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.

Cap circumventing contracts NOT grandfathered in?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 08:02 AM
  #76
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 18,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadhouseOnMadison View Post
Am I the only one who thinks most of these guys plan on playing those final years of their contracts? It seems like a lot of players have a rough time retiring as it is but to do it while leaving money on the table too? You'd have to think they'd still be lacing them up to help the team in whatever capacity they could manage at that age.
I see most of them retiring early but that's just me.

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:57 AM
  #77
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
Teams already have the way around this. Have your doctor flunk them physically, which isn't stretch for really any player that has played tons of years in the NHL. Put them on LTIR and free the cap space. It only becomes really interesting if these guys are on other teams. What interest does Luongo's future employer have in protecting the Canucks? However someone like Pronger won't retire from his injury, he will just not play until his deal expires and we all know why. He gets paid and they save cap space. If Zetterberg wants out at 38, the Wings will simply say his back that has some problems just cannot hold up anymore and wink wink nod nod he will go along with it. I expect to see a lot of this.
Oh so the way around it is to have team doctors risk their reputation and career by lying? Not to mention the fact the NHL has the right to challenge any LTIR designation with a neutral physician.

From the previous CBA:
Quote:
If, however, the League wishes to challenge the determination
of a Club physician that a Player is unfit to play for purposes of the Bona-Fide Long-
Term Injury/Illness Exception, the League and the NHLPA shall promptly confer and
jointly select a neutral physician, who shall review the Club physician's determination
regarding the Player's fitness to play.


Last edited by cheswick: 01-08-2013 at 10:08 AM.
cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:48 AM
  #78
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
Teams already have the way around this. Have your doctor flunk them physically, which isn't stretch for really any player that has played tons of years in the NHL. Put them on LTIR and free the cap space. It only becomes really interesting if these guys are on other teams. What interest does Luongo's future employer have in protecting the Canucks? However someone like Pronger won't retire from his injury, he will just not play until his deal expires and we all know why. He gets paid and they save cap space. If Zetterberg wants out at 38, the Wings will simply say his back that has some problems just cannot hold up anymore and wink wink nod nod he will go along with it. I expect to see a lot of this.
To the extent that those players are covered by insurance, I absolutely GUARANTEE you that the Insurance company is going to put them through a series of physical examinations that would impress an astronaut.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 10:53 AM
  #79
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadhouseOnMadison View Post
Am I the only one who thinks most of these guys plan on playing those final years of their contracts? It seems like a lot of players have a rough time retiring as it is but to do it while leaving money on the table too? You'd have to think they'd still be lacing them up to help the team in whatever capacity they could manage at that age.
Hard not to notice that 5 out of the 12 players are from overseas. To the extent that they could be potentially returning home after their career ends, I'm not sure how much incentive a $1M contract would be in delaying that move a year.

If the player was willing to play, I'd expect those guys would potentially be in demand by a cap floor team. Having a $5-6M cap hit and actually only paying him $1M in cash would be a pretty significant bonus to a team on a hard budget. (Hopefully none by 2018 when most of those contracts are starting to expire).

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:02 AM
  #80
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
If the player was willing to play, I'd expect those guys would potentially be in demand by a cap floor team. Having a $5-6M cap hit and actually only paying him $1M in cash would be a pretty significant bonus to a team on a hard budget. (Hopefully none by 2018 when most of those contracts are starting to expire).
I'm interested to see if the Cap Benefit Recapture clause contains language addressing this sort of play.

For example, for the 2020-2021 season, Kovalchuk is due $1M but has a Cap charge of $6.67M. A team needing a boost to reach the Floor could acquire Kovalchuk from the Devils to do so. But, if Kovalchuk retires at the end of the 2020-2021 season (4 years left on his deal), would that team be required to take a Cap credit of $5.67M for the 2021-2022 season?

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:03 AM
  #81
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
If reports are true hypothetically if Preds traded Weber after 6 yrs & he retired with 1 yr left NAS would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.

