Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    "cap-recapture system."

    Under the new CBA, teams can retain salary/cap hit in a trade. Funny that Burke has been preaching for something like this for a while and he might be the first to test it.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    where's the DR with his calculations ? Thoughts ?

    sorry bumed up because of the new troll

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    Wasn't something similar to this bandied around here at some point in the past few years?  Without seeing the rest of the CBA, it's hard to figure how it works in.  It does at least seem like a reasonable way to combat stupid-long low-money-during-retirement-likely-years contracts.  They will still be handed out, I'm sure, but at least this way GMs have to weigh in some risk.

    That article is missing one minor point that is probably important.  Going with everyone's favorite example Luongo, if he stayed with Vancouver and retired with three years remaining on his contract, the cap penalty would be $4 million.  However, his regular cap hit would still be removed.  They'd still get a net benefit of $1 million in cap space from him retiring (assuming he would be nothing but dead-weight otherwise).

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    NHL agents hating the "cap-recapture system", will be curious to see how they react. It might will be much like Insurance company CEOs trying to get rid of the health care act. That is money missed bigtime when GMs are ordered to dump n cover their own signings.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    Anyone hear anything in regards to when the trade deadline may be? I can't imagine that they'll keep it where it usually is.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    Lebrun said first week of April, likely April 5.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wasn't something similar to this bandied around here at some point in the past few years?  Without seeing the rest of the CBA, it's hard to figure how it works in.  It does at least seem like a reasonable way to combat stupid-long low-money-during-retirement-likely-years contracts.  They will still be handed out, I'm sure, but at least this way GMs have to weigh in some risk.

    That article is missing one minor point that is probably important.  Going with everyone's favorite example Luongo, if he stayed with Vancouver and retired with three years remaining on his contract, the cap penalty would be $4 million.  However, his regular cap hit would still be removed.  They'd still get a net benefit of $1 million in cap space from him retiring (assuming he would be nothing but dead-weight otherwise).

    [/QUOTE]


    who gets relief ? Canucks ? I think this clause is more for a team that tries to dump this salary via a trade .  Even after he's traded since they are the ones that put him under contract are responsible for a portion , prorated , part of the cap.  It'll count as a cap hit and makes the original team that gave that contract accountable.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NHL agents hating the "cap-recapture system", will be curious to see how they react. It might will be much like Insurance company CEOs trying to get rid of the health care act. That is money missed bigtime when GMs are ordered to dump n cover their own signings.

    [/QUOTE]

    yup ^^^^

    now can't wait to hear details on the buyouts

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Good article on new clause with trades and cap hits

    In response to BsLegion's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    who gets relief ? Canucks ? I think this clause is more for a team that tries to dump this salary via a trade .  Even after he's traded since they are the ones that put him under contract are responsible for a portion , prorated , part of the cap.  It'll count as a cap hit and makes the original team that gave that contract accountable.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the scenario I was looking at, there was no trade - so yes, the Canucks.

    Even when they have made the trade then have to pay some of it back, they would still have more cap space available after he retires than they would if he had stayed with the team and sat in the press box spinning his under-inflated tires.  

    This could cause them trouble since it would be an unplanned cap hit, though.  This does provide a nice way of keeping GMs accountable, though.  I guess this means that the "Kovalchuk" clause will be gone?  I don't see how those would interact sensibly.  Does that mean existing contracts would have their cap-hits recalculated?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share