than all of them.

The overall cap cost difference of a credit of $650K off the cap and a charge of $750K against the cap is $100K and yes it really can be that simple.
Click to expand...

So then I guess you figure that there is no difference between:

a) me giving you $5 one year and you giving me $6 the next, and
b) you giving me $5 dollars one year, and then you giving me another $6 dollars the next

because in both circumstances, the numerical dollar difference from one year to the next is $1.
 
Deebo said:
TBLeafer said:
That's right.  The guys that write articles over at MLHS are a bunch of idiots that don't know what they are talking about and you are smarter than all of them.

The overall cap cost difference of a credit of $650K off the cap and a charge of $750K against the cap is $100K and yes it really can be that simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, the net cap hit of the buyout savings over a two year period is 100k, can you explain why that is a relevant number?
Click to expand...

I can see why it is worth it for us as opposed to a cap crunched team to eat that net 100K in overall cap though a buyout vs. just letting him play out this final contract year.

Right now, they have $7 165 834 in cap space.  Once they buyout Cowen this season, they will have $10 915 834 in available cap this summer BEFORE they have to LTIR Robidas.  That leaves them room for a big signing this summer.

And the following season when we have to eat the $100K and have his $750K come back on and count against the cap?

Well, by next summer we have Laich, Michalek, Greening and their caps clearing.  We have Robidas and Hunwick clearing.  We have Bernier clearing.

That amounts to a potential $19 500 000 CLEARED by the end of next season, so we'll have that available less $750K so $18 750 000.  So to us, that's worth it to spend $100K in net cap cost.
 
The problem here is that the buyout numbers are being presented completely out of context. On their own, they don't mean much. They need to looked at in the context of how the impact the cap. So, let's do that. For the sake of illustration, we'll use a flat cap figure of $70M - the actual cap number doesn't matter, as the impact is the same, regardless. So, after the buyout, to address all of your other cap commitments, you're left with:

16/17: $70.65M
17/18: $69.25M

Leaving a difference of $1.4M. That $100K figure? It comes from using absolute values, and doesn't illustrate the actual impact - and, it's also an example of why you should always read blogs with a skeptical eye, regardless of how high quality they may be. It's not a number with any real meaning. At no point would a team "eat $100K," they eat $750K and lose the $650K extra they had the previous season.

The problem with just adding the credit and the penalty together is that it ignores the fact that the counter resets to zero in between their individual impacts.
 
bustaheims said:
The problem here is that the buyout numbers are being presented completely out of context. On their own, they don't mean much. They need to looked at in the context of how the impact the cap. So, let's do that. For the sake of illustration, we'll use a flat cap figure of $70M - the actual cap number doesn't matter, as the impact is the same, regardless. So, after the buyout, to address all of your other cap commitments, you're left with:

16/17: $70.65M
17/18: $69.25M

Leaving a difference of $1.4M. That $100K figure? It comes from using absolute values, and doesn't illustrate the actual impact - and, it's also an example of why you should always read blogs with a skeptical eye, regardless of how high quality they may be. It's not a number with any real meaning. At no point would a team "eat $100K," they eat $750K and lose the $650K extra they had the previous season.

The problem with just adding the credit and the penalty together is that it ignores the fact that the counter resets to zero in between their individual impacts.
Click to expand...

For argument's sake, if the cap credit were a huge $10M and the later cap cost was an equally huge $10.1M, then this "overall cap cost difference" would also be $100K.  The "overall cap cost difference" of $100K in this scenario is as virtually meaningless as in the true scenario, because it still fails to convey anything of significance about the situation.
 
Heroic Shrimp said:
For argument's sake, if the cap credit were a huge $10M and the later cap cost was an equally huge $10.1M, then this "overall cap cost difference" would also be $100K.  The "overall cap cost difference" of $100K in this scenario is as virtually meaningless as in the true scenario, because it still fails to convey anything of significance about the situation.
Click to expand...

Basically, yeah. Any portrayal of the scenario that ignores that the credit disappears before the penalty is applied is meaningless. The $100K would only have meaning if the team was allowed to keep the credit going forward.
 
This place is intense.  I bet they didn't discuss this point as thoroughly as this over at MLSE.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
This place is intense.  I bet they didn't discuss this point as thoroughly as this over at MLSE.
Click to expand...

Well, they do have the best available cap expert in house in Mr Pridham.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
This place is intense.  I bet they didn't discuss this point as thoroughly as this over at MLSE.
Click to expand...

They browse the site, let us do the analysis here and then just go with the ultimate consensus opinion here.
 
Heroic Shrimp said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
This place is intense.  I bet they didn't discuss this point as thoroughly as this over at MLSE.
Click to expand...

They browse the site, let us do the analysis here and then just go with the ultimate consensus opinion here.
Click to expand...

I knew I came to the right place!  8)  ;)
 
To what I imagine is the surprise of no one, Cowen cleared waivers. No official announcement on a buyout at this point.
 
bustaheims said:
To what I imagine is the surprise of no one, Cowen cleared waivers. No official announcement on a buyout at this point.
Click to expand...

Seeing as he was put on waivers for the purpose of being bought out, he has already just been bought out.

[tweet]743474451384262657[/tweet]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top