Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Fluto won't take the time to do it, because Fluto wouldn't advocate putting Paille on the third line, Marchand in the NHL or trading Wheeler's rights for a 2nd or 3rd round pick.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    //Seguin - ~$3.5-3.75 million (don't know how B.com puts it at $.975 million)//

    Rookie salary is $900,000. You're counting his probable bonuses against this year's cap hit; I believe they go on next year's cap.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Not-a-shot - You got a better idea than putting Marchand or Paille on the 3rd line with the available cap space? I'd love to hear it.

    Nah I think you'd rather just poke holes in my post.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    //Seguin - ~$3.5-3.75 million (don't know how B.com puts it at $.975 million)// Rookie salary is $900,000. You're counting his probable bonuses against this year's cap hit; I believe they go on next year's cap.
    Posted by duinne


    this is correct, and he can't achieve all of them 900k base 850 in achievable bonuses..

    2m in much harder to reach league wide awards... so while the calder is reachable, the hart.. probably unrealistic..seguin will show a 3.75 cap hit till he can not achieve certain bonuses, but if we go over it comes of next season.. not a trend we want to continue..
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    Not-a-shot - You got a better idea than putting Marchand or Paille on the 3rd line with the available cap space? I'd love to hear it. Nah I think you'd rather just poke holes in my post.
    Posted by nrguy


    Lucic-Savard-Horton
    Wheeler-Krejci-Seguin ($900k)
    Ryder-Bergeron-Recchi
    Paille-Campbell ($800K)-Thornton

    Defense and goaltending remain the same

    This would put the team right around the cap.  They might have to fool around with calling some guys up for a few games and having Ryder ride I-95 for a few games to get the number exact.

    I'd be much happier with this than with Paille on the ice with Recchi and Bergeron.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    Not-a-shot - You got a better idea than putting Marchand or Paille on the 3rd line with the available cap space? I'd love to hear it. Nah I think you'd rather just poke holes in my post.
    Posted by nrguy


    Seguin's cap hit is 900K; B's have 1.7M..... 1.7 (avail) - 900K (seguin)= 800K.  This + the money from Sturm's LTIR should be enough to sign Campbell.

    Trade Wheeler for a 2nd rd pick.

    Ryder - /> the NHL team
    Paille - /> line 4. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bridgemanusa. Show bridgemanusa's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Can Ryder be traded (without passing thru re-entry waivers) if he is playing in Providence? The more likely scenario is the Bs trade Thomas and hire a backup for 1mil. I also feel this would give us enough cap space. I also thought teams only had to be under the cap once the regular seson started? This could mean players fight for a spot in camp and then the decisions are made who to throw on the bus south.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    drewski, your a very knowledgable cap guy, quick question. When can the bruins declare that Sturm is on the LTIR. It was my understanding that entering training camp, when they have to be below the cap, he is going to count at his 3.5. I hope they just waive Ryder, and call up Caron, that makes things a lot easier, and my guess is that the difference between Ryder and Caron's production isn't huge
    Posted by pbergeron37



    the bruins do not need to be below the cap till the regular season (not training camp) if that were the case you would never be able to try out other guys..

    I think the difference in production would be huge..Ryder even if you dislike him averages 25g  and 49 points a season..thats tough production for a rookie..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    OK so it's not as dire as I thought.

    Fully agree with you and would rather not have Paille or any of the PB's up playing on the 3rd line and viewed it more as a goal prevention line.

    So basically with Seguin we can defer the bonuses and then keep on piling up cap penalties for the next year? That's where I was getting it wrong but I don't think it's a wise LT move to do it that way. (If that's the case, we can defer Recchi's bonuses too and save more cap room). We had the 3rd highest bonus penalties this year, don't think we want to be #1 in that department next year.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    drewski, your a very knowledgable cap guy, quick question. When can the bruins declare that Sturm is on the LTIR. It was my understanding that entering training camp, when they have to be below the cap, he is going to count at his 3.5. I hope they just waive Ryder, and call up Caron, that makes things a lot easier, and my guess is that the difference between Ryder and Caron's production isn't huge
    Posted by pbergeron37


    I'm an accountant , so I know a lot about figures/economics/optimizing salary caps in general; however, I am not as knowledgable on the leagilities involved with the NHL salary cap.

    I'm going to have to defer your question to Rollerhockey, NAS or Bookboy.

