HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Notices

Lockout is over

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 07:49 PM
  #326
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Hypothetically let's say we trade Tallinder and retain 2 mil of his salary. Does he count against our cap 2 mil or is the receiving team entitled to his full cap hit?
Again, I'm not 100% certain, so there's a chance I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, we get rid of the cap hit, like in a normal trade, but would be paying out the $2 mil in his salary. At least that's what I assume. I'm just not 100% sure and I don't know if that info is definitively out there. May be determined by the language of the CBA, or I may have missed something.

EDIT: And now I'm searching and can't find anything talking about this type of thing (retaining salary) one way or another. Anyone have any links to articles/reports about any of this? I'm now confused and need to read up on this since I have no idea anymore.


Last edited by Scott04: 01-08-2013 at 07:56 PM.
Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:29 PM
  #327
lboogie42*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Trap View Post
THis has gotten me soo pumped for the NHL



Lets Go Devils !
everything was good and it brought back good memories. until i remembered how *lame that final game of the stanley cup was. that just made me angry lol.


Last edited by Richer's Ghost: 01-09-2013 at 09:53 AM. Reason: derogatory term fixed
lboogie42* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:45 PM
  #328
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott04 View Post
Again, I'm not 100% certain, so there's a chance I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, we get rid of the cap hit, like in a normal trade, but would be paying out the $2 mil in his salary. At least that's what I assume. I'm just not 100% sure and I don't know if that info is definitively out there. May be determined by the language of the CBA, or I may have missed something.

EDIT: And now I'm searching and can't find anything talking about this type of thing (retaining salary) one way or another. Anyone have any links to articles/reports about any of this? I'm now confused and need to read up on this since I have no idea anymore.
I don't think that is correct.

Based on the tweets from yesterday, we would maintain the cap hit but not more than 50% of a single contract. We can only do that for three contacts with the limit of 15% of our total cap going toward this.

So we shed part of the salary and part of the cash.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:46 PM
  #329
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott04 View Post
Again, I'm not 100% certain, so there's a chance I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, we get rid of the cap hit, like in a normal trade, but would be paying out the $2 mil in his salary. At least that's what I assume. I'm just not 100% sure and I don't know if that info is definitively out there. May be determined by the language of the CBA, or I may have missed something.

EDIT: And now I'm searching and can't find anything talking about this type of thing (retaining salary) one way or another. Anyone have any links to articles/reports about any of this? I'm now confused and need to read up on this since I have no idea anymore.
Just wait till Burke (who has been lobbying it for years and pretty much wrote the rule) executes it by paying off salary/cap space to Vancouver for Luongo, we'll all find out how it works then

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:49 PM
  #330
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I don't think that is correct.

Based on the tweets from yesterday, we would maintain the cap hit but not more than 50% of a single contract. We can only do that for three contacts with the limit of 15% of our total cap going toward this.

So we shed part of the salary and part of the cash.
See, that makes more sense. The more I thought about it, the more what I was saying didn't seem to make sense. How would what I was saying be different than trading a guy and sending cash? Which I do believe was more than fine beforehand (although I don't know what limits existed). What you said seems feasible. Equally as confusing (until its acted upon and easier to see the effects of), but more feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
Just wait till Burke (who has been lobbying it for years and pretty much wrote the rule) executes it by paying off salary/cap space to Vancouver for Luongo, we'll all find out how it works then
That's what I was banking on. Odds are someone would be utilizing this soon, be it Burke, something with Luongo (or both), or the Rangers and Redden.

Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:51 PM
  #331
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,453
vCash: 500
The example was a player and keeping 1M of a 5M contract so the incentive is you lose 4M from cap space for a player you struggled to move before and another team gets a good deal.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:55 PM
  #332
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
The example was a player and keeping 1M of a 5M contract so the incentive is you lose 4M from cap space for a player you struggled to move before and another team gets a good deal.
So basically its trading part of the salary/part of the cap hit. Can only keep the smaller portion of the salary on your cap, but its better than nothing. Rangers have a better shot at unloading Redden since another team would only be taking 4 mil (roughly) in the cap hit instead of his 5+. Making sure I'm understanding this here.

Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:02 PM
  #333
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,453
vCash: 500
You're right but i would expect him to be bought out instead because they aren't too desperate for cap now and his amnesty buyout would leave zero cap hit instead

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:28 PM
  #334
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,030
vCash: 500
Can't buy Redden out till the summer. They're stuck with him this year unless some other team decides to trade for him paying half his salary/cap hit, or they keep him in CT saving a 'meager' amount (just under $1 million).

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:30 PM
  #335
manilaNJ
Optimism: Unwavering
 
manilaNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,224
vCash: 500
I expect them to stick with it til the summer. Cap's $70 million this year, they have no reason to worry.

