HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Cap circumvention question Re: Thomas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2013, 02:04 PM
  #26
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
The isles were already $4m-$5m above the cap floor BEFORE TT was acquired.

This imo is an insurance move, made to give Snow flexibility to make other trades this season. If the isles are not in sniffing distance of a playoff spot, at the trade deadline and teams are calling for both Visnovsky and Streit, this move allows Snow to trade both impending ufas.

That does not mean Snow and the isles, are giving up on the season 10 games in. Not one credible source has reported the isles are shopping Vis or Streit. Fans on message boards are suggesting Vis/Streit trades.
The fact is they acquired him to allow them to spend below the floor without expending that salary. Thats an absolute fact. If they only intend to do that if the team tanks thats fine. Doesn't change the reason why he was acquired.

Vis is an obvious lightning rod for specualtion given his lack of enthusiasm for playing for the Islanders. Time will tell if it actually happens or not. I can't blame people for being skeptical considering how the Islanders have handled their roster over the past number of years. I recall an Isles fan running a twitter account last season where for every game they tweeted out how much less the actual salary paid was than the salary floor for the teams the isles iced.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:13 PM
  #27
3rdLiner
Registered User
 
3rdLiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe11 View Post
Didn't take long for two teams to make a mockery of the CBA agreement
I dont really get this. Why should the Islanders be punished for trying to become sellers?

The Bruins have a player with a moderate cap hit and the Islanders want that cap hit. This move allows the islanders to fire sale and accelerate the re-build they have been in for some time.

It also gives the B's some room to add a player so they can another cup run. Why should the Bruins be punished with a 5m caphit because Thomas became a complete nutzo and quit on the team last year?

3rdLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:19 PM
  #28
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BourqueStevens View Post
I dont really get this. Why should the Islanders be punished for trying to become sellers?

The Bruins have a player with a moderate cap hit and the Islanders want that cap hit. This move allows the islanders to fire sale and accelerate the re-build they have been in for some time.

It also gives the B's some room to add a player so they can another cup run. Why should the Bruins be punished with a 5m caphit because Thomas became a complete nutzo and quit on the team last year?
Why should the NHL punish some teams retroactively for signing players to contracts and not others? Personally I don't care if the Islanders want to use the Thomas contract to manipulate the cap as long as the NHL allows other teams to do it. The NHL's double standard towards contracts over 7 years is simply unfair. If the Bruins can trade Thomas so a team can manipulate the cap without penalty why can't Vancouver, Philly, or Detroit do the same thing?

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:51 PM
  #29
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,160
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Why should the NHL punish some teams retroactively for signing players to contracts and not others? Personally I don't care if the Islanders want to use the Thomas contract to manipulate the cap as long as the NHL allows other teams to do it. The NHL's double standard towards contracts over 7 years is simply unfair. If the Bruins can trade Thomas so a team can manipulate the cap without penalty why can't Vancouver, Philly, or Detroit do the same thing?
Why would the NHL care about teams "circumventing" the cap floor? It's the PA who wants the cap floor, not the owners. If anything the PA would be upset about this but considering The Isles are only able to do this because one of the PA's members isn't living up to his contract, they don't have much of an argument.

It's like your friend John is having a birthday party and you and all of your other friends agree on a $20 limit. You might be a little ticked if Mike managed to get John a $100 gift, but only spent $20 on it, but you wouldn't care if Dave only spent $5 on his gift.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:52 PM
  #30
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
No - it has to be a 35+ contract.

A player suspended w/o pay for non-reporting does not count against the cap unless it's a 35+ contract.
Brilliant. We're one month into the new CBA and a delightful loophole has already opened up.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 02:54 PM
  #31
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
Why would the NHL care about teams "circumventing" the cap floor? It's the PA who wants the cap floor, not the owners.
I'm not sure anybody really cares about the cap floor. If teams drop below it, all players simply get more back through the escrow process, it doesn't cost them (collectively) anything at all. If an owner wants to fudge the books and ice a cheap, bad team - so much the better for the other owners.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:11 PM
  #32
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
I was reading this in a TSN article on the trade of Tim Thomas to the Islanders:



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=415479

Now my first questions is, why didn't they have to be above the cap floor by the start of the season?