    Any of you guys know the min date where Sturm can be put on LTIR?  I assume that its the start of training camp, but I could be wrong. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    OK so it's not as dire as I thought. Fully agree with you and would rather not have Paille or any of the PB's up playing on the 3rd line and viewed it more as a goal prevention line. So basically with Seguin we can defer the bonuses and then keep on piling up cap penalties for the next year? That's where I was getting it wrong but I don't think it's a wise LT move to do it that way. (If that's the case, we can defer Recchi's bonuses too and save more cap room). We had the 3rd highest bonus penalties this year, don't think we want to be #1 in that department next year.
    Posted by nrguy


    Why not?

    People pay big bucks to hire accountants who can defer obligations into the future.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    OK so it's not as dire as I thought. Fully agree with you and would rather not have Paille or any of the PB's up playing on the 3rd line and viewed it more as a goal prevention line. So basically with Seguin we can defer the bonuses and then keep on piling up cap penalties for the next year? That's where I was getting it wrong but I don't think it's a wise LT move to do it that way. (If that's the case, we can defer Recchi's bonuses too and save more cap room). We had the 3rd highest bonus penalties this year, don't think we want to be #1 in that department next year.
    Posted by nrguy


    I would be thrilled if the B's were first in bonus penalties.  That would mean guys were hitting their bonuses.  That would mean the young guys were playing very well.

    Bring it on.


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bear-in-the-woods. Show bear-in-the-woods's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Per Article 16, section 11, a player finishing an NHL season who continues to be injured and unable to perform by reason of the same injury at the the time he reports to training camp in the following league year is still eligible to be placed on the LTIR list.

    Here's the relevant section:

    16.11 Injured Reserve List.
    (a) The Injured Reserve List is a category of the Reserve List. A Club may
    place a Player on the Injured Reserve List only if such Player is reasonably expected to be injured, ill or disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player for a minimum of seven (7) days from the onset of such injury, illness or disability. A Player who finishes an NHL Season on the Injured Reserve List and continues to be injured and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player by reason of the same injury at the time he reports to the Club's Training Camp in the next League Year, will again be eligible to be placed on the Club's Injured Reserve List. For any other Player who fails the Club's initial physical examination in any League Year, or is injured, ill or disabled while not on the Club's Active Roster, he shall not be eligible for, and may not be placed on, Injured Reserve, but instead shall be eligible to be, and may be designated as, Injured Non-Roster.


    Here's the segment on replacements, from the same Article 16.11:

    (d) Once a Player is placed on the Injured Reserve List, the Club may replace
    said Player on its NHL Act ive Roster with another Player, and during such period of his designation as an Injured Reserve Player he will not count against the Club's Active Roster limit, provided, however, that the Injured Reserve Player's Player Salary and Bonuses and his replacement's Player Salary and Bonuses are each included in calculating a Club's Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, and the Players' Share, for purposes of Article 50.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    i am in agreement with NAS. Paille was a bust when he played with Bergie and Recchi, so he is definitely on line with Campbell/Thornton/Paille. Marchand and/or Ryder will be with Bergie/Recchi. I still prefer a Lucic/Kreji/Horton power line, which leaves Wheeler/Savard/Seguin all speed and moves That is a pretty cool lineup for any team: 
                     Lucic/Kreji/horton
                     Wheeler/Savard/Seguin
                    Ryder or Sturm/Bergeron/Recchi
                      Paille/Campbell/thornton
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    lol, true. The Blackhawks were first but Recchi's bonuses are very make-able and don't want to hamstring our cap going forward if we don't win a cup.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Yeah, my lines were not thoroughly thought out at all. The constituents were my only focus.

    If the Bs ship Ryder to the minors I don't think we can really say Jacobs is that cheap anymore (although with the cap, I really don't see how people still say it).
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    OK so it's not as dire as I thought. Fully agree with you and would rather not have Paille or any of the PB's up playing on the 3rd line and viewed it more as a goal prevention line. So basically with Seguin we can defer the bonuses and then keep on piling up cap penalties for the next year? That's where I was getting it wrong but I don't think it's a wise LT move to do it that way. (If that's the case, we can defer Recchi's bonuses too and save more cap room). We had the 3rd highest bonus penalties this year, don't think we want to be #1 in that department next year.
    Posted by nrguy


    You're selling us short...we were #2 in penalties.  Only the Hawks were worse.

