HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Brashear to the KHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-24-2010, 11:06 AM
  #26
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
this is from nhlscap.com

Players suspended by either the team or the NHL will not count for the duration of the suspension as long as the player is not receiving his salary;

there is no exception for over 35 players its all players suspended
In the CBA it says:
Quote:
All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League
Year by a Player who is in the second or later year
of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the
Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to
the League Year in which the SPC is to be
effective), but which Player is not on the Club's
Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster
or Non Roster, and regardless of whether, or where,
the Player is playing
, except to the extent the Player
is playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in
which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in
excess of $100,000 shall count towards the
calculation of Averaged Club Salary; plus
I don't think him playing in Russia would get hiom off the cap. It doesn't matter if he actually get's payed (if he retires his cap hit would still count) and/or is suspended, he will count against the cap in any case until he is traded. Even if he is on LTIR (and no suspensions definitely have nothing to do with LTIR and aren't in any way similiar) he would still technically count against the cap, but we would of course be allowed to spend those 1.3M over the cap.

But yeah, I could easily imagine a trade Brasher to some team at the cap floor for futures.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:23 AM
  #27
howztheglass
Registered User
 
howztheglass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
In the CBA it says:


I don't think him playing in Russia would get hiom off the cap. It doesn't matter if he actually get's payed (if he retires his cap hit would still count) and/or is suspended, he will count against the cap in any case until he is traded. Even if he is on LTIR (and no suspensions definitely have nothing to do with LTIR and aren't in any way similiar) he would still technically count against the cap, but we would of course be allowed to spend those 1.3M over the cap.

But yeah, I could easily imagine a trade Brasher to some team at the cap floor for futures.
Holy crap how confusing--so if I read this right we can trade him to say Dallas(I guess with a pick or Dolan's dollars)and then Dallas could allow him to go to the KHL.
But all along if he's not on the roster we can spend up to 1.3 million over the cap.Even as I'm writing this I'm confusing myself(ha).

howztheglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:28 AM
  #28
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
In the CBA it says:


I don't think him playing in Russia would get hiom off the cap. It doesn't matter if he actually get's payed (if he retires his cap hit would still count) and/or is suspended, he will count against the cap in any case until he is traded. Even if he is on LTIR (and no suspensions definitely have nothing to do with LTIR and aren't in any way similiar) he would still technically count against the cap, but we would of course be allowed to spend those 1.3M over the cap.

But yeah, I could easily imagine a trade Brasher to some team at the cap floor for futures.
that's all well understood however no where in there does that refer to suspended players breaching their contracts. we all know if we loan him to russia or loan him to an ahl team he'd be on the cap. that part of the CBA has nothing to do with suspended players which he would be if he signed with russia in breach of contract and or was suspended by the team for defamatory comments towards the organization which he could choose not to contest for the ability to go to russia and make more money

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:30 AM
  #29
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by howztheglass View Post
Holy crap how confusing--so if I read this right we can trade him to say Dallas(I guess with a pick or Dolan's dollars)and then Dallas could allow him to go to the KHL.
But all along if he's not on the roster we can spend up to 1.3 million over the cap.Even as I'm writing this I'm confusing myself(ha).
Ok so this is how it is: Brashear counts against our cap, no matter if and where he plays, unless we trade him to another NHL club.

If he is injured long-term and thus placed onto LTIR, he still counts against the cap, but we are allowed to go over the cap by the same amount.

So even if he breaches his contract (I think) he would still count against the cap despite not getting paid. But that fact should make him easily tradeable as he could help a "poor" team reach the cap floor without spending a dollar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
that's all well understood however no where in there does that refer to suspended players breaching their contracts. we all know if we loan him to russia or loan him to an ahl team he'd be on the cap. that part of the CBA has nothing to do with suspended players which he would be if he signed with russia in breach of contract and or was suspended by the team for defamatory comments towards the organization which he could choose not to contest for the ability to go to russia and make more money
It doesn't say anything about it, as it generally says that such a player always fully counts towards the cap, and then lists some exceptions to that rule. If it was be different for suspended players I think there should be a sentence about that.

edit: ok here is what the CBA says about suspended players:
Quote:
(c)
For Players that are suspended, either by a Club or by the League, the
Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a
Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but
the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order
for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club.
So even if that's also the rule for 35+ players (which I still doubt) then we couldn't spend to the cap because we would have to keep the room for a hypothetical return. We could however later in the season spend more for every day he has been suspended.

In the end I think it all shouldn't really matter, unless we overpay for some UFAs I don't think we need the $1.3 million cap room next season.


