Rolston's cap-hit

[devils26]

how would retirement affect his cap hit?

It would have no effect.

[ThreeCups]

If they think another team would take him they can put him on waivers.

Keep dreaming....

[Triumph]

okay, well i will indulge this fantasy. let's say that lou's had enough of rolston - he can still buy rolston out. that would cost new jersey 1.68 million on the cap for the next 4 years. i think even if the 35+ clause didn't apply that this would be the way that lou would dispose of rolston. i don't think he would do it unless he had a better way to spend the money.

so let's say he does that and manages to sign kovalchuk to a 10 year, front loaded deal worth 8.5 million a season. let's also say that since he's feeling generous in this fashion that jay pandolfo has zero hope of ever playing for this team again.

this makes the devils this team in 2010-11:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-langenbrunner

zharkov-?-clarkson

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-greene

salmela-fraser

brodeur

?

and this team would be paid $47 million dollars. that's plenty of room for paul martin and a 3rd line center. hell, the devils could even shoehorn pandolfo on to this team, were they so inclined.

the real issue would be 2011-12 - even if the salary cap goes up to $60 million, we're looking at this:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-?

zharkov-?-?

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-?

salmela-fraser

brodeur

that, with an estimated parise salary of $7 million, costs us 46 million. that'd be the trouble year. if we spend $2 million for a 3rd line center and $5 million on martin, that's $53 million - not much room there. we'll see. it's doable, just a question of how much money kovalchuk really wants, and if lou is willing to eat that rolston contract. now it's possible that lou can structure the rolston buyout if he does it by a certain time - i don't know the rules for structing buyouts, but he'd want to load up the first year, then maybe dial it back on the second year.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[ThreeCups]

okay, well i will indulge this fantasy. let's say that lou's had enough of rolston - he can still buy rolston out. that would cost new jersey 1.68 million on the cap for the next 4 years. i think even if the 35+ clause didn't apply that this would be the way that lou would dispose of rolston. i don't think he would do it unless he had a better way to spend the money.

so let's say he does that and manages to sign kovalchuk to a 10 year, front loaded deal worth 8.5 million a season. let's also say that since he's feeling generous in this fashion that jay pandolfo has zero hope of ever playing for this team again.

this makes the devils this team in 2010-11:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-langenbrunner

zharkov-?-clarkson

leblond-pelley-halischuk

We just need to WIN and the Kovy contract will take care of itself. He seems to like it here from everything he has said and I do not know that he would just be giving lip service, but you never know. If we make a nice run this year and he has good production, we will have a good shot at keeping him.

salvador-?

white-greene

salmela-fraser

brodeur

?

and this team would be paid $47 million dollars. that's plenty of room for paul martin and a 3rd line center. hell, the devils could even shoehorn pandolfo on to this team, were they so inclined.

the real issue would be 2011-12 - even if the salary cap goes up to $60 million, we're looking at this:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-?

zharkov-?-?

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-?

salmela-fraser

brodeur

that, with an estimated parise salary of $7 million, costs us 46 million. that'd be the trouble year. if we spend $2 million for a 3rd line center and $5 million on martin, that's $53 million - not much room there. we'll see. it's doable, just a question of how much money kovalchuk really wants, and if lou is willing to eat that rolston contract. now it's possible that lou can structure the rolston buyout if he does it by a certain time - i don't know the rules for structing buyouts, but he'd want to load up the first year, then maybe dial it back on the second year.

[Devils Pride 26]

the real issue would be 2011-12 - even if the salary cap goes up to $60 million, we're looking at this:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-?

zharkov-?-?

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-?

salmela-fraser

brodeur

that, with an estimated parise salary of $7 million, costs us 46 million. that'd be the trouble year. if we spend $2 million for a 3rd line center and $5 million on martin, that's $53 million - not much room there. we'll see. it's doable, just a question of how much money kovalchuk really wants, and if lou is willing to eat that rolston contract. now it's possible that lou can structure the rolston buyout if he does it by a certain time - i don't know the rules for structing buyouts, but he'd want to load up the first year, then maybe dial it back on the second year.

I'm not worried about that forward group, josefson, tedenby, henrique, and palmeiri should be ready by that time. the defense concerns me however. I think one of sal/white will be gone or play like they should be gone but nobody is there to replace them. eckford, corrente, urbom, gelinas should be consider then and a lot depends on martin being re-signed.

oh and wheres clarkson? he's an rfa this offseason, no? 2.5, maybe 3, over a few years sounds pretty fair.

