Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SterioDesign

New CBA details

48 posts in this topic

James Mirtle@mirtle

Keeping salary in trades: Teams can have up to three contracts at one time that they are retaining the salary of.

James Mirtle@mirtle

The max teams can keep is 15% of the salary cap. Only 50% of a deal can be kept. A contract can have salary retained in a trade only twice.

So essentially teams can trade a player and keep part of the cap hit to sweeten the return they get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

CBA is 10 yrs with mutual 8 yr opt-out but NHL has 1st option to terminate, no later than Sept. 1, 2019. NHLPA 2nd option, Sept. 15, 2019.

I suppose that just means each side can terminate the CBA, so that makes it even more likely one will :P

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an article posted by Pierre Lebrun it says "UFA FREE AGENCY INTERVIEW PERIOD

Similar to the NBA, the NHL has instituted a free-agency interview period prior to the actual signing period. UFAs will be able to meet and interview with potential clubs from the day after the NHL draft until June 30, prior to the July 1 opening of free agency.

What’s interesting about this is that I don’t think you’ll have a Parise/Suter situation where you wait all the way to July 4 to sign with a team. Instead, their decisions will be made by June 30 for the most part, you would have to assume."

I don't really like that to be honest. It makes the week or so before free agency useless essentially for the team trying to re-sign their UFA.

Link: http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=nhl&id=21219

Edited by njd3b1ink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many FA really re-sign the week or two before FA anyway? Occasionally you can trade someone's rights like a Bouwmeester and they re-up with their hometown team but that's pretty rare.

All it does more or less is take some of the suspense out of July 1, depending on what gets leaked beforehand. NBA deals often get announced way before they can be signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Lou's case it might help us since he has a penchant for letting the players shop around once they go free agent. If the players know their market value before they jump ship it might give Lou and the Devils some time to organize an offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the negotiating window. I imagine there's at least one team that lost out on a player it wanted simply because it was trying to do too many things at once and didn't get a chance to counter offer.

DM: Players generally know their market value before they hit the market, I think

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so from what i gathered listening to Darche yesterday..

the trade deadline would be april 5th the playoffs would start around end of april and someone would win the cup late june

there's also something about some kind of 7m cushion for trades so that a team can take on a bigger contract or something i missed the beginning of that part so i didnt fully understood but i'll look into it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Mirtle@mirtle

The max teams can keep is 15% of the salary cap. Only 50% of a deal can be kept. A contract can have salary retained in a trade only twice.

I'm confused by the wording. Is it 15% or 50% of a contract's cap hit that a team can retain? Or is it 50% of a given contract's cap hit can be retained while 15% of the team's total cap space can be retained cap hits from dealt contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by the wording. Is it 15% or 50% of a contract's cap hit that a team can retain? Or is it 50% of a given contract's cap hit can be retained while 15% of the team's total cap space can be retained cap hits from dealt contracts?

Second one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this new "Luongo Rule," as Puck Daddy put it, mean that the Devils are on the hook for Kovy's full cap hit of $6.66 million through the 2024-25 season, even if he retires???

http://sports.yahoo....17517--nhl.html

No. If he retired with 5 years left in his contract, the Devils will have paid out $90M over 10 years, but he would have only cost 66.6M on the cap in those years. So it takes the difference between those numbers and spreads them over the remaining years - the Devils would be on the hook for 4.67M in dead cap space per year for 5 years. That's the worst case scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If he retired with 5 years left in his contract, the Devils will have paid out $90M over 10 years, but he would have only cost 66.6M on the cap in those years. So it takes the difference between those numbers and spreads them over the remaining years - the Devils would be on the hook for 4.67M in dead cap space per year for 5 years. That's the worst case scenario.

Got it, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If he retired with 5 years left in his contract, the Devils will have paid out $90M over 10 years, but he would have only cost 66.6M on the cap in those years. So it takes the difference between those numbers and spreads them over the remaining years - the Devils would be on the hook for 4.67M in dead cap space per year for 5 years. That's the worst case scenario.

thats still pretty good considering all remaining years are generally way lower so it would bring the cap down

but kovy's final years salary is 1m,1m, 1m, 3m, 4m

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add this (the "Luongo Rule") on top of the other penalties Bettman has already leveled against the Devils for signing Kovy a couple of years back. Not only do we get stuck with a large amount of dead cap space when he retires (I'm assuming he won't be playing out this contract), but we also can't buyout the contract this summer and immediately re-sign him to a deal that fits within the parameters of the new CBA. We are the only team that gets penalized at both ends.

