HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Boston's Cap Penalty.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2014, 05:27 PM
  #1
Ferrero Rocher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,733
vCash: 495
Boston's Cap Penalty.

I'm not sure if this has been included or not in the Boston cap problems but do they have a 4.75M cap penalty? It hasn't been mentioned too much or maybe it was included just wasn't too sure.

Ferrero Rocher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 05:37 PM
  #2
HuskyBruinPride
Registered User
 
HuskyBruinPride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 580
vCash: 500
Yeah we've got a lovely cap penalty due to bonuses. However, with Iginla walking, we should be able squeeze under the cap without moving any major pieces.

HuskyBruinPride is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:01 PM
  #3
Dr Danglefest
Vindication
 
Dr Danglefest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beantown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Yes in every recent post (since it was revealed how high the penalty was a week ago) but like my fellow fan here said, with Iginla no longer an option, we should be able to fit under with relatively no main-stays moved and certainly no NEED to move a core piece

Dr Danglefest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:02 PM
  #4
Taze em
Registered User
 
Taze em's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Danglefest View Post
Yes in every recent post (since it was revealed how high the penalty was a week ago) but like my fellow fan here said, with Iginla no longer an option, we should be able to fit under with relatively no main-stays moved and certainly no NEED to move a core piece
I really hope no one OS's Smith or Krug. I have my eye on those developments because the Hawks will be right where the Bruins are next year with Saad and Leddy dangling.

Taze em is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:09 PM
  #5
Gee Wally
Grumpy
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 38,241
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taze em View Post
I really hope no one OS's Smith or Krug. I have my eye on those developments because the Hawks will be right where the Bruins are next year with Saad and Leddy dangling.
They can't be offer sheeted. I thought that too. But Chiarelli explained in his presser that there is a section in the CBA that their type of RFA is exempt because lack of games played in year 1 of their original contract.

Beats me how that is an RFA but I'm no capologist and the team isn't concerned.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:11 PM
  #6
Taze em
Registered User
 
Taze em's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
They can't be offer sheeted. I thought that too. But Chiarelli explained in his presser that there is a section in the CBA that their type of RFA is exempt because lack of games played in year 1 of their original contract.

Beats me how that is an RFA but I'm no capologist and the team isn't concerned.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Taze em is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:14 PM
  #7
Gee Wally
Grumpy
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 38,241
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taze em View Post
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=57

Here's an explanation.

I never knew it existed but it's there I guess.

Gee Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 06:38 PM
  #8
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=57

Here's an explanation.

I never knew it existed but it's there I guess.
Both Krug and Smith signed after the end of their NCAA season in '11-'12 and only played 2 and 3 NHL games.

That burned one year off their 3 yr ELS deals (the 10 game rule only applies to 18 & 19 year olds), but did not earn them a year of "professional experience"(*) for Group 2 RFA status. This left them short of the 3 years of pro experience they needed to become regular RFAs under 10.2(a), and instead were subject to 10.2(c) (A QO but no Offer Sheets)

(*) For 20+ yo players - 10 or more professional (NHL/AHL) games played under their NHL SPC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 10.2
(a) Group 2 Players and Free Agents.

(i) (A) Any Player who meets the qualifications set forth in the following
chart and: (1) is not a Group 1 Player or a Group 4 Player, and (2) is not
an Unrestricted Free Agent, shall be deemed to be a "Group 2 Player" and
shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become a Restricted Free Agent. Any
such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any
Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC
with any such Player, subject to the provisions set forth in this Section. As
used in this Section 10.2, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age" means
a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an
SPC regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC.

First SPC Signing Age Eligible for Group 2 Free Agency
18 - 21 3 years professional experience
22 - 23 2 years professional experience
24 or older 1 year professional experience

For the purposes of this Section 10.2(a), a Player aged 18 or 19 earns a
year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more NHL Games
in a given NHL Season, and a Player aged 20 or older (or who turns 20
between September 16 and December 31 of the year in which he signs his
first SPC) earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or
more Professional Games under an SPC in a given League Year.


...

(c) Players With Fewer Than Three Years of Professional Experience.

