loui eriksson ltir

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

    loui eriksson ltir

    Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

    Can anyone explain why loui eriksson hasn't been placed on ltir. The only thing I could think of was they didn't want to put him on ltir in case he was ready before Jan 2, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Will they just do it retroactively?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to suffolkowner's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

    Can anyone explain why loui eriksson hasn't been placed on ltir. The only thing I could think of was they didn't want to put him on ltir in case he was ready before Jan 2, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Will they just do it retroactively?

    [/QUOTE]

    it doesn't really matter if they do or not. The CBA has a provision in it that states that even with LTIR, and bonus room, a team can only exceed the cap by so much. I think it's 10% but it might be 15%. The Bruins have 4.2 million in bonuses for iginla, and I think Seidenberg is on LTIR, but even if he isn't with the young players they have that have bonuses and Savard LTIR if needed. Putting Loui on LTIR has no benefit. 

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to suffolkowner's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

    Can anyone explain why loui eriksson hasn't been placed on ltir. The only thing I could think of was they didn't want to put him on ltir in case he was ready before Jan 2, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Will they just do it retroactively?

    [/QUOTE]

    it doesn't really matter if they do or not. The CBA has a provision in it that states that even with LTIR, and bonus room, a team can only exceed the cap by so much. I think it's 10% but it might be 15%. The Bruins have 4.2 million in bonuses for iginla, and I think Seidenberg is on LTIR, but even if he isn't with the young players they have that have bonuses and Savard LTIR if needed. Putting Loui on LTIR has no benefit. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Kelly is too.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to suffolkowner's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hi everyone, long time lurker here.

    Can anyone explain why loui eriksson hasn't been placed on ltir. The only thing I could think of was they didn't want to put him on ltir in case he was ready before Jan 2, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Will they just do it retroactively?

    [/QUOTE]

    it doesn't really matter if they do or not. The CBA has a provision in it that states that even with LTIR, and bonus room, a team can only exceed the cap by so much. I think it's 10% but it might be 15%. The Bruins have 4.2 million in bonuses for iginla, and I think Seidenberg is on LTIR, but even if he isn't with the young players they have that have bonuses and Savard LTIR if needed. Putting Loui on LTIR has no benefit. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Kelly is too.

    [/QUOTE]

    exactly. they're over the cushion regardless so why bother. 

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    Thanks guys.

    I did not realise that restriction existed and hence wondered why Kelly was on and Eriksson wasnt as both were injured in the same game. I didn't see Seidenberg on LTIR on capgeek yet either but maybe they haven't updated. Perhaps they do not have the room for Seidenberg on LTIR either. 10/15% of $64 million is $6.4/9.6 million. This may severely handicap Chiarelli's ability to add depth/replace Seidenberg.

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    There is no such restriction, a team can use as much LTIR relief as is needed.  Teams do not get punished like that for having too many injuries.  The limit applies only to bonus money.

    However, a team only gets extra space that it actually uses.  There is no point in placing Eriksson on LTIR unless the team takes on enough salary to exceed the cap plus the leeway they get for Savard plus what they get for Kelly.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There is no such restriction, a team can use as much LTIR relief as is needed.  Teams do not get punished like that for having too many injuries.  The limit applies only to bonus money.

    However, a team only gets extra space that it actually uses.  There is no point in placing Eriksson on LTIR unless the team takes on enough salary to exceed the cap plus the leeway they get for Savard plus what they get for Kelly.

    [/QUOTE]

    not true at all. LTIR cushion and bonus cushions combined cannot exceed 15% (it might be 10, but i'm pretty sure it's 15). this is according to cap geek. 

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    This is what I am thinking of:

    50.10(d) viii:

    No Club shall be limited in the number of times it may invoke the Bona-

    Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception in any League Year, provided

    that the Exception is at all times invoked in full compliance with this

    Section 50.10(d).

     

    That section never mentions a limit, that I can find.  I will try and look again another day.

     

    Also this :http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-does-long-term-injured-reserve-LTIR-work

    makes no mention of a limit on LTIR relief.  Where are you seing it on capgeek?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is what I am thinking of:

    50.10(d) viii:

    No Club shall be limited in the number of times it may invoke the Bona-

    Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception in any League Year, provided

    that the Exception is at all times invoked in full compliance with this

    Section 50.10(d).

     

    That section never mentions a limit, that I can find.  I will try and look again another day.

     

    Also this :http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-does-long-term-injured-reserve-LTIR-work

    makes no mention of a limit on LTIR relief.  Where are you seing it on capgeek?

    [/QUOTE]

    it isn't an restriction on LTIR specifically. It's a restriction on spending. Let's say for example (just to make the numbers really easy) that the cap is 100 million, and a team has 3 rookies with bonuses totalling 9 million. A 6 million dollar player gets hurt the previous season, and starts the year on LTIR and is replaced. The team has spent to the cap, and used all the possible LTIR and bonus cushion room. The rest of the team can get hurt for all the CBA cares, they can't spend another penny outside of emergency call ups. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    Ha, this is more complicated than I thought. I have no real desire to read the CBA, Ill leave that to someone else.

    However the numbers don't make sense.

    Capgeek has the Bruins current Bonus situation at $5.8 million. This is sure to go higher as if I recall Iginla's,Hamilton's and Krug's bonuses did not seem difficult to meet.

    Iginla bonus $4,200000

    Krug bonus   $  850000

    Hamilton       $  737000  so close to $5.8 million and I think I am low on Krug and Hamilton's number may be.

    Savard's LTIR is $4 million

    These numbers suggest that the Bruins are already over the limit which would explain why Eriksson is not on LTIR. It also suggests that there will be no replacement for Seidenberg coming unless the Bruins dump some salary.

    Does this seem right

     

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    I think it's a lot more simple than any of this.

    I may be wrong, and have no interest in researching it, but:

    If a guy goes on LTIR, he must remain out of the lineup for 9 or 10 game and three or four weeks.  If the B's are expecting him to return sooner than that, they wouldn't put him out for a