Last edited by jniklast: 06-24-2010 at 11:36 AM.
jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:35 AM
  #30
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
i just showed you the section regarding suspended players they don't count towards the cap. see jiri hudler and sean avery. just because your 35 and suspended doesn't mean you count against the cap. its says any suspended player doesn't not count against the cap as long as they aren't getting salary from the team. this goes for players suspended by the nhl or by the team exclusively.

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:41 AM
  #31
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
here's an article in the new york times regarding this matter

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...0A9609C8B63cle


towards the end you will actually see a blurb about the malakhov situation at the time. he was suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and his cap hit was completely removed. it wasn't until the next season when he was healthy and chose to report that lou had to move him.

this wouldn't be a problem as brashear only has a year left

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:42 AM
  #32
howztheglass
Registered User
 
howztheglass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Ok so this is how it is: Brashear counts against our cap, no matter if and where he plays, unless we trade him to another NHL club.

If he is injured long-term and thus placed onto LTIR, he still counts against the cap, but we are allowed to go over the cap by the same amount.

So even if he breaches his contract (I think) he would still count against the cap despite not getting paid. But that fact should make him easily tradeable as he could help a "poor" team reach the cap floor without spending a dollar.

Wow it looks like we're screwed every way but a trade---I do like the fact that maybe we can make a trade with a team near the cap floor but we're going to add something to the trade other then Brash(that's the part I don't like).Maybe Bettman should have watched Brash play last year and then he would have no problem with us putting Brash on LTIR.

howztheglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:44 AM
  #33
DrAStuart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Anybody seen Logan's Run? NHL players need to be implanted with those light up crystal thingies in their hands that blink when they approach their 35th birthday...would remind GMs not to sign them.

I think jniklast is right. These parts of the CBA are designed, in some sense, to protect players who are over 35 from being 'abandoned' by their teams -- it punishes a team who commit to an older player and then change their minds. And it SHOULD serve as red flag for GMs to think very carefully before giving long(er) term commitments to guys who are on the downside of their careers....obviously someone didn't see the flag.

DrAStuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:45 AM
  #34
howztheglass
Registered User
 
howztheglass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
i just showed you the section regarding suspended players they don't count towards the cap. see jiri hudler and sean avery. just because your 35 and suspended doesn't mean you count against the cap. its says any suspended player doesn't not count against the cap as long as they aren't getting salary from the team. this goes for players suspended by the nhl or by the team exclusively.
here's an article in the new york times regarding this matter

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...0A9609C8B63cle


towards the end you will actually see a blurb about the malakhov situation at the time. he was suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and his cap hit was completely removed. it wasn't until the next season when he was healthy and chose to report that lou had to move him.

this wouldn't be a problem as brashear only has a year left

Ok maybe things are looking better.Hopefully either way Brash salary will not count just get him out of here.Some how part of me think Brash wants to screw Glen over.

howztheglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:46 AM
  #35
Ovens
Registered User
 
Ovens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo View Post
I'll wait till a real source before getting excited.
Dagoon is usually pretty reliable with his information.

Ovens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:47 AM
  #36
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
here's an article in the new york times regarding this matter

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...0A9609C8B63cle


towards the end you will actually see a blurb about the malakhov situation at the time. he was suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and his cap hit was completely removed. it wasn't until the next season when he was healthy and chose to report that lou had to move him.

this wouldn't be a problem as brashear only has a year left
He was in the first year of his contract, thus the above rule had no effect yet. Just like Brashear was removed from the cap this year too.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:51 AM
  #37
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,662
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
What about Nashville? They still owe us future considerations for the Huge Specimen if I am not incorrect? Can not something be worked out there?

BBKers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:52 AM
  #38
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
there's no way regardless of age that a suspended player would count against a teams cap thats crazy.

i guess we'll find out

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:52 AM
  #39
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
im almost positive a suspended player falls into the LTIR category. no matter what age he is.
Players on LTIR still count against the cap. Teams are just allowed to replace those players with any number of players up to the injured players cap number. So if Brashear were on LTIR, we could replace him with any number of players totalling no more than 1.4 mil. Once Brashear comes off LTIR, we'd have to get back under the cap. LTIR is not a good solution because replacing him would eat up any cap space we'd have left for injuries and deadline deals.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:55 AM
  #40
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
there's no way regardless of age that a suspended player would count against a teams cap thats crazy.

i guess we'll find out
Just as crazy as retired players still counting against the cap, I'd say.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:57 AM
  #41
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,181
vCash: 873
I'm not sur ethat Hudler is the right one to use as an example.

Hudler took the team to arbitration. The only think that Arbitration does is decide salary. Hudler has to live with the decision.