My second question though is the more pressing one. In the above quoted, they say the Islanders could use Thomas' cap hit "in perpetuity" (IE forever). With this in mind, can they get around the cap floor by keeping Thomas's contract forever (assuming Thomas refuses to come back to the NHL) , thus paying several million less than what the floor requires?

If so, then I could see these type of contracts having significant value around the league to the less well of teams. Say a team goes into bankruptcy again, like Phoenix, could the owner (or the NHL themselves if they step in) not just sign enough scrubs at the league minimum to fill the roster and then get up to the cap floor using contracts like this (hypothetically assuming there were several contracts like this)?

I know it's not likely many players will do what Thomas is doing, but if Thomas doesn't come back, and the Islanders hold on to the contract, then his contract could go on forever. Over time, there could be a few of these contracts floating around the league.
Daly has made it clear that they cannot toll his contract indefinitely if he doesn't return. I don't know what gave TSN the idea that NYI could toll a retired player's contract into his late 40s.

opendoor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:15 PM
  #33
Yukon Joe
Registered User
 
Yukon Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Brilliant. We're one month into the new CBA and a delightful loophole has already opened up.
How much of a loophole is it though?

How many 35+ players are there on multi-year contracts who are refusing to report, but have not retired?

Precisely one - Tim Thomas.

This is only a problem if multiple teams start to take advantage of it, but so far it appears to only be a one-off.

Yukon Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:19 PM
  #34
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Daly has made it clear that they cannot toll his contract indefinitely if he doesn't return. I don't know what gave TSN the idea that NYI could toll a retired player's contract into his late 40s.
Yeah I find it strange that TSN reported this because Bob said the opposite in a tweet IIRC (that they could only toll for 1 year).

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:20 PM
  #35
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Joe View Post
This is only a problem if multiple teams start to take advantage of it, but so far it appears to only be a one-off.
That's exactly what folks said when DiPietro's To Infinity and Beyond contract was signed. Next thing you know, we're Kovalchucking.

If there is one certainty in all this, it's that if one person finds a beneficial loophole, half the league will be storming the barricades to find ways to take advantage of it.

  Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:23 PM
  #36
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Brilliant. We're one month into the new CBA and a delightful loophole has already opened up.
This has been available for years though. It's not unique to the new CBA.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 03:47 PM
  #37
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
This has been available for years though. It's not unique to the new CBA.
True - but this "loophole" it's more useful now, since they closed the "lets use unearned Performance Bonuses to reach the cap floor" loophole.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 04:01 PM
  #38
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
Why would the NHL care about teams "circumventing" the cap floor? It's the PA who wants the cap floor, not the owners. If anything the PA would be upset about this but considering The Isles are only able to do this because one of the PA's members isn't living up to his contract, they don't have much of an argument.

It's like your friend John is having a birthday party and you and all of your other friends agree on a $20 limit. You might be a little ticked if Mike managed to get John a $100 gift, but only spent $20 on it, but you wouldn't care if Dave only spent $5 on his gift.
You should read my post and understand the context if you're going to respond to it. This is about the Bruins circumventing the cap - not the Islanders.

My point is that Bettman has allowed the Bruins to trade dead cap space to another team but will not allow other teams to do the same thing with "retirement contracts". It's a double standard.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 04:47 PM
  #39
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,160
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
You should read my post and understand the context if you're going to respond to it. This is about the Bruins circumventing the cap - not the Islanders.
Perhaps I should have hilighted the portion I was responding to...

Quote:
Personally I don't care if the Islanders want to use the Thomas contract to manipulate the cap as long as the NHL allows other teams to do it
But to respond to the other portion of your post, The Bruins didn't intentionally create this "dead cap space", while the teams signing "retirement" contracts did.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 04:49 PM
  #40
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
True - but this "loophole" it's more useful now, since they closed the "lets use unearned Performance Bonuses to reach the cap floor" loophole.
Good point however moot since Thomas does not have any performance bonuses. Still could come in to play someday.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 05:02 PM
  #41
Finnish your Czech
Jermain Defriend
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,214
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
True - but this "loophole" it's more useful now, since they closed the "lets use unearned Performance Bonuses to reach the cap floor" loophole.
I thought the "unearned performance bonuses" only counted towards the cap in only the expiring season of the CBA?

