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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

It may have been addressed but...(Mod: Re-entry waiver claim & salary)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2009, 12:03 PM
  #1
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
It may have been addressed but...(Mod: Re-entry waiver claim & salary)

First, thanks for letting me join your site. It's a good resource when I need info about CBA questions.Ok. We all have heard that Sean Avery could be coming back to the NHL. Since Dallas does not have an AHL team, they would like to send him to Hartford which is owned by the Rangers. First he must go thru waivers. No problem there. On recall, the Rangers could try and claim him. Let's say they do. Will the Rangers only be on the hook for half of the total of his remaining contract ? Or just the amount of the league year he was claimed in ?

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:20 PM
  #2
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
First, thanks for letting me join your site. It's a good resource when I need info about CBA questions.Ok. We all have heard that Sean Avery could be coming back to the NHL. Since Dallas does not have an AHL team, they would like to send him to Hartford which is owned by the Rangers. First he must go thru waivers. No problem there. On recall, the Rangers could try and claim him. Let's say they do. Will the Rangers only be on the hook for half of the total of his remaining contract ? Or just the amount of the league year he was claimed in ?
If a team claims a player on Re-Entry Waivers they are on the hook for 50% of the players salary and cap hit for the remainder of the players contract.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:33 PM
  #3
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
If a team claims a player on Re-Entry Waivers they are on the hook for 50% of the players salary and cap hit for the remainder of the players contract.
I'm surprised that this ''loophole'' has not been exploited more, since the CBA came in to effect. I know this won't happen, but just say it could. At the beginning at the year, Tampa puts Lecavalier on waivers. Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:39 PM
  #4
yay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
I'm surprised that this ''loophole'' has not been exploited more, since the CBA came in to effect. I know this won't happen, but just say it could. At the beginning at the year, Tampa puts Lecavalier on waivers. Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?
Which is why you would never see Lecavalier or a player of similar skill on waivers.

yay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:40 PM
  #5
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
I'm surprised that this ''loophole'' has not been exploited more, since the CBA came in to effect. I know this won't happen, but just say it could. At the beginning at the year, Tampa puts Lecavalier on waivers. Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?
the team losing him would be on the hook for half the salary and cap hit. I'm not sure tampa would be willing to pay montreal $5M a year and have $3.85M in dead cap space for the next 10 years.

Also, consider the waiver priority. Montreal wouldnt get a claim in until 22 other teams have had a chance to claim him.


The only real advantage of this system is if a team has a grossly overpayed player they are willing to pay to lose, and the only advantage to the team losing it is that they only have to pay half the salary and get half the cap space back (which is better than a buyout, because buyouts force the team to take 66% of the salary and spread the remaining cap hit out.) This seems to be the situation with avery, where the stars are just trying to save as much money as possible.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:46 PM
  #6
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
I'm surprised that this ''loophole'' has not been exploited more, since the CBA came in to effect. I know this won't happen, but just say it could. At the beginning at the year, Tampa puts Lecavalier on waivers. Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?

Others have already addressed the obstacles in trying to "exploit" a loophole like that, although it does raise one interesting question. Perhaps kdb or IB know the answer to this?

If Vinny, or Eric Staal (or any other player that has an extension going into effect in 2009-2010) were placed on re-entry waivers this season, would the 50% end after this season? The CBA language seems to suggest Yes it would end, but it doesn't look clear cut.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 12:53 PM
  #7
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Thanks for answers everyone. I had a pretty good idea, but just needed a bit of clearification on the contract situation. Coming back to my original question. The Rangers claim avery at half the remainder of his salary. During the buyout period, they decide to buyout Avery. The Rangers would be buying out the part that have to pay. Dallas is stuck with the rest no matter what ?

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 01:04 PM
  #8
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 58,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?
No, his cap hit remains the same. It's just split between old and new teams.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 01:08 PM
  #9
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Others have already addressed the obstacles in trying to "exploit" a loophole like that, although it does raise one interesting question. Perhaps kdb or IB know the answer to this?

If Vinny, or Eric Staal (or any other player that has an extension going into effect in 2009-2010) were placed on re-entry waivers this season, would the 50% end after this season? The CBA language seems to suggest Yes it would end, but it doesn't look clear cut.
I would say yes. I think IB cleared this at ONE point, an extension is a new contract. At this time of the season, most likely a team with enough cap space, would not have to wait for re-entry, they could be snaped up right away, as a good part of their salary has been eaten up by their present club. I think the team that would pick them up would be on the hook for the total amount of the new contract when it takes effect.

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 01:15 PM
  #10
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
No, his cap hit remains the same. It's just split between old and new teams.
Sorry maybe I did not put my question right. His cap hit would be 7.7 million, as you say, split in half, comes to 3.85 million for both teams. So in a way, it does change.

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 01:48 PM
  #11
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
I'm surprised that this ''loophole'' has not been exploited more, since the CBA came in to effect. I know this won't happen, but just say it could. At the beginning at the year, Tampa puts Lecavalier on waivers. Nobody claims him, they re-call him, and let's say, Montreal picks him. The Habs would only be on the hook for half his salary, which of course would change his cap hit. right ?
You need a better example than Lecavalier. Try someone like Peter Schaefer in Boston [though the easy answer is 'no one wants to burn up cap space they might need or want later in the season' among other things].

Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Others have already addressed the obstacles in trying to "exploit" a loophole like that, although it does raise one interesting question. Perhaps kdb or IB know the answer to this?