However, if he doesn't sign the actual contract, then he technically under contract to teh Wings which is what was decided when he was allowed to leave for the KHL.

Considering his age and when teh decision was rendered, the Wings retained his rights and if/when Hudler ever came back, there was a 2 year contract with terms already set waiting for him to sign

It just so happened that Hudler spent just 1 year away from the NHL and is now back with the Wings this year coming.

So, in the end, the Wings weren't assessed a cap hit, cause there was no contract signed.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:58 AM
  #42
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,662
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I'm not sur ethat Hudler is the right one to use as an example.

Hudler took the team to arbitration. The only think that Arbitration does is decide salary. Hudler has to live with the decision.

However, if he doesn't sign the actual contract, then he technically under contract to teh Wings which is what was decided when he was allowed to leave for the KHL.

Considering his age and when teh decision was rendered, the Wings retained his rights and if/when Hudler ever came back, there was a 2 year contract with terms already set waiting for him to sign

It just so happened that Hudler spent just 1 year away from the NHL and is now back with the Wings this year coming.

So, in the end, the Wings weren't assessed a cap hit, cause there was no contract signed.
Hudler IS NOT OVER 35. Not relevant!!!

BBKers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 11:58 AM
  #43
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
If Brashear is suspended for breach of contract, his contract can be terminated and I believe his cap hit would be off the books. But, the KHL isn't going to help us in that regard. The KHL has agreed to honor NHL contracts, so no KHL team is going to sign him to a deal unless the Rangers agree to it. If the Rangers agree to let him play there, then no breach of contract, no suspension, we still have the cap hit.

Trading him is our best bet. The solution is out there, it will just cost Dolan a few extra bucks.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 12:01 PM
  #44
Richter35
Registered User
 
Richter35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,359
vCash: 500
if brash hopped to the khl without a formal loan arrangement that would be breach of contract right there, he's off the books and the rangers have an extra slot in the 50 man list. Obviously Glen is giving brash a wink and a nod here, maybe the nhl does something about it, maybe not. Its a nice thing when you're GM is in the old boys club

Richter35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 12:05 PM
  #45
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,181
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
Hudler IS NOT OVER 35. Not relevant!!!
that to.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 12:08 PM
  #46
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Page 226 50.10 C of the NHL CBA with respect to All Player Salary and Bonuses paid to Players on an NHL Active Roster,

states that

For Players that are suspended, either by a Club or by the League, the
Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a
Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but
the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order
for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club.

2 way contracts are fine in leaving that additional payroll room because they can immediately be demoted ane promoted note it does not say cap space.

pretty cut and dry if there was an exception for certain kinds of players over 35 or whatever it would be in there lord knows everything else is!

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 12:25 PM
  #47
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter35 View Post
if brash hopped to the khl without a formal loan arrangement that would be breach of contract right there, he's off the books and the rangers have an extra slot in the 50 man list. Obviously Glen is giving brash a wink and a nod here, maybe the nhl does something about it, maybe not. Its a nice thing when you're GM is in the old boys club
A nice thing for who? And what does that do for us? Allow Sather to undo the stupid moves that he should not have made to begin with?

I would much rather have competent GM than a moron that relies on his connections to undo his endless blunders...

John Torturella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 12:47 PM
  #48
squishy
Registered User
 
squishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
There were rumors last summer that Brashear would go to Russia, but then Slats swooped in and offered him the world instead. Lisin and Anisimov confirmed it in an interview last winter:

Quote:
- About Donald Brashear: is it true that he speaks Russian and plans to play in the KHL? There were rumors that he could find himself with Chekhov Vityaz, a team that delights [fans] with physical play and frequent on-ice fights, while not forgetting the main task: scoring.

Enver Lisin.: Yes, he really wanted to play in the KHL, like you said, he could have found himself with Checkhov Vityaz, but the New York Rangers won out, apparently. Donald often asks us about Russia, so maybe a little later he will go and play in our country. He speaks Russian, but only a very little bit.

Artem Anisimov: Incidentally, he even has a teach-yourself-Russian CD in the his CD player.
http://www.beyondtheblueshirts.com/2...ove-and-hockey

squishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 01:05 PM
  #49
TreeSapLlama
Registered User
 
TreeSapLlama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
I am secretly hoping we can trade him for Cheechoo and then send cheechoo to the minors. Ottawa would save 1.7 million in actual money, Rangers save the cap space but spend extra for him to play in Hartford.

TreeSapLlama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 01:22 PM
  #50
Rustingo12
Registered User
 
Rustingo12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
So if Donald goes to the KHL are we screwed?

Rustingo12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.