Absolutely hilarious

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:12 AM
  #82
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
I threw this together for some of these deals. Did I do the math right?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...mF1R1hIdVIxNFE

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:40 AM
  #83
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
C & P from the closed Trades, Cheat Deals, And More CBA Details! thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds View Post
for a take looking at the potential downside of this rule

http://www.fearthefin.com/2013/1/8/3...makes-no-sense
Of course, the author completely screws up the math - not realizing that the front end accrued cap benefits start being depleted at the end when the salary falls below the cap hit.

Luongo's cap hit in '21-22 if he retired that year would be $4.333M (the difference between his $5.333M cap hit and the $1M salary he would have earned).

Similarly, Parise's & Suter's one year hits would be $6.538M, not ~$19.7M.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:41 AM
  #84
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
C & P from the closed Trades, Cheat Deals, And More CBA Details! thread:



Of course, the author completely screws up the math - not realizing that the front end accrued cap benefits start being depleted at the end when the salary falls below the cap hit.

Luongo's cap hit in '21-22 if he retired that year would be $4.333M (the difference between his $5.333M cap hit and the $1M salary he would have earned).

Similarly, Parise's & Suter's one year hits would be $6.538M, not ~$19.7M.
That's what I get as well.. Not sure where there's massive numbers are coming from.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:46 AM
  #85
jj1944*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 40
vCash: 500
Have any of you guys seen Capgeeks recent tweets. Apparently under the new CBA burying players in the minors is penalized and that the Rangers would be hit with 5.6 million capt hit if Redden stays in the minors. That's hilarious if true.

jj1944* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 11:54 AM
  #86
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1944 View Post
Have any of you guys seen Capgeeks recent tweets. Apparently under the new CBA burying players in the minors is penalized and that the Rangers would be hit with 5.6 million capt hit if Redden stays in the minors. That's hilarious if true.
Well that was one condition the NHL proposed months ago. Not surprised it made the final deal. When first proposed it would count against cap but not against players share. I believe it was any player making over a million in the minors?

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:01 PM
  #87
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
I was shocked that the teams get a $900k break from their full cap hit.

Hawkscap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:03 PM
  #88
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by topher42 View Post
I was shocked that the teams get a $900k break from their full cap hit.
It's not 900k. It will go up each year.

I believe it's Salary minimum + 375k

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:06 PM
  #89
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If reports are true hypothetically if Preds traded Weber after 6 yrs & he retired with 1 yr left NAS would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.

Absolutely hilarious
I think that people are screwing up the math. There was a ludicrious blog post posted in the other thread and I think the guy had screwed up the math. I think that the ABSOLUTE worst it could get for Weber is if he retires early is a $6.5M'ish cap penalty in any given year. If Weber had 4 $1M years, and he retired before playing any of them, the Preds would be stuck with a $6.5M'ish hit in each of those last 4 years.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:06 PM
  #90
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
I didn't like the Zetterberg, Franzen and Hossa contracts
I never understood how the league could allow some but not others.

But once you allow them, you allow them. And to go back and punish teams now is just another example of NHL stupidity.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:09 PM
  #91
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1944 View Post
Have any of you guys seen Capgeeks recent tweets. Apparently under the new CBA burying players in the minors is penalized and that the Rangers would be hit with 5.6 million capt hit if Redden stays in the minors. That's hilarious if true.
Sather is meeting with Redden's camp today to discuss his future with the organization. Should be interesting to say the least.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:18 PM
  #92
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
C & P from the LINKS ONLY - Confirmed Details of 2013 CBA thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Elliotte Friedman illustrating the Cap Benefit Recapture calculation. A player with a 7+ year contract that is traded and retires early would affect both teams.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...to-luongo.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianPirate View Post
The one thing that seems a little off would be if in this hypothetical scenario Luongo retired with only one year left. Would that mean that the Canucks were stuck with a six million dollar cap hit?
No. By the time Lu got to his last year, some of that $6M cap benefit would have been depleted. His cap hit penalty if he retired in his final year would be (as discussed above) ~$4.333M - the difference between his cap hit and salary for that year (which also, unsurprisingly, happens to be the difference between his aggregate salaries and aggregate cap hits up until then).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
That's what the article implies.

What it doesn't answer and I'm curious about is this. What if Luongo for example is traded at the point where his cap hit is actually higher than the salary paid? The acquiring team are paying out less than the cap hit. Then he retires early. Does the acquiring team then receive a cap benefit for those remaining years?
We don't know enough details of the recapture terms to answer this.