Might as well buy him out.
No one's going to want to trade for that contract, even what little remains.

manilaNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:33 PM
  #336
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
Can't buy Redden out till the summer. They're stuck with him this year unless some other team decides to trade for him paying half his salary/cap hit, or they keep him in CT saving a 'meager' amount (just under $1 million).
I'm aware and i think a buyout is used on him.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:58 AM
  #337
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
So pretty much whatever salary you retain in a trade is the cap hit you retain as well. It's like re-entry waivers without the waiving.

apice3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:03 AM
  #338
GameSeven
ἢ τὰς ἢ ἐπὶ τὰς
 
GameSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott04 View Post
EDIT: And now I'm searching and can't find anything talking about this type of thing (retaining salary) one way or another. Anyone have any links to articles/reports about any of this? I'm now confused and need to read up on this since I have no idea anymore.
Day late and a dollar short, perhaps, but here is the best I've seen on this topic so far.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle7033878/

GameSeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:08 AM
  #339
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
That article confused the balls off of me.

apice3* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:19 AM
  #340
Devils731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,241
vCash: 500
I think the basics from the article are:

1) You can keep at most 50% the cap hit of a players contract.

2) You can only have 3 players who you're retaining salary and cap hit who aren't with you.

3) Any individual contract can only have salary/cap hit "kept" twice. So a third trade involving that player would not allow to have any "kept" cap/salary.

4) A team can never have more than 15% of the salary cap as "kept" cap.

------------------

The most confusing part is separating cap hit kept from actual dollars kept. The paper wrote it as you can keep 50% "of a contract" so I think if you want to keep 50% of the cap hit, you pay 50% of whatever real dollars that player would earn each season.

I don't think it's as complicated as it looks. In practice I don't think it will be used to great extent, except possibly next season as some bad contracts are moved around. It will more likely be used when teams close to the cap need a small amount of money "kept" by the other team to keep the trade fitting under the cap.

Devils731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:28 AM
  #341
slammer
Registered User
 
slammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hessen
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lboogie42 View Post
everything was good and it brought back good memories. until i remembered how gay that final game of the stanley cup was. that just made me angry lol.
I saw this Video and i nearly had tears in my eyes. This was the most emotional trip i ever imagined with sports. the ot goal in game 7 vs florida...i was awake the whole night and sat in front of my pc, in my work clothes. i ate my breakfast...

and then, THE MUSKETEER SCOOOORES, **** damn i shouted out so loud i bet the whole house was awake, but i didnt give a flying ****.

oh damn how much i love this team. i get so damn emotional in each game. never had that with any sports before.

thanks for bringing back the memories...it was magical

slammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:30 AM
  #342
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils731 View Post
I think the basics from the article are:

1) You can keep at most 50% the cap hit of a players contract.

2) You can only have 3 players who you're retaining salary and cap hit who aren't with you.

3) Any individual contract can only have salary/cap hit "kept" twice. So a third trade involving that player would not allow to have any "kept" cap/salary.

4) A team can never have more than 15% of the salary cap as "kept" cap.

------------------

The most confusing part is separating cap hit kept from actual dollars kept. The paper wrote it as you can keep 50% "of a contract" so I think if you want to keep 50% of the cap hit, you pay 50% of whatever real dollars that player would earn each season.

I don't think it's as complicated as it looks. In practice I don't think it will be used to great extent, except possibly next season as some bad contracts are moved around. It will more likely be used when teams close to the cap need a small amount of money "kept" by the other team to keep the trade fitting under the cap.
It seems like its some kind of a hybrid of re-entry waivers and a buyout that can be used in-season (via trade). Or maybe its my analogy that is confusing me. I really think it will make far more sense once a team actually does it. I know the article outlines potential scenarios and the cap hits, but it would probably help seeing a trade done, with specific terms, and then looking on capgeek and seeing how the player is listed on both team's payrolls. And then of course things got really confusing when it said a team can do this with a given contract twice.... That's where they lost me. I assume it will make more sense once it is put in play though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slammer View Post
I saw this Video and i nearly had tears in my eyes. This was the most emotional trip i ever imagined with sports. the ot goal in game 7 vs florida...i was awake the whole night and sat in front of my pc, in my work clothes. i ate my breakfast...

and then, THE MUSKETEER SCOOOORES, **** damn i shouted out so loud i bet the whole house was awake, but i didnt give a flying ****.

oh damn how much i love this team. i get so damn emotional in each game. never had that with any sports before.

thanks for bringing back the memories...it was magical
I still maintain that out of all of the Devils teams/seasons, last year was the one that I had the most fun watching. That has nothing to do with the style of play, and obviously not entirely on the end result (or it wouldn't be above my 4th favorite for obvious reasons). Maybe its piggy backing off of how much fun the 2nd half of the prior year was, but something about last year was just such an enjoyable ride. Probably the fact the team went into the playoffs as an underdog and went on that kind of a run only added to it.

Scott04 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 02:16 AM.

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.