__________________
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=94272&dateline=135589  1618
Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 05:53 PM
  #42
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The fact is they acquired him to allow them to spend below the floor without expending that salary. Thats an absolute fact. If they only intend to do that if the team tanks thats fine. Doesn't change the reason why he was acquired.

Vis is an obvious lightning rod for specualtion given his lack of enthusiasm for playing for the Islanders. Time will tell if it actually happens or not. I can't blame people for being skeptical considering how the Islanders have handled their roster over the past number of years. I recall an Isles fan running a twitter account last season where for every game they tweeted out how much less the actual salary paid was than the salary floor for the teams the isles iced.

Isles have been wooing Vis for months and with his being blocked from playing in the KHL, he was on LI and completed his team physical before this TT trade was completed.


http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infomo...ed:i=1.4592300


"It's a great thing, I think," said Frans Nielsen , who lost his spot on the point of the first power-play unit with Visnovsky's arrival. "We've got two of the best power-play quarterbacks in the league. There's no shame in that at all. He's a great player and he's going to help us."

Visnovsky said he was surprised by the warm reaction he received from his new teammates.

"I talk to Garth Snow, talk to coaches, talk to teammates and it was big surprise to me how good to me, everybody excited to like me and everybody thinking I try to help this team," Visnovsky said in English he apologized for after a brief interview. "I want to [show] everybody I'm a good player and I want to help this team and show I'm good to be back in NHL ."

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 06:54 PM
  #43
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
I thought the "unearned performance bonuses" only counted towards the cap in only the expiring season of the CBA?
Nope. There is now "always" the bonus cushion available (in all seasons, regardless of CBA end date). One minor change for the 2013 CBA.

However, one cannot use performance bonuses to get to the floor. (IOW, floor == base salary regardless of potential unearned bonuses.)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2013, 06:58 PM
  #44
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe11 View Post
Didn't take long for two teams to make a mockery of the CBA agreement
Agreed.

What is the point of a cap and floor if teams use phantom dollars to reach this floor. It just becomes a two tier system the salary cap tried to do away with in the first place.


Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 07:28 AM
  #45
JoeMalone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Fans ignore that the Isles owner and players, are talking about making a playoff push.
Wang is telling the press that this group, can make the playoffs.

Snow could have dealt Vis for TT in a 2 or 3 way deal, adding a couple of cheap prospects, if he'd wanted to.
The NY press and headcoach, are saying the isles want Vis because the NYI top 3 are being worn down and they need the pp help..
Subsitute Vis for any number of other contracts then. When you are hovering around the cap floor and are looking at making deals, having Thomas sitting there guaranteeing you will stay above the floor is a good thing.

If Thomas never puts on a sweater, he costs them nothing. If he suits up, the Isles have a good goalie who can help make the playoffs. Either way, thats $5 million to keep them above the floor no matter who they trade or for what.

Its a shrewd move, really.

JoeMalone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 08:21 AM
  #46
CaptBrannigan
Registered User
 
CaptBrannigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
The TSN article made it sound like Thomas was still going to count against the Bruins' cap. Surely this is wrong, right? It's meant to read he was counting against the cap, even though he was suspended, prior to the trade, correct?

CaptBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 12:29 PM
  #47
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe11 View Post
Didn't take long for two teams to make a mockery of the CBA agreement
Take a whiff, something smells funny...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 12:53 PM
  #48
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,042
vCash: 500
This was possible in the last CBA, but as far as I can remember, Radulov was the only player suspended by his team for not showing up on his contract.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 04:40 PM
  #49
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptBrannigan View Post
The TSN article made it sound like Thomas was still going to count against the Bruins' cap. Surely this is wrong, right? It's meant to read he was counting against the cap, even though he was suspended, prior to the trade, correct?
yes, the Thomas contract counted against the Bruins' cap. It doesn't matter whether he was paid or suspended.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2013, 04:54 PM
  #50
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
This was possible in the last CBA, but as far as I can remember, Radulov was the only player suspended by his team for not showing up on his contract.
Nabokov.

mouser 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 03:37 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.