So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.
Agreed.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.
That language makes it sound like Philly will be on the hook for Carter/Richards.
1. Applies to existing deals
2. "the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract."
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
I don't think anyone's suggesting that Redden's attractive for cap floor purposes. If it happens, it would happen in exchange for a (much) more expensive buyout candidate. Wade will be owed peanuts next season (in real dollars) compared to some of the other potential candidates. Saving 8 figures on a buyout would be very attractive, especially to small market owners.
(Of course, one thing we don't yet know is if this is even possible - if I'm not mistaken, under the NBA CBA you could only buy out a player who was on your roster at the time of the CBA signing.)
I only find three players that fit the criteria above (which makes sense)
Wisnewski is owned $27m , Umburger $23m, and Ville Leiono about $23m. If the intention of those teams is to buy the player out next summer, they could trade them for Redden (only owed $13m) and save thmselves significant cash by buying him out instead. From Ranger perspective, if those players don't pan out it's not a big deal as you can buy them out next summer anyway.
Actually, I can see Wisnewski or Umburger fitting in fairly well.
So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.
I guess that's a mechanism to make sure that the team that signed the circumventing deal gets punished. Otherwise the Wild could trade Suter and Parise to a cap-floor team (who view the cap benefit recapture hit as an asset) minutes before they retire.
I like that it hurts the team that signed him to the insane contract. That way if New Jersey traded Kovy to a team trying to reach the cap floor, and Kovy retired 2 minutes after the trade was completed, New Jersey still takes the hit. I think the teams that got around the cap like this should be punished.
I guess that's a mechanism to make sure that the team that signed the circumventing deal gets punished. Otherwise the Wild could trade Suter and Parise to a cap-floor team (who view the cap benefit recapture hit as an asset) minutes before they retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHookUp
I like that it hurts the team that signed him to the insane contract. That way if New Jersey traded Kovy to a team trying to reach the cap floor, and Kovy retired 2 minutes after the trade was completed, New Jersey still takes the hit. I think the teams that got around the cap like this should be punished.
Yeah that makes sense. I have trouble wrapping my feeble brain around some of this stuff.
Still, not sure I like it. I guess it's just because I dislike the cap and don't mind "circumvention" attempts.
Only true if revenue is over 3.55B. If it is less, the midpoint+15% is less than $64.3m and the minimum ceiling kicks into effect. Sounds like the floor will still be midpoint-15% in that case.
Yeah that makes sense. I have trouble wrapping my feeble brain around some of this stuff.
Still, not sure I like it. I guess it's just because I dislike the cap and don't mind "circumvention" attempts.
I am in the same boat. IMHO, the cap should be a soft cap with revenue sharing toing to small market teams. Let the Rangers pay a 150M salary if they want. Just that 80M of that above the 70M soft cap would then be doubled and paid into a revenue sharing pool (160M would be paid by the Rangers to a revenue sharing pool in my world).
It would allow teams to spend as much as they want and still benefit the **** market teams that shouldn't exist.
thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.
thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.
The wording sounds like it's going to say that the recapture hits the original team, no matter who the guy retires with.
thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.
I wonder which it is - can you retain salary in a trade? Can you retain cap hit?
If we're at the trade deadline, can the acquiring team absorb the full salary but only half the cap hit? That has the potential to stack some teams.
On the flip side, can you trade away players and keep paying them in part while the new team gets the full cap hit but only part of the salary?
Maybe both?
It's going to be both. You're not going to be able to do one without the other. It's going to be maximum 50% for contracts under $6m or $3m for contracts over $6m, it sounds like. You pay both the salary and take the cap hit.
If a guy is making $4m, but his cap hit is $5m, then if you're paying 50% you take on $2m in salary and a $2.5m cap hit. It's the only logical way to do it.
Honestly, with it coming out that the retired players thing counting against the cap it really makes it a possibility to buy out Richards in summer 2014..
I realize this is a silly conversation to have now, especially if his next 2 years are top notch, but none of us here see Richards being nearly as effective after 5-6 years of this deal. It would be wise to replace that money with a player in his prime and not have to worry about Richards' aging process.
I doubt it happens though if Richards has (hopefully) two good seasons coming up here
Honestly, with it coming out that the retired players thing counting against the cap it really makes it a possibility to buy out Richards in summer 2014.
Yeah, but we're still unclear if you will be able to use the amnesty in the summers of 2013 and 2014, or just 2013.
