View Single Post
Old
01-07-2013, 01:59 PM
  #382
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
When I first read about salary retention, I thought it went more like this...

If a team trades a player to another team, the team trading the player can agree to pay up to 3mil of the traded players salary. Therefore, there are zero cap hit ramifications.

For example, if NYR trade Brad Richards to PHX, they could agree to keep 3mil worth of salary. PHX still has to account for Richard's full cap hit of 6.67mil, but 3mil of the salary figure would be retained by NYR. In this specific case, PHX would then need to pay Richards only 6mil this season instead of 9mil with the NYR picking up the additional 3mil.

In this scenario, both high budget and low budget teams benefit in different ways. A low budget team has another tool to reach the cap floor easier without spending as much money, it's almost like a form of revenue sharing between a high and low budget team. In return, the high budget team will likely get a better return for a player. It's nice that they put a cap of 5mil on it though, because I could see rich clubs taking advantage of this otherwise.

It also encourages more movement around the league. Take Keith Ballard for example, I bet you he'd have much higher value to a team needing a defenseman (NYI maybe?) if his actual salary was only 1.2mil (with a 4.2mil cap hit).
You may be right but I haven't come across any literature like this. Source?

In the NHL's October proposal, where they first introduced this idea, the Assigning Club is permitted to retain up to 50% (or $3M) of a single player's Cap charge per year, along with the obligation to reimburse the Assigned Club for an equal % (or amount) of that player's actual salary obligation per year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clause
In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Explanation
Finally, we propose that to facilitate more trades and create increased flexibility in managing Cap Room, Clubs be allowed to allocate portions of a contract's Cap charge (and related salary obligations) in the context of a Player Trade. This will facilitate additional Player movement and trades between teams as they manage their respective Caps and Payroll Range obligations.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643572

Crease is offline