thefiestygoat Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 Edited January 8, 2013 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njd3b1ink Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by njd3b1ink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilMinder Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Many thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWomp Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/luongo-rule-nhl-cba-punish-cap-circumventing-contracts-153717517--nhl.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWomp Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by SterioDesign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by Chuck the Duck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) 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 January 8, 2013 by Chuck the Duck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.