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.

Confirmed Details of 2013 CBA & CBA Questions (Merged)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-30-2013, 06:51 PM
  #126
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
Nope. Team would have to move very quickly to add "big contracts".

As Spezza will be 30 at start of season, the 35+ rule will not be applicable.

However, if any years of the "big" (long term) contract have gone through, team may have a penalty of "lessened" cap to go against contract.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-01-2013, 01:52 AM
  #127
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,018
vCash: 500
When Jiri Fischer was medically no longer cleared to play, he had at least 1-2 yrs remaining on his contract. Even though everyone knew he would never play hockey again, the Wings had to carry the cap hit for his contract for the remaining term, as an LTIR. I presume he was paid out with insurance, but the cap hit remained.

I'm trying to envision why Spezza would 'retire' and forego the remainder of his guaranteed contract value? These contracts are insured for exactly these types of scenarios. The Sens would still have to carry the cap hit since LTIR cap hits still count against the team's cap and players' share. Keep in mind that there is no "exemption" since the team is under the salary cap, not over it.

Fugu is offline  
Old
05-01-2013, 10:20 AM
  #128
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Given what little we know about the NHL's insurance programs I'd guess Fischer's contract wasn't covered by insurance as I don't think he was in the top 5-7 salaries on the team.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-01-2013, 11:07 AM
  #129
Do Make Say Think
Registered User
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,496
vCash: 144
Thanks everyone

I realize it's completely unrealistic, it's just something that came up in the discussion and was wondering if any provisions in the CBA addressed the situation

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
05-03-2013, 03:18 AM
  #130
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
http://spectorshockey.net/blog/first...e-new-nhl-cba/

Potential loophole?

Buffalo News reported Buffalo considering looking for trades of players they might do an amnesty (or even regular) buyout on (IOW, potential buyout candidate, picks and/or prospects for much lesser value player/pick return).

It then might be that once the acquiring team buys out the player, he could (re-)sign with the original team for much less.

But this raises a specter of cap circumvention.

Without text of full CBA, it's just speculation that this could even happen.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-03-2013, 05:16 AM
  #131
wunderpanda
Bandwagon Habs Fan
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://spectorshockey.net/blog/first...e-new-nhl-cba/

Potential loophole?

Buffalo News reported Buffalo considering looking for trades of players they might do an amnesty (or even regular) buyout on (IOW, potential buyout candidate, picks and/or prospects for much lesser value player/pick return).

It then might be that once the acquiring team buys out the player, he could (re-)sign with the original team for much less.

But this raises a specter of cap circumvention.

Without text of full CBA, it's just speculation that this could even happen.
I saw this
Quote:
During the second “buy-out” period (following Salary Arbitration), a Club may not “buy-out” a Playerwho: (i) was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline; or (ii) has an AA that isless than $2,750,000 (which amount shall be indexed to the percentage increase in ALS startingwith 2013/14 as the base year, with 2014/15 being the first year such increase shall take effect).For example, if a Player with an AA of $5,000,000 is acquired by a Club that is able to execute abuy-out during the second buyout period on the July 15 immediately prior to such second buy-outperiod, he cannot be bought out by the Club during that second buy-out period
page 4 http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA...2013%20(1).pdf

Perhaps if a team made a deadline trade, they could use a buyout after the season, but they can't make a draft day trade with the intent of a buyout.

wunderpanda is offline  
Old
05-03-2013, 10:56 AM
  #132
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wunderpanda View Post
I saw this

Quote:
During the second “buy-out” period (following Salary Arbitration), a Club may not “buy-out” a Playerwho: (i) was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline; or (ii) has an AA that isless than $2,750,000 (which amount shall be indexed to the percentage increase in ALS startingwith 2013/14 as the base year, with 2014/15 being the first year such increase shall take effect).For example, if a Player with an AA of $5,000,000 is acquired by a Club that is able to execute abuy-out during the second buyout period on the July 15 immediately prior to such second buy-outperiod, he cannot be bought out by the Club during that second buy-out period
page 4 http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA...2013%20(1).pdf

Perhaps if a team made a deadline trade, they could use a buyout after the season, but they can't make a draft day trade with the intent of a buyout.
No. That term has no effect on the Compliance Buy-Outs.