Edited by Chuck the Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add this (the "Luongo Rule") on top of the other penalties Bettman has already leveled against the Devils for signing Kovy a couple of years back. Not only do we get stuck with a large amount of dead cap space when he retires (I'm assuming he won't be playing out this contract), but we also can't buyout the contract this summer and immediately re-sign him to a deal that fits within the parameters of the new CBA. We are the only team that gets penalized at both ends.

The Devils had to structure the deal better. Had the original contract stood, the Devils likely would be on the hook for 7 years of 4.28M. The cap will be $85 million by the time Kovalchuk retires, they're not going to be spending up to it anyway, and all the other big market teams are in line for worse.

EDIT: The Rangers will be on the hook for 3 years at 5.6M if Brad Richards retires when his contract reaches its 1M years. And that's in 2017.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devils had to structure the deal better. Had the original contract stood, the Devils likely would be on the hook for 7 years of 4.28M. The cap will be $85 million by the time Kovalchuk retires, they're not going to be spending up to it anyway, and all the other big market teams are in line for worse.

EDIT: The Rangers will be on the hook for 3 years at 5.6M if Brad Richards retires when his contract reaches its 1M years. And that's in 2017.

Although I will love to see the Rangers in cap hell, it still doesn't make it any better in my opinion. The NHL turned a blind eye while Pronger, Luongo, DePietro and 1/2 of the Red Wings roster were signed to these deals. Then, when the Devils do it with Kovy, we get slapped with a huge penalty and they change the contract requirements to prevent these deals from happening again. After all is said and done, they then put in this provision as part of an entirely new CBA which penalizes teams now and in the future despite the fact that they did nothing wrong months and/or years ago while working within the terms of the last CBA and had all of these contracts blessed and approved by the league. These contracts should have been grandfathered in since the league didn't have the stones to stand up to anyone besides the Devils to stop them when they were occurring.

I wonder how it works if the Devils loan a player like Kovy to a KHL team down the road (in the last few years of his contract) whereby the KHL team agrees to pickup the remainder of his deal.

Edited by Chuck the Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, penalties that are 8-10 years out are meaningless, because they will be subject to the next CBA negotiation.

Now if you have an old guy with one of these deals, like Triumph pointed out, you're kinda screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I will love to see the Rangers in cap hell, it still doesn't make it any better in my opinion. The NHL turned a blind eye while Pronger, Luongo, DePietro and 1/2 of the Red Wings roster were signed to these deals. Then, when the Devils do it with Kovy, we get slapped with a huge penalty and they change the contract requirements to prevent these deals from happening again. After all is said and done, they then put in this provision as part of an entirely new CBA which penalizes teams now and in the future despite the fact that they did nothing wrong months and/or years ago while working within the terms of the last CBA and had all of these contracts blessed and approved by the league. These contracts should have been grandfathered in since the league didn't have the stones to stand up to anyone besides the Devils to stop them when they were occurring.

Pronger's contract is a 35+. The Flyers are being bailed out by him being unable to play, otherwise they would have a dead cap hit at the end of it. Could the league have won on Luongo or Hossa? Maybe, but it's awfully hard to say that a player won't play for a million dollars - plenty of players near the end of their careers have played for similar amounts (including Daniel Alfredsson this year, for instance). I doubt it could have won on the Red Wings' deals. It definitely won on the Devils deal - and with the minimum salary going up by the end of this CBA, the $550,000 years at the end are revealed to be more of a sham. Had the Devils structured the money better, they would have gotten Kovalchuk signed to the original deal - if they'd taken a million from each year and spread it around at the end, they might've gotten away with it. And that's what they did in the 2nd contract, and that's why the NHL bent - the Devils had them over a barrel.

The league never fully approved the Luongo and Pronger contracts until the NHL and NHLPA negotiated new rules to deal with long contracts.

I wonder how it works if the Devils loan a player like Kovy to a KHL team down the road (in the last few years of his contract) whereby the KHL team agrees to pickup the remainder of his deal.

The Devils have a 5.76M cap charge under this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, penalties that are 8-10 years out are meaningless, because they will be subject to the next CBA negotiation.

Now if you have an old guy with one of these deals, like Triumph pointed out, you're kinda screwed.

You mean like Pronger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Pronger?

Pronger's a +35 deal because Holmgren is a moron. He backdived it, but it doesn't matter. He gave himself a cap penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if the new CBA changed how long a draft pick is bound to the team without a contract? I wouldn't want Merrill to pull a Justin Schultz, although it's unlikely even if the rules are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if the new CBA changed how long a draft pick is bound to the team without a contract? I wouldn't want Merrill to pull a Justin Schultz, although it's unlikely even if the rules are the same.

I've not heard anything, but I don't see why that would have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0