[Triumph]

I'm not worried about that forward group, josefson, tedenby, henrique, and palmeiri should be ready by that time. the defense concerns me however. I think one of sal/white will be gone or play like they should be gone but nobody is there to replace them. eckford, corrente, urbom, gelinas should be consider then and a lot depends on martin being re-signed.

should be being the operative word; i don't think tedenby will be NHL ready by 2011, i'm skeptical about palmieri in general (i think he's a very good prospect, for sure, just not sure about how good), and henrique's never played against pros. if the devils do manage to re-sign kovalchuk and think they will get parise locked up long term i don't see tedenby lasting in the organization anyway.

oh and wheres clarkson? he's an rfa this offseason, no? 2.5, maybe 3, over a few years sounds pretty fair.

he's UFA after 2011. i don't think i would pay 3 million for him.

[Par9]

okay, well i will indulge this fantasy. let's say that lou's had enough of rolston - he can still buy rolston out. that would cost new jersey 1.68 million on the cap for the next 4 years. i think even if the 35+ clause didn't apply that this would be the way that lou would dispose of rolston. i don't think he would do it unless he had a better way to spend the money.

so let's say he does that and manages to sign kovalchuk to a 10 year, front loaded deal worth 8.5 million a season. let's also say that since he's feeling generous in this fashion that jay pandolfo has zero hope of ever playing for this team again.

this makes the devils this team in 2010-11:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-langenbrunner

zharkov-?-clarkson

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-greene

salmela-fraser

brodeur

?

and this team would be paid $47 million dollars. that's plenty of room for paul martin and a 3rd line center. hell, the devils could even shoehorn pandolfo on to this team, were they so inclined.

the real issue would be 2011-12 - even if the salary cap goes up to $60 million, we're looking at this:

kovalchuk-zubrus-elias

parise-zajac-?

zharkov-?-?

leblond-pelley-halischuk

salvador-?

white-?

salmela-fraser

brodeur

that, with an estimated parise salary of $7 million, costs us 46 million. that'd be the trouble year. if we spend $2 million for a 3rd line center and $5 million on martin, that's $53 million - not much room there. we'll see. it's doable, just a question of how much money kovalchuk really wants, and if lou is willing to eat that rolston contract. now it's possible that lou can structure the rolston buyout if he does it by a certain time - i don't know the rules for structing buyouts, but he'd want to load up the first year, then maybe dial it back on the second year.

Tri, isn't David Clarkson a UFA after this year.

Later on I would those roster spots are filled by Jofeson, Halichuk, Corrente, and Eckford.

[Devils Pride 26]

that does make sense, kovy and parise being the top 6 lw's. why not though? he could switch to rw seeing there are holes there with elias getting old and langs contract is up. maybe we use him in a trade for a dman depending if kovy is re-signed. and that team looks SOFT without clarkson.

edit - tri, clarskon is a rfa after this season nhlnumbers

Edited February 13, 2010 by Devils Pride 26

[devils26]

Tri, do have us not keeping Corrente after the 10-11 season? He's only an RFA.

[Sarge18]

Tri, isn't David Clarkson a UFA after this year.

Later on I would those roster spots are filled by Jofeson, Halichuk, Corrente, and Eckford.

He is RFA, despite his claim that undrafted players are treated differently. He was incorrect as all players are RFA until age 27 or some years of service i think 8.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Sarge18

[JakeDev]

we should bring in Tedneby next year :D

[Triumph]

that does make sense, kovy and parise being the top 6 lw's. why not though? he could switch to rw seeing there are holes there with elias getting old and langs contract is up. maybe we use him in a trade for a dman depending if kovy is re-signed. and that team looks SOFT without clarkson.

edit - tri, clarskon is a rfa after this season nhlnumbers

that is why clarkson is listed with the 2010-11 team and not with the 2011-12 team.

i don't have corrente listed at all because i don't know how certain his nhl future is. rather than guess, or just wildly predict that corrente will be a top 4 d man, i left the space where he might be blank.

[NewarkDevil5]

Thank you Tri for that analysis. That is exactly what I started this thread hoping to see.

[Devils Pride 26]

ohhh. i dont see him as a guy who comes out with a one year rfa contract then bolts. ala gomez

[Sarge18]

okay, well i will indulge this fantasy. let's say that lou's had enough of rolston - he can still buy rolston out. that would cost new jersey 1.68 million on the cap for the next 4 years. i think even if the 35+ clause didn't apply that this would be the way that lou would dispose of rolston. i don't think he would do it unless he had a better way to spend the money.