That term effects the "second “buy-out” period (following Salary Arbitration)" - Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period.

The Compliance Buy-Outs only occur during the Regular Period.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
05-03-2013, 11:37 AM
  #133
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
I was kinda surprised they didn't add a condition to the new CBA that players had to be on the team's reserve list as of the prior trade deadline to be eligible for a buyout. Perhaps they wanted trade & buyout to remain a viable trade option.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-13-2013, 10:25 AM
  #134
djdub
#6cups
 
djdub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 626
vCash: 50
Compliance Buyouts Question

Hello, I've been searching for an answer to my question but I haven't been able to find it. If this has already been covered somewhere I am sorry.

I just wanted to know if teams can trade for a player with the intention of buying him out. For example, Team A doesn't have any players that it wants to buy out, but Team B has 3 players they want to buy out. Can Team A make a trade with Team B to take back that third buyout candidate and buy him out?

Also, I noticed all Teams have 2 off-seasons to use their compliance buyouts. Can Teams sign a free agent this off-season and still have the option to buy him out the following off-season? I doubt this scenario is likely as the PA probably wouldn't allow it, but the buyout/trade scenario could make for an interesting summer.

djdub is offline  
Old
05-13-2013, 11:01 AM
  #135
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
The final language of the CBA has not been released, so its unclear if the first part would be allowed. AFAIK there was no stipulation prohibiting that under the last CBA in which only 3 buyouts could occur over the course of the agreement. But those buyouts had cap implications so it would be more unlikely that a team would agree to that. I still think its pretty unlikely a team trades for a player simply to buy him out.


The answer to the second part is no. The 2 compliance buyouts apply to "already exisiting SPCs". So a new contract would not be eligible.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-13-2013, 11:29 AM
  #136
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
I have another question.

Has the team state it would be compliance buyout? If the team wants to buy out two players, other making 4M and other 1M, but would only want to use one next summer.

ES is offline  
Old
05-13-2013, 01:27 PM
  #137
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 ES View Post
I have another question.

Has the team state it would be compliance buyout? If the team wants to buy out two players, other making 4M and other 1M, but would only want to use one next summer.
I would ***assume*** that a team would have to indicate if the buyout was a "regular" buy out or a compliance buyout.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 03:00 PM
  #138
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
Does anyone yet know the specifics on keeping partial cap hits and/or salary? If a player's cap hit and salary aren't identical, are they:
1) kept in ratio,
2) do you keep the cap hit only for the salary retained,
3) can you agree how much salary and how much cap hit to retain independently of each other,
4) does the original team take the deferred cap in penalty and the player's cap hit is adjusted to reflect the remaining salary?

For example, Komisarek is 4.5 cap hit next year and 3.5 salary.

1) The Leafs can keep up to 1.75m in salary and that means they keep 2.25m in cap hit (this would get very strange very quickly for some contracts, especially multi-year remaining where the annual salaries are above and below the cap number.
2)They're allowed either 2.25 or 1.75 and whichever 50% is applied to, the salary and cap retained are the same.
3) The team can retain up to 1.75m in salary and 2.25m in cap space, but they can choose how, so maybe they only pay 500k, but eat 2.25m so he'd cost 3m in salary to his new team, but only count 2.25m against.
4) The outstanding 1m difference in cap space goes on the Leafs because of the trade and then they can take up to 1.75m of salary and cap hit and they're identical so you don't have to worry about the rest (this is the only realistic way I can see to make things stay proportional for multi-year deals).

Personally, I'm hoping they can be done independently (all cap, no salary; all salary, no cap; or some variation in between) 'cause it'll make for more funny business, but I doubt it's free reign like that and there must be a set rule, but I've never seen anything definitive about it (I also don't pay that much attention) and thought I'd ask the experts.

And very sorry if asked and answered, but I read this thread and didn't find anything.

satyr9 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 03:07 PM
  #139
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyr9 View Post
Does anyone yet know the specifics on keeping partial cap hits and/or salary? If a player's cap hit and salary aren't identical, are they:
1) kept in ratio,
2) do you keep the cap hit only for the salary retained,
3) can you agree how much salary and how much cap hit to retain independently of each other,
4) does the original team take the deferred cap in penalty and the player's cap hit is adjusted to reflect the remaining salary?

For example, Komisarek is 4.5 cap hit next year and 3.5 salary.

1) The Leafs can keep up to 1.75m in salary and that means they keep 2.25m in cap hit (this would get very strange very quickly for some contracts, especially multi-year remaining where the annual salaries are above and below the cap number.
2)They're allowed either 2.25 or 1.75 and whichever 50% is applied to, the salary and cap retained are the same.
3) The team can retain up to 1.75m in salary and 2.25m in cap space, but they can choose how, so maybe they only pay 500k, but eat 2.25m so he'd cost 3m in salary to his new team, but only count 2.25m against.
4) The outstanding 1m difference in cap space goes on the Leafs because of the trade and then they can take up to 1.75m of salary and cap hit and they're identical so you don't have to worry about the rest (this is the only realistic way I can see to make things stay proportional for multi-year deals).

Personally, I'm hoping they can be done independently (all cap, no salary; all salary, no cap; or some variation in between) 'cause it'll make for more funny business, but I doubt it's free reign like that and there must be a set rule, but I've never seen anything definitive about it (I also don't pay that much attention) and thought I'd ask the experts.

And very sorry if asked and answered, but I read this thread and didn't find anything.
It's a simple percentage basis. upto 50% of the salary and cap. If you retain 50%, each year remaining in the contract you pay 50% of the salary and are hit with 50% of the cap.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 05:35 PM
  #140
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
EJHradek_NHL 3:29pm via Twitter for iPad

NYI say they r not tolling contract. He'd b a UFA “@donnascan: Don't forget Tim Thomas is under contract next year w/NYI think he'll play?


So, sounds like it was a straight cap move (and with the reduction next season, might be a smart move not to toll).

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 06:30 PM
  #141
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
EJHradek_NHL 3:29pm via Twitter for iPad

NYI say they r not tolling contract. He'd b a UFA “@donnascan: Don't forget Tim Thomas is under contract next year w/NYI think he'll play?


So, sounds like it was a straight cap move (and with the reduction next season, might be a smart move not to toll).
How is this not circumventing the cap floor?

They acquired a player that they don't have to pay a dime just so they can get over the floor.. the very definition of circumventing the floor IMO.

If they toll the contract, then they can say they acquired him because they knew they'd have him for a year.. but right now they basically just acquired Thomas to reach the floor illegally. If the point of the floor is to guarantee teams spend X amount of money (let me know if that's wrong).. then this is wholly against it.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 06:44 PM
  #142
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,620
vCash: 500
There was the likelihood, however small, that he might play.

Heck, even the Sharks and Devils might not be able to do the Marakov (sp) trade today. ("Retired" player's contract for an arbitrated contract of a player who headed to KHL plus spare parts.)


Trading of cap space "per se" is not allowed, but a "hockey trade" is (and was).

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 07:11 PM
  #143
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
There was the likelihood, however small, that he might play.

Heck, even the Sharks and Devils might not be able to do the Marakov (sp) trade today. ("Retired" player's contract for an arbitrated contract of a player who headed to KHL plus spare parts.)


Trading of cap space "per se" is not allowed, but a "hockey trade" is (and was).
Malakhov.. and yes that should be considered circumvention. At least the Devils gave up something there though. There was a hockey trade because actual players/picks changed hands. This was just a farce to meet the cap floor.

You can say there was a small likelihood that he would play but.. there was also a small likelihood that Kovalchuk et. all would play well into their 40s... not really the argument the NHL wants to make I would think.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-15-2013, 09:47 PM
  #144
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Malakhov.. and yes that should be considered circumvention. At least the Devils gave up something there though. There was a hockey trade because actual players/picks changed hands. This was just a farce to meet the cap floor.

You can say there was a small likelihood that he would play but.. there was also a small likelihood that Kovalchuk et. all would play well into their 40s... not really the argument the NHL wants to make I would think.
The NHL doesn't care about floor circumvention to begin with.

If anyone is going to be annoyed about it, it will be the NHLPA. They'd have to file a grievance.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 08:00 AM
  #145
Vujtek
Registered User
 
Vujtek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
How is this not circumventing the cap floor?

They acquired a player that they don't have to pay a dime just so they can get over the floor.. the very definition of circumventing the floor IMO.
Someone can correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Islanders over the cap floor all the time even without Thomas' cap hit? They acquired him just in case they became sellers at the trade deadline but that didn't happen as they were fighting for a playoff spot. So it never was cap floor circumvention - could have been had they sold Visnovsky and Streit and needed Thomas to get over the floor, but it didn't happen.

Vujtek is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 08:57 AM
  #146
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vujtek View Post
Someone can correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Islanders over the cap floor all the time even without Thomas' cap hit? They acquired him just in case they became sellers at the trade deadline but that didn't happen as they were fighting for a playoff spot. So it never was cap floor circumvention - could have been had they sold Visnovsky and Streit and needed Thomas to get over the floor, but it didn't happen.
That's correct. They didn't need the contract to reach the floor since Visnovsky reported prior to the trade.

But if they had needed him to reach the floor, there is nothing inherantly against the rules using him to reach the floor. There is a 35 plus rule in place and how those contracts are handled and how the cap hit associated with them are handled.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 10:41 AM
  #147
HockeyTS32
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Amnesty Buy Out Question

Got a quick question about amnesty buyouts. I apologize beforehand, as this was likely already discussed, but I keep hearing two different things here. Can the amnesty buy out be used on any contract or just those over a certain $ value? At one time, I heard it could be used for any contract, but someone else said it can only be used for contracts over $3M.

Thanks

Nevermind. You can delete this thread. Found my answer.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413753


Last edited by Fugu: 05-16-2013 at 12:34 PM. Reason: info is useful to our readers, so we won't delete :)
HockeyTS32 is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 10:47 AM
  #148
cheswick
Registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 574
The $3 million in your link is referring to the special buy-out conditions that applied immedeately following the lockout, not buy-outs this offseason.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 01:20 PM
  #149
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
How is this not circumventing the cap floor?

They acquired a player that they don't have to pay a dime just so they can get over the floor.. the very definition of circumventing the floor IMO.

If they toll the contract, then they can say they acquired him because they knew they'd have him for a year.. but right now they basically just acquired Thomas to reach the floor illegally. If the point of the floor is to guarantee teams spend X amount of money (let me know if that's wrong).. then this is wholly against it.
False.
This season's cap floor was $44m.

Before the Thomas trade, the isles payroll was at $48m-$49m.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 01:59 PM
  #150
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyTS32 View Post
Got a quick question about amnesty buyouts. I apologize beforehand, as this was likely already discussed, but I keep hearing two different things here. Can the amnesty buy out be used on any contract or just those over a certain $ value? At one time, I heard it could be used for any contract, but someone else said it can only be used for contracts over $3M.

Thanks

Nevermind. You can delete this thread. Found my answer.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413753
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The $3 million in your link is referring to the special buy-out conditions that applied immedeately following the lockout, not buy-outs this offseason.
Yup.

There are no salary thresholds for Compliance Buy-Outs this off-season or next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL/NHLPA CBA MOU
6. Payroll Range, Transition and Compliance Buy-Outs

...

During the Ordinary Course “Buy-Out” periods following the 2012/13 season and 2013/14 season, in addition to any other Ordinary Course “Buy-Outs” a Club may elect to effectuate pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC, Clubs may elect to terminate and “buy-out” the already existing SPCs of up to two (2) additional Players (in the aggregate over the two (2) years) on a Compliance basis (a “Compliance Buy-Out”). Such Compliance Buy-Out(s) would be effectuated on the same terms as are set forth in Paragraph 13 of the SPC, except that the amounts paid under such “buy-out(s)” will not be charged against the Club’s Cap in any of the years in which the payments are made to the Player. Amounts paid under such Compliance Buy-Out(s) will, however, be counted against the Players’ Share during any League Year in which the “buy-out” payments are made. A Player that has been bought out under these Compliance Buy-Out provisions shall be prohibited from re-joining the Club that bought him out (via re-signing, Assignment, Waiver claim or otherwise) for the duration of the 2013/14 League Year (if the Player was bought out in 2013) and the 2014/15 League Year (if the Player was bought out in 2014).

kdb209 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:13 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.