But my guess is that the 'Nucks would get the $4.333M penalty and Team B would be unaffected.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:37 PM
  #93
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
I think it's rediculous to punish teams that were signing players to contracts that were in line with the agreement that the league was operating under.

They addressed the issue on a going forward basis, no need to continue to punish teams that were able to get deals done under the prior agreement.

Seems really petty.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:41 PM
  #94
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I think it's rediculous to punish teams that were signing players to contracts that were in line with the agreement that the league was operating under.

They addressed the issue on a going forward basis, no need to continue to punish teams that were able to get deals done under the prior agreement.

Seems really petty.
There are ten teams that Bettman just made a permanent enemy. He better retire because those owners are going to be gunning for him. Have to think that Carolina was one of the teams leading the charge on this along with Toronto. Looking at the Staal contract I think it very curious that they were one of the very few teams that signed a completely flat long term deal. They knew this was coming.

Vancouver, Chicago, NYR and others should be able to launch a legal challenge on this.

ginner classic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:49 PM
  #95
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,247
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1944 View Post
Have any of you guys seen Capgeeks recent tweets. Apparently under the new CBA burying players in the minors is penalized and that the Rangers would be hit with 5.6 million capt hit if Redden stays in the minors. That's hilarious if true.
the only consolation I hope to take in this is that since thsi was NOT a back diving contract to artifically lower his Cap hit that when he retires shortly his cap his is gone from the Books.

Redden is paid 10 Million in his last 2 seasons.

Considering his cap his is 6.5, this is not what the league was looking to prevent in the current CBA.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:56 PM
  #96
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I didn't like the Zetterberg, Franzen and Hossa contracts
I never understood how the league could allow some but not others.

But once you allow them, you allow them. And to go back and punish teams now is just another example of NHL stupidity.
I agree. The inconsistency of the league is bizarre. Would be great to see some teams complain in some capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
the only consolation I hope to take in this is that since thsi was NOT a back diving contract to artifically lower his Cap hit that when he retires shortly his cap his is gone from the Books.

Redden is paid 10 Million in his last 2 seasons.

Considering his cap his is 6.5, this is not what the league was looking to prevent in the current CBA.
The Redden burying thing is more focused on burying high salary guys in the minors, not circumvention. He likely will just get bought out next offseason and that is that.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:56 PM
  #97
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
the only consolation I hope to take in this is that since thsi was NOT a back diving contract to artifically lower his Cap hit that when he retires shortly his cap his is gone from the Books.

Redden is paid 10 Million in his last 2 seasons.

Considering his cap his is 6.5, this is not what the league was looking to prevent in the current CBA.
Perhaps a majority of owners also wanted to eliminate the ability to bury reckless mistakes in the minors without cap ramnifications. This is a move only few teams can afford to do, and it disrupts competitive balance.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:57 PM
  #98
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
That's what I get as well.. Not sure where there's massive numbers are coming from.
It is based on Fridman's (and I think I read it somewhere else) report that if a traded player retires early, then the cap benefit is split between the two teams.

In the way he worked out the example, whatever benefit the initial team gets before the trade is applied in the years of retirement.


Freidman's article:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...to-luongo.html

When asked on twitter about what if Luongo retired 1 year wearly, his response was that as he understood it the whole benefit woul dbe apllied for the one year. So as Freidman understands it, the massive cap hits could occur.


Last edited by cheswick: 01-08-2013 at 01:04 PM. Reason: added friedman article link
cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 12:58 PM
  #99
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
The Redden burying thing is more focused on burying high salary guys in the minors, not circumvention. He likely will just get bought out next offseason and that is that.
Yeah but the downside is they likely have to play him in the big league this season.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:02 PM
  #100
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
the only consolation I hope to take in this is that since thsi was NOT a back diving contract to artifically lower his Cap hit that when he retires shortly his cap his is gone from the Books.

Redden is paid 10 Million in his last 2 seasons.

Considering his cap his is 6.5, this is not what the league was looking to prevent in the current CBA.
Then it looks like penalties of 1.5 and 1.5 for each of the last two seasons.

But they'll probably do an amnesty buyout for him, won't they?

Model62 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 03:50 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.