A single correction on this first point. Even if Lou chooses to buyout Rolston, it does not remove or change the cap hit. The full 5m still counts against the Devils cap making the rest of the speculation a moot point.

The only way to get rid of Rolston's cap hit is by way of trade.

[devils26]

that is why clarkson is listed with the 2010-11 team and not with the 2011-12 team.

i don't have corrente listed at all because i don't know how certain his nhl future is. rather than guess, or just wildly predict that corrente will be a top 4 d man, i left the space where he might be blank.

What about bumping Salmela up into the top 4? Then Corrente only has to be a 5-6 D man. I think that with time Salmela can develop his defensive game to be able to log top 4 minutes.

[Triumph]

A single correction on this first point. Even if Lou chooses to buyout Rolston, it does not remove or change the cap hit. The full 5m still counts against the Devils cap making the rest of the speculation a moot point.

The only way to get rid of Rolston's cap hit is by way of trade.

no? i've never seen it said one way or another on this point, and the 35+ clause is extraordinarily vague. it doesn't make much sense that even though rolston is no longer devils' property that the devils would still be beholden to his cap hit; if he became some other team's property after the buyout, that doesn't add up.

50.9.i covers buyouts:

"If a player's SPC has been terminated and bought out by a Club..."

these passages seem to be contradictory, and would seem to suggest that even if the devils traded rolston his cap hit would still be there, which we know is not the case.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[Sarge18]

no? i've never seen it said one way or another on this point, and the 35+ clause is extraordinarily vague. it doesn't make much sense that even though rolston is no longer devils' property that the devils would still be beholden to his cap hit; if he became some other team's property after the buyout, that doesn't add up.

50.9.i covers buyouts:

"If a player's SPC has been terminated and bought out by a Club..."

these passages seem to be contradictory, and would seem to suggest that even if the devils traded rolston his cap hit would still be there, which we know is not the case.

I dont have an exact cba quote for you. But capgeek's buyout calculator wont do 35+ players stating that it does not change the cap hit just the salary paid, which becomes the 2/3 over twice the remaining length. The only other piece of evidence i can offer, one of the cba guru's over at hfboards got in contact with the league with this question. The response is the same as posted at capgeek.

[Devils731]

I'm going to say my quick reading suggests a bought out Rolston still stays on the cap for his bought out amount.

I think the relevant section is 50.5 - d - i - B

Part 3 regards to players bought out counting against the cap:

All Ordinary Course Buyout Amounts paid in that

League Year (in accordance with Section 50.9(i));

plus

Part 5 regards players over 35 at time of contract signing

All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League

Year by a Player who is in the second or later year

of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the

Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to

the League Year in which the SPC is to be

effective), but which Player is not on the Club's

Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster

or Non Roster, and regardless of whether, or where,

the Player is playing, except to the extent the Player

is playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in

which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in

excess of $100,000 shall count towards the

calculation of Averaged Club Salary;

So Part 3 takes precedence over Part 5, but even so they don't really conflict with each other as Rolston's earned salary for those years from the Devils will be his bought out amount.

[sundstrom]

A single correction on this first point. Even if Lou chooses to buyout Rolston, it does not remove or change the cap hit. The full 5m still counts against the Devils cap making the rest of the speculation a moot point.

The only way to get rid of Rolston's cap hit is by way of trade.

i remember this going back to malakhov and this is exactly correct.

Tri - your initial response was the correct one - besides trade, there is no way. That's not to say he's 100% untradeable. Rolston + 2011 1st for servicable $1MM player and 3rd could happen. But Rolston would have to agree to be traded and I just don't see him accepting a trade because of how much he likes living in NJ. I mean, he'd go to the Rangers but I can't imagine them being that stupid to take him.

Frankly, I just don't see the Devils going all out to sign Kovalchuck - they may very well make an offer to see if he just wants to play here but I just don't think you make that kind of commitment to this type of player. I know it sounds ridiculous but after watching him live, it is clear that he is the definition of a russian superstar - that is that he's thinking offense the whole time. he doesn't come back to the defensive zone hard (or generally at all) and also doesn't used his linemates that well. His offensive talent is otherworldly but I just don't think he's the kind of guy that you commit 7%-10% of your available cap room. That is rarified air - Ovechkin/Crosby/Lidstrom (in his prime). Kovalchuk is in the next group - great players but not extraordinary to the extent that they make Mike Rupp a 25 goal scorer or actually control the game by themselves even when they aren't on the ice (because you have to prepare for when they are).

All that being said, its doable to give Clarkson 2.5MM for 3 years, Martin $5MM for 4 years, Kovalchuk $8MM for whatever and Parise $7MM for whatever. Rolston and Pando have to go away and you'll need 5 players (likely 3 forwards and 2 d) to be making under $1MM.

[Devils731]

http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm

This is set forth in 13(d) of the Standard Player Contract (Exhibit 1 in the CBA). The remainder of this explanation applies to buyouts that took place after July 29, 2005, and assumes the player was not 35 or older when signing his SPC (in which case a buyout does not reduce the cap hit).

Even that website uses the word assumes, I can't find where in the CBA a player 35 or older at contract signing is specifically excluded from a cap reduction due to buyout, in fact that section on calculating a teams cap space in the post above doesn't make any exceptions for players over 35.

I can see where the rules posted in the prior posts cover retired players(non-roster) as still needing to be taken as a full cap hit but a buyout changes the earned money by the player, which is the amount used to calculate the daily cap hit.

I looked up the SPC and it makes not exception to a player being 35 years old either, so using the word "assumes" makes me wonder if we assume too much if it isn't written out legally.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Devils731

[Sarge18]

http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm

Even that website uses the word assumes, I can't find where in the CBA a player 35 or older at contract signing is specifically excluded from a cap reduction due to buyout, in fact that section on calculating a teams cap space in the post above doesn't make any exceptions for players over 35.

I can see where the rules posted in the prior posts cover retired players(non-roster) as still needing to be taken as a full cap hit but a buyout changes the earned money by the player, which is the amount used to calculate the daily cap hit.

I looked up the SPC and it makes not exception to a player being 35 years old either, so using the word "assumes" makes me wonder if we assume too much if it isn't written out legally.

Its my interpretation that the over 35 rule was applied to buyouts in a way to prevent teams from lowering the cap hits on front loaded contracts to older players. The same spirit that the rule creates for players who are retiring. In theory a front loaded contract followed by a buyout creates a nice revenue stream for an older player after they stop playing, and gives the team cap relief. By forcing the cap hit to stay the same in the case of a buyout it prevents teams from doing exactly that.

[iamtheprodigy]

he doesn't come back to the defensive zone hard (or generally at all) and also doesn't used his linemates that well.

Are you sure you're watching #17? He makes great passes out there.

[Triumph]

Its my interpretation that the over 35 rule was applied to buyouts in a way to prevent teams from lowering the cap hits on front loaded contracts to older players. The same spirit that the rule creates for players who are retiring. In theory a front loaded contract followed by a buyout creates a nice revenue stream for an older player after they stop playing, and gives the team cap relief. By forcing the cap hit to stay the same in the case of a buyout it prevents teams from doing exactly that.

yeah this is my thinking as well.

sundstrom: i disagree about kovalchuk not using his teammates well, and even so, there are many who'd say that ovechkin is the definition of what you are talking about. the only thing that would prevent me from signing him to a long deal is if his play in the playoffs suffered.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[Devils731]

Its my interpretation that the over 35 rule was applied to buyouts in a way to prevent teams from lowering the cap hits on front loaded contracts to older players. The same spirit that the rule creates for players who are retiring. In theory a front loaded contract followed by a buyout creates a nice revenue stream for an older player after they stop playing, and gives the team cap relief. By forcing the cap hit to stay the same in the case of a buyout it prevents teams from doing exactly that.

Preventing the buyouts of players over 35 to avoid front loaded contracts doesn't hold a lot of strength to me since the league doesn't care about massive front loading of contracts for other players. Also, the buyout is to let teams get cap relief and the player to get paid the majority of his salary in return for this, it was always a way for teams to get cap relief and it's why teams are limited in how many buyouts they can do.

I don't disagree that there may be something about players over 35 having their entire cap hit count against the cap, I'm just saying I can't find it and the only place that seems to reference it online uses the word assumes. The only things I can find in the CBA doesn't seem to prohibit buyouts over players who signed contracts at over 35 from giving cap relief to teams.

People didn't know that Lou, for example, was going to get Shanahan off the cap this year in the way he did, most people didn't even know that was a possibility. So I'm supposing that people maybe have made an assumption about players over 35 and buyouts that the actual legal text of the CBA doesn't support.

It would be nice to find something concrete about players over 35 and buyouts instead of just hearsay.