If Vinny, or Eric Staal (or any other player that has an extension going into effect in 2009-2010) were placed on re-entry waivers this season, would the 50% end after this season? The CBA language seems to suggest Yes it would end, but it doesn't look clear cut.
As answered above, it would only apply to the contract in force and not to the extension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
The Rangers claim avery at half the remainder of his salary. During the buyout period, they decide to buyout Avery. The Rangers would be buying out the part that have to pay. Dallas is stuck with the rest no matter what ?
We don't have the answer to that at the moment, and I'm not prepared to speculate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
Sorry maybe I did not put my question right. His cap hit would be 7.7 million, as you say, split in half, comes to 3.85 million for both teams. So in a way, it does change.
His cap number does not change; how it's allocated does - instead of being allocated solely to the team that has his rights, it's allocated between two teams.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 02:03 PM
  #12
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Thanks for the answers IB, appreciated. The reason I started the thread, is I looked in the FQA's under waivers, but did not seem to find the answers I was looking for. Now I got them. I idn't check, do you plan on having one the buying out of front loaded long term contracts ? That should bring out interesting debates.

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 02:06 PM
  #13
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
Thanks for the answers IB, appreciated. The reason I started the thread, is I looked in the FQA's under waivers, but did not seem to find the answers I was looking for. Now I got them. I idn't check, do you plan on having one the buying out of front loaded long term contracts ? That should bring out interesting debates.
One of these days, I'll have about 3 months free and I'll do little else but write about the CBA nonstop ... but right now, I've got way too much going on [which believe me, really sucks].

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 02:20 PM
  #14
CoachBowman2006ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
One of these days, I'll have about 3 months free and I'll do little else but write about the CBA nonstop ... but right now, I've got way too much going on [which believe me, really sucks].
I don't doubt it. by the way, I read in the FAQ's, your an actuary. I have heard the term before, but was it is ?

CoachBowman2006ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2009, 04:57 PM
  #15
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
I don't doubt it. by the way, I read in the FAQ's, your an actuary. I have heard the term before, but was it is ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary

http://www.beanactuary.org/about/whatis.cfm

http://www.math.purdue.edu/academic/...hat.php?p=what

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2009, 12:39 AM
  #16
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Others have already addressed the obstacles in trying to "exploit" a loophole like that, although it does raise one interesting question. Perhaps kdb or IB know the answer to this?

If Vinny, or Eric Staal (or any other player that has an extension going into effect in 2009-2010) were placed on re-entry waivers this season, would the 50% end after this season? The CBA language seems to suggest Yes it would end, but it doesn't look clear cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
As answered above, it would only apply to the contract in force and not to the extension.
I probably should have put more details into this question.

Why wouldn't it apply to the extension?


Player has two contracts: current (A) and extension (B). The fact the player won't be compensated via contract B until the future season doesn't mean it isn't a legal contract today.

1) Player is traded to a new team: both A+B are traded.
2) Player is waived and claimed by a new team: both A+B are claimed and transferred.

3?) Player goes through 50% re-entry waivers. Why should contract A be subject to 50% but not B?

The new team received both contracts in the same re-entry waiver claim. Logically both contracts should be transferred under the same rules unless there's a clarification in the 50% re-entry waiver rules that A and B are treated differently. The CBA language on 50% re-entry isn't detailed enough to cover what would happen in this situation IMO.


Of course, like many CBA details it's likely an academic question until it actually occurs.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2009, 08:18 AM
  #17
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Re-read 50.9 wrt re-entry waivers. You should see the answer there.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2009, 11:25 AM
  #18
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Re-read 50.9 wrt re-entry waivers. You should see the answer there.
I have, claiming it's not definitive.

- The re-entry waivers section discusses the player's SPC in a singular form.

- The regular waivers section 13 discusses the player's SPC in singular form, but we know players claimed on regular waivers would have both contracts transferred.

- Trade definition describes SPC in singular form, but we also know both contracts would be traded.

- The tagging rules refer to SPC's in singular form, but I'm willing to bet the NHL would include the extension contract in tagging requirements.


There are multiple places in the CBA where references to a single SPC have been interpreted by the NHL to mean both current and extension SPC's together. I don't think it's a stretch to question whether the same interpretation would be applied to re-entry waivers.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2009, 02:13 PM
  #19
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I have, claiming it's not definitive.

- The re-entry waivers section discusses the player's SPC in a singular form.

- The regular waivers section 13 discusses the player's SPC in singular form, but we know players claimed on regular waivers would have both contracts transferred.

- Trade definition describes SPC in singular form, but we also know both contracts would be traded.

- The tagging rules refer to SPC's in singular form, but I'm willing to bet the NHL would include the extension contract in tagging requirements.
1. Waivers involves the transfer of a player's rights. When a team gains a player's rights, it also inherits the contract(s) the player is signed to. If waivers applied only to the contract in force, then it could be interpreted as "you can claim a player on waivers for the remainder of his current contract, but once his extension kicks in he goes back to the team that signed him to that extension" which of course would be nonsense.

2. The tagging rule of course applies to both the current contract and to extensions. A team cannot sign a player to an extension unless it has sufficient tagging room available - which includes current contracts.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2009, 10:54 AM
  #20
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachBowman2006ca View Post
Coming back to my original question. The Rangers claim avery at half the remainder of his salary. During the buyout period, they decide to buyout Avery. The Rangers would be buying out the part that have to pay. Dallas is stuck with the rest no matter what ?
*** We have a partial answer here, courtesy of RangerBoy ... who the league apparently likes more than me.

In the above scenario, if the Rangers bought out Avery, the Stars would be responsible for half of the amount of the buyout. [So, if Avery got bought out this summer the Stars would pay $4 million and the Rangers would pay the other $4 million.] Whether that means the Stars would also be responsible for half of the cap hit, we don't know yet - I've asked him to see if he can get this clarified, and I'll post the answer here once we get it.

Irish Blues 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 02:07 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.