Any Player with fewer than the required years of professional experience set forth
in Section 10.2 shall have no right to Free Agency except as provided in this section.
Upon
expiration of such a Player's SPC, the Club to whom the Player was last under SPC shall be
entitled to make that Player a Qualifying Offer under the terms and conditions set forth in
Section 10.2(a)(ii) above. A Club which makes this Qualifying Offer will have the exclusive
right to negotiate with any such Player. In the event no such Qualifying Offer is made, the
Player shall immediately become an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Section 10.2(a)(iv)
above.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 07:39 PM
  #9
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,239
vCash: 500
N
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Both Krug and Smith signed after the end of their NCAA season in '11-'12 and only played 2 and 3 NHL games.

That burned one year off their 3 yr ELS deals (the 10 game rule only applies to 18 & 19 year olds), but did not earn them a year of "professional experience"(*) for Group 2 RFA status. This left them short of the 3 years of pro experience they needed to become regular RFAs under 10.2(a), and instead were subject to 10.2(c) (A QO but no Offer Sheets)

(*) For 20+ yo players - 10 or more professional (NHL/AHL) games played under their NHL SPC.
Will this apply to Johnny Gaudreau and Billy Arnold?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 07:40 PM
  #10
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 7,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
They can't be offer sheeted. I thought that too. But Chiarelli explained in his presser that there is a section in the CBA that their type of RFA is exempt because lack of games played in year 1 of their original contract.

Beats me how that is an RFA but I'm no capologist and the team isn't concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Both Krug and Smith signed after the end of their NCAA season in '11-'12 and only played 2 and 3 NHL games.

That burned one year off their 3 yr ELS deals (the 10 game rule only applies to 18 & 19 year olds), but did not earn them a year of "professional experience"(*) for Group 2 RFA status. This left them short of the 3 years of pro experience they needed to become regular RFAs under 10.2(a), and instead were subject to 10.2(c) (A QO but no Offer Sheets)

(*) For 20+ yo players - 10 or more professional (NHL/AHL) games played under their NHL SPC.
This is a grey area because of how specifically the contract is structured.

a contract could have wording that bypasses this. Remember these contracts were signed under the old CBA to NCAA players where the teams were trying to entice them to turn pro when they could go back to college.

Also tyhese were signed under the old CBA---hus those definitions defined under the old CBA still would be held. If by signing these contracts they would have been goup 2 RFAs they would not lose that. If it was the same wording in the old CBA as it is now then they wouldnt be able to get offer sheeted.

I dont know the old CBA so I cant answer this.

This is part of the attraction to entice a college player to turn pro is the idea you can accrue a season without playing the minimum number of games. Otherwise why bother turning pro right after college ended and instead just sign a deal that would be 3 years and take affect the following season then they could get OS.

There is another section about college players in the CBA that could trump this. I dont have the CBA in front of me.

Djp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2014, 07:52 PM
  #11
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
This is a grey area because of how specifically the contract is structured.

a contract could have wording that bypasses this. Remember these contracts were signed under the old CBA to NCAA players where the teams were trying to entice them to turn pro when they could go back to college.

Also tyhese were signed under the old CBA---hus those definitions defined under the old CBA still would be held. If by signing these contracts they would have been goup 2 RFAs they would not lose that. If it was the same wording in the old CBA as it is now then they wouldnt be able to get offer sheeted.

I dont know the old CBA so I cant answer this.

This is part of the attraction to entice a college player to turn pro is the idea you can accrue a season without playing the minimum number of games. Otherwise why bother turning pro right after college ended and instead just sign a deal that would be 3 years and take affect the following season then they could get OS.

There is another section about college players in the CBA that could trump this. I dont have the CBA in front of me.
There was no change to this from the old CBA to the current one. And even if their were, the current terms would take precedence unless the old definitions/rules were grandfathered in under the Exhibit 16 Transition Rules.

And no a contract could not have "wording that bypasses this" - a Standard Players Contract cannot alter the terms of the CBA.

The advantage of the College Player signing early was burning off a year of their 3 year ELS deal - and getting to their second contract a season earlier.

2 years of ELS + 1 year of 10.2(c) non-RFA status > 3 years of ELS.

kdb209 is online now   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 11:30 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.