    http://bit.ly/aRSIDI
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from screw-cindy-and-ovie. Show screw-cindy-and-ovie's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    Well even if we do incur bonus penalties, which is a good thing as Not-a-shot said, next summer we have Ryder, Sturm, Chara, and Bergeron coming off the books. Albeit PB and ZC will most likely get extended, but it is still 19.75 million coming off the books next summer. If PC doesnt screw anything up, there shouldnt be a problem
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    The thing that's still missing from the work bear-in-the-woods did is what sort of cap relief you get once he's on injured reserve.  I'm afraid I don't have the time to find the documentation, but I believe you carry the full salary for cap-projection purposes, but you are credited roster days that pass with the player on LTIR, and you only get back the portion that insurance covers for the player's salary while injured.  It's not a 1-1 replacement, and the only point at which you're allowed to wipe a whole year's salary is if it's determined that the player will not be able to resume NHL play due to injury a la Zhamnov.  Unfortuntely, that means the Bruins don't get to defer the question of whether to keep Sturm or Ryder. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from CarolinaClamMan. Show CarolinaClamMan's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    How about trading Ference for a pick?  That's 2.3 off the cap
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 77ray77. Show 77ray77's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    just something to think about, what if two of the rookies make the lineup this year, i have read a couple articles stating that caron and colbourne are good possibilities to stick with the big club, and i also believe sequin will stick so the lineup could be totally different than expected.... just some thoughts
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    The thing that's still missing from the work bear-in-the-woods did is what sort of cap relief you get once he's on injured reserve.  I'm afraid I don't have the time to find the documentation, but I believe you carry the full salary for cap-projection purposes, but you are credited roster days that pass with the player on LTIR, and you only get back the portion that insurance covers for the player's salary while injured.  It's not a 1-1 replacement, and the only point at which you're allowed to wipe a whole year's salary is if it's determined that the player will not be able to resume NHL play due to injury a la Zhamnov.  Unfortuntely, that means the Bruins don't get to defer the question of whether to keep Sturm or Ryder. 
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Bookboy, your correct, and actual, that is injured reserve, not LTIR..

    so here is the deal, I did a fair amount of reading, article 50, and 50.10 in particular.

    paraphrasing..to make numbers clear, lets pretend the upper limit is 50m, and we go into opening day with 52.5m on the roster, marco hurt and on LTIR. His cap hit still counts, as does his replacement.


    on opening day we have to have a roster of 52.5m, then it is considered that we have replaced marco.

    The cap is calculated daily, and also as an average, any amount we have below the upper limit is expendable money.. thus we have 0 money..  This means when marco returns we need to free up the room to re add him. shedding 2.5 m in salary..

    so lets say marco is hurt for 1/2 the season, we carry a cap hit of 52.5 for half the season and then we send ryder down he clears wavers.

    our new daily cap hit is 48.5 m..

    Our average cap hit at the end of the season is 50.5 this is allowable as we were able to exceed the cap by 1.7m for marco's 1/2 season..

    the issue here that people are missing. Is because its the average calculated daily and this is the amount you are allowed to "spend" against the cap, when we shipped ryder down and lowered the daily cap to 48.5m, we are now cap compliant, but we have actually freed up any money.  Meaning we have no additional funds for mid season aquisitions or injuries etc..

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    How about trading Ference for a pick?  That's 2.3 off the cap
    Posted by CarolinaClamMan


    Then you'll need to find another defenseman. I for one don't trust Adam McQuaid to step in as a top six D-man.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas : Then you'll need to find another defenseman. I for one don't trust Adam McQuaid to step in as a top six D-man.
    Posted by duinne


    Besides being injured a lot recently, I don't really understand why people are always down on Ference.  He's a pretty solid d-man, doesn't make a lot of mistakes, can hit and stick up for his teammates, etc.

    I know he isn't bursting with talent, but he seems like a very solid, honest, d-man for this team.  Save McQuaid to cover injuries -- we need Ference in the top six.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jalvis. Show jalvis's posts

    Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas

    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas:
    In Response to Re: Possible solution to the B's cap problems while keeping Savy and Thomas : Besides being injured a lot recently, I don't really understand why people are always down on Ference.  He's a pretty solid d-man, doesn't make a lot of mistakes, can hit and stick up for his teammates, etc. I know he isn't bursting with talent, but he seems like a very solid, honest, d-man for this team.  Save McQuaid to cover injuries -- we need Ference in the top six.
    Posted by Fletcher1


    Agreed.  If he stays healthy, he's a good player. 
     

Share