View Single Post
Old
01-08-2013, 06:23 PM
  #64
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 27,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunitz View Post
Can someone explain this better to me?:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...7517--nhl.html

I thought I was doing the math correctly but wasn't getting their numbers.

I'm probably just messing up something real simple.
1. From the article:

The simplest way to explain it is this: Let's assume the Canucks and Maple Leafs make the deal. Vancouver would be responsible for the "cap benefit" that it received in the first two years. Toronto would be responsible for any remaining "cap benefit" it gets as a result of contract structure if he walks away early.

The cap benefit of the first two years of Luongo's deal is 6M. If he retires with more than 3 years left on his deal, Vancouver is on the hook for the hit. Definitely makes moving deals like this tougher. BTW, same goes for the Sid deal in terms of the cap hit.

Note: It doesn't seem to apply to injuries (e.g., Pronger), but there's nothing authoritative in the article.

2. Check out what I just posted. The Luongo rule is interesting. The far more interesting thing, IMO, is the whole angle about teams being able to use salary cap/payroll in a traded contract as a trade asset. Example, is Paul Martin worth more to then Pens in a trade just trading his 5M contract OR where the Pens eat 1.5M of the cap hit/salary but likely get more suitors and more of a return? Conversely, I have zero interest in J-Bo at 6.6M. What if Calgary were willing to eat 25% of the cap hit? Really makes things interesting, IMO . . .

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote