HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
05-16-2013, 03:34 PM
  #151
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Yup.

There are no salary thresholds for Compliance Buy-Outs this off-season or next.
There was a stipulation in the 2005 CBA for the regular buyouts the salary had to exceed $1 million a year. Don't think that will carry forward for the newest CBA and apply to the compliance buyouts?

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 03:48 PM
  #152
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
False.
This season's cap floor was $44m.

Before the Thomas trade, the isles payroll was at $48m-$49m.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=415479
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...he-motivation/

Going off these two articles which say otherwise. Could be wrong, but it seems like the Thomas trade happened a day before Visnovsky finally reported and his suspension was removed (thus, making his cap hit count).

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 03:57 PM
  #153
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=415479
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/20...he-motivation/

Going off these two articles which say otherwise. Could be wrong, but it seems like the Thomas trade happened a day before Visnovsky finally reported and his suspension was removed (thus, making his cap hit count).
I distinctly recall TSN's Bob MacKenzie saying that despite all the reports to the contrary that the Isles didn't need Thomas's contract to make the floor cause Visnovski was already on teh books.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 04:00 PM
  #154
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I distinctly recall TSN's Bob MacKenzie saying that despite all the reports to the contrary that the Isles didn't need Thomas's contract to make the floor cause Visnovski was already on teh books.
He was suspended though because he didn't report.. so his cap hit didn't count towards the cap floor. I really don't know, I looked it up yesterday and found those articles.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 04:03 PM
  #155
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
He was suspended though because he didn't report.. so his cap hit didn't count towards the cap floor. I really don't know, I looked it up yesterday and found those articles.
Right, MacKenzie said that his suspension was lifted by the Isles prior to the trade being made so they were already cap compliant.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 06:10 PM
  #156
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Right, MacKenzie said that his suspension was lifted by the Isles prior to the trade being made so they were already cap compliant.
Not that I really care but do you have any links as to that? Everything I've found has said otherwise.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 06:48 PM
  #157
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,036
vCash: 500
So the NHL has suspended Raffi Torres "for the remainder of the 2nd round of the playoffs". Making this a variable suspension between 3 and 6 games.

Anyone aware of other historical examples where players have been suspended for a variable amount of games?

mouser is offline  
Old
05-16-2013, 08:30 PM
  #158
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
There was a stipulation in the 2005 CBA for the regular buyouts the salary had to exceed $1 million a year. Don't think that will carry forward for the newest CBA and apply to the compliance buyouts?
That $1M restriction was just for "Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period" - ie Buyouts during the second window after arbitrations.

There was no salary restriction for buyouts done during the Regular Peried - ie Jun 15 (or 48 hrs after cup finals) to Jun 30.

Quote:
Originally Posted by old CBA Article 11.18
11.18 Ordinary Course Buy-Outs Outside the Regular Period. Clubs shall have the
right to exercise Ordinary Course Buy-Outs outside the regular period for Ordinary
Course Buy-Outs in accordance with Paragraph 13(c)(ii) of the SPC. Each Club shall be
limited to no more than three (3) such buyouts over the term of this Agreement pursuant
to Paragraph 13(c)(ii) of the SPC. However, in the event that a Club has only one salary
arbitration hearing pursuant to Section 12.3(a) in a given League Year, such Club shall
not be entitled to exercise such a buyout outside the regular period for Ordinary Course
Buy-Outs. No Club shall exercise an Ordinary Course Buy-out outside the regular period
for any Player earning less than $1 million.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 04:06 AM
  #159
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
So the NHL has suspended Raffi Torres "for the remainder of the 2nd round of the playoffs". Making this a variable suspension between 3 and 6 games.

Anyone aware of other historical examples where players have been suspended for a variable amount of games?
Bertuzzi was suspended for rest of the season. Basically it was something between 17 and 41 games as Canucks were pretty sure to make the playoffs. Ended being 20.

Matt Cooke was suspended for rest of the regular season and first round. Basically between 14 and 17, ended up being the maximum.

ES is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 09:54 AM
  #160
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Not that I really care but do you have any links as to that? Everything I've found has said otherwise.
I don't, he said it on Sportscentre.

But one of the articles you posted earlier said the same thing as Bobby Mac....

Quote:
The Islanders rose just above the salary floor of $44 million on Thursday morning when they activated defenseman Lubomir Visnovsky, who had been playing in his native Slovakia to deal with family issues but who returned to Long Island to join the Isles.
Thomas trade happened later that day in the afternoon. The writer questioned if the Visnovsky paper work would be "done in time" for the following day, which was the deadline. Seems like they just wanted to push the trade is what made them reach the floor angle more than it realistically not getting done in time.

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 02:26 PM
  #161
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,776
vCash: 500
Another issue on the Torres suspension. It's 3-6 games. More than 5 games is the threshold to appeal to independent arbitrator (IOW not Bettman).

Yet when/if that 6th game is "enforced/ready-to-serve" it'll be way too short a period of time to appoint/appeal.

So, kinda interesting.


EDIT: Bleacher Report article on possible CBA violations of suspension: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...iolate-nhl-cba


Last edited by LadyStanley: 05-17-2013 at 02:48 PM.
LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 04:14 PM
  #162
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Another issue on the Torres suspension. It's 3-6 games. More than 5 games is the threshold to appeal to independent arbitrator (IOW not Bettman).

Yet when/if that 6th game is "enforced/ready-to-serve" it'll be way too short a period of time to appoint/appeal.

So, kinda interesting.
Yeah, I'm thinking if they want to appeal to the independent arbitrator they can't wait until after game 6. I don't know how the NHL would respond whether they believe that's permitted or not, but from a fairness perspective if it does become a 6 game suspension it's doubtful the arbitrator could hear and render a decision decision between games 6 and 7.

There's also the principle that the arbitrator would have the power to reduce the suspension to less than 5 games. I'm guessing the PA isn't going to be happy over variable length suspensions like this.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 04:19 PM
  #163
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Yeah, I'm thinking if they want to appeal to the independent arbitrator they can't wait until after game 6. I don't know how the NHL would respond whether they believe that's permitted or not, but from a fairness perspective if it does become a 6 game suspension it's doubtful the arbitrator could hear and render a decision decision between games 6 and 7.

There's also the principle that the arbitrator would have the power to reduce the suspension to less than 5 games. I'm guessing the PA isn't going to be happy over variable length suspensions like this.

As long as the NHL allows the appeal to the arbitrator for any suspension that could be over 5 games I don't see the issue. If Torres asked for arbitration at this point and was denied, that's a whole other issue

cheswick is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 11:17 PM
  #164
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Cap Advantage Recapture

Now, I don't often venture into the BoH section, however, when looking at some of the details of Luongo's contract and the cap recapture clause in the new CBA, I noticed the following on capgeek:

Quote:
Teams do not receive a credit for seasons with negative cap benefit (where cap hit exceeds salary), the league confirmed to CapGeek.com.
http://capgeek.com/new-cba/

What this means is that, taking Luongo as an example, every year he plays where his salary is greater than his cap hit, that will be taken into account if he retires early(for most of his contract, it's 6.7 mil salary to 5.3 mil cap hit.) The sum of all the cap circumvented is about 14.3 mil. After this point(2018), Luongo's salary significantly drops off.

However, whenever his salary is less than his cap hit, the difference is not subtracted from the calculated circumvention amount.

So suppose a team trades for Luongo this offseason. If Luongo were to retire in 2019, instead of having a 1.65 mil cap penalty per year for three years, the team that traded for him would have a 2.3 mil cap penalty for 3 years. And if Luongo plays until 2020, due to the circumvented cap being distributed over two years instead of three, the team that traded for him will be hit with a 3.45 mil cap penalty for 2 years, instead of just 309k per year.

And if Luongo were to retire the year before his contract ends, the team that traded for him would be hit with a whopping 6.9 mil cap penalty for one year, despite the actual amount of cap circumvention done by that team having come to a grand total of -3.714 mil(yes, negative!). So the team would be enormously penalized for the player playing out more of his contract, while actually reducing the amount of cap circumvention that would have occurred under the previous CBA.

And what's even more absurd is, supposing a player is not traded during the duration of his contract, taking Luongo as an example, if he were to retire 2 years before his contract ends, the cap penalty would be 7.17 mil per year, and one year before, the absurd sum of 14.333 mil in cap penalties for the year. It would essentially save enormous amounts of cap space for him not to retire then and instead continue playing, as his cap hit is only 5.333 mil.

To me this makes no sense. If the goal is to recapture any cap circumvented, then whenever the player's salary is less than his cap hit, it should count against the cap benefited. Otherwise you end up with all sorts of absurd scenarios like the ones I described. I don't know if the league can amend the rule, as otherwise me might end up seeing some very strange scenarios within the next 10 years.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 12:42 AM
  #165
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
EDIT: see post below

I think the line you are referring to is talking about giving a cap credit. As in, if a player plays one year with the Devils with a salary of 12M but a cap hit of 6M.. the Devils will not receive a cap credit of 6M if the player then retires.

Almost every single source and calculation I've seen have been very simple. You take the total salary paid out and subtract the total cap hit incurred. The difference is the cap advantage and is averaged over the remaining contract year as a cap penalty.


Last edited by DevilChuk*: 05-18-2013 at 01:03 AM.
DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 12:45 AM
  #166
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
I am almost certain you are incorrectly interpreting capgeek here. On the same page, they also say:



I think the line you are referring to is talking about giving a cap credit. As in, if a player plays one year with the Devils with a salary of 12M but a cap hit of 6M.. the Devils will not receive a cap credit of 6M if the player then retires.

Almost every single source and calculation I've seen have been very simple. You take the total salary paid out and subtract the total cap hit incurred. The difference is the cap advantage and is averaged over the remaining contract year as a cap penalty.
I'm not misinterpreting it, as all the calculations I made are using capgeek's recapture calculator based on when a player retires. Essentially a team gets charged when the player's salary exceeds cap hit, but don't get credit to offset that when cap hit exceeds salary. Thus all the scenarios I gave are perfectly possible.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 01:02 AM
  #167
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I'm not misinterpreting it, as all the calculations I made are using capgeek's recapture calculator based on when a player retires. Essentially a team gets charged when the player's salary exceeds cap hit, but don't get credit to offset that when cap hit exceeds salary. Thus all the scenarios I gave are perfectly possible.
If Kovalchuk retires this year, it has the Devils with a total cap benefit of $4.3M.

This is the third year of his contract:
Year 1: 6M salary
Year 2: 6M salary
Year 3: 11M salary

Total salary of 23M. Total cap hit of 6.66M * 3 = 20M.

So yes, it seems like it's not calculating the first two years as a cap benefit and is just taking it year-by-year. Thus, 11M-6.66 = 4.33M.

I don't know if this is correct. This is literally the first source I've seen that is saying this. Not only does it make absolutely zero sense but several other bigger names have said otherwise. Going to wait and see on this one.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 01:11 AM
  #168
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
If Kovalchuk retires this year, it has the Devils with a total cap benefit of $4.3M.

This is the third year of his contract:
Year 1: 6M salary
Year 2: 6M salary
Year 3: 11M salary

Total salary of 23M. Total cap hit of 6.66M * 3 = 20M.

So yes, it seems like it's not calculating the first two years as a cap benefit and is just taking it year-by-year. Thus, 11M-6.66 = 4.33M.

I don't know if this is correct. This is literally the first source I've seen that is saying this. Not only does it make absolutely zero sense but several other bigger names have said otherwise. Going to wait and see on this one.
Of course, were Kovalchuk to retire this year, the 4.33 mil cap hit would be spread out over the remainder of his term, so it would amount to a paltry 361k per year, albeit for 12 years.

Hypothetically, if Kovalchuk were to retire a year before his contract ended, the Devils would be hit for over 27m in cap penalties for a single year. If it were 2 years before, and it would be 13.6m per year for 2 years. And so on.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 01:59 AM
  #169
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,776
vCash: 500
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/sharks/...ons-statement/

Although Torres decided not to appeal suspension, Sharks beat writer did research on what appeal process would be (contacting Daly).

Quote:
1) It’s up to Torres and the PA to determine if an appeal will be filed with Gary Bettman. There is a 48-hour window and the Sharks are not involved.

2) That appeal would be handled in an “expedited” manner, though there are no contactual time limits.

3) Because there was the possibility that the suspension could reach six games, Torres could have filed a second appeal with a neutral aribter. There is no timeline in place for that part of the process.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 04:06 AM
  #170
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Now, I don't often venture into the BoH section, however, when looking at some of the details of Luongo's contract and the cap recapture clause in the new CBA, I noticed the following on capgeek:



http://capgeek.com/new-cba/

What this means is that, taking Luongo as an example, every year he plays where his salary is greater than his cap hit, that will be taken into account if he retires early(for most of his contract, it's 6.7 mil salary to 5.3 mil cap hit.) The sum of all the cap circumvented is about 14.3 mil. After this point(2018), Luongo's salary significantly drops off.
There is a very important distinction in the MOU:

Quote:
If the contract in question is ever traded or assigned to one or more other Clubs in the League, each Club will be subject to being charged with any and all “Cap Advantage” amounts it receives while being obligated pursuant the contract.
In other words, if Luongo were traded this summer and later retires then Vancouver would have acquired a cap penalty for the first 3 seasons of Luongo's contract of $10m+$6.716m+$6.714m - 3 * $5.333m = $7.43m spread over the remaining term of the contract after he retires.

Any hypothetical team that traded for Luongo this summer would face the following recapture costs if he retired after:
2018 - $4.952m, $1.651m/season for 3 years
2019 - $1.237m, $618k/season for 2 years
2020 - negative, no penalty
2021 - negative, no penalty

mouser is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 12:27 PM
  #171
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
There is a very important distinction in the MOU:



In other words, if Luongo were traded this summer and later retires then Vancouver would have acquired a cap penalty for the first 3 seasons of Luongo's contract of $10m+$6.716m+$6.714m - 3 * $5.333m = $7.43m spread over the remaining term of the contract after he retires.

Any hypothetical team that traded for Luongo this summer would face the following recapture costs if he retired after:
2018 - $4.952m, $1.651m/season for 3 years
2019 - $1.237m, $618k/season for 2 years
2020 - negative, no penalty
2021 - negative, no penalty
I understand how much Vancouver gets penalized. But you're incorrect about the calculations of the last few years.

http://www.capgeek.com/recapture-cal...aded_year=2013

If Luongo retires a year before his contract ends, the team that trades for him now will get dinged 6.9 mil in cap penalties, despite him having played out a portion of his contact with salary far below the cap hit.

Although at least for Luongo it's likely he gets traded, so the impact is split between two teams. But for any retirement contract, the longer they play, the more crippling it is to the team, even when they are actually reducing the amount of cap circumvention that took place.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 01:20 PM
  #172
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,036
vCash: 500
The MOU language is a bit ambiguous in that aspect. The "both annually and in the aggregate" could be taken to read over the term of the contract.

But if Matt used that definition on his website I'd give him the benefit of the doubt it's the proper interpretation. I know Elliotte Friedman wrote an article right after the new CBA was agreed to in January that explained it that way. But the article wasn't clear if he confirmed that was the right interpretation with the NHL or he was applying his own interpretation to the MOU language.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 03:16 PM
  #173
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Has the cap been set for next year?

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 03:27 PM
  #174
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Has the cap been set for next year?
Yes, was set in January in the new CBA. Not indexed to this season's actual revenue.

$64.3m cap, $44m floor.

mouser is offline  
Old
05-18-2013, 04:49 PM
  #175
Vankiller Whale
All hail WMD
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
The MOU language is a bit ambiguous in that aspect. The "both annually and in the aggregate" could be taken to read over the term of the contract.

But if Matt used that definition on his website I'd give him the benefit of the doubt it's the proper interpretation. I know Elliotte Friedman wrote an article right after the new CBA was agreed to in January that explained it that way. But the article wasn't clear if he confirmed that was the right interpretation with the NHL or he was applying his own interpretation to the MOU language.
In the quote of my first post, on capgeek it says the league confirmed to them that was the case. But to me this makes no sense logically(why should teams be punished more the further a player plays out his retirement contract) or practically(how can a team be expected to remain below the cap with a 27 m cap penalty, using the extreme Kovalchuk example) The rule according to this is quite literally absurd.

Vankiller Whale 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 08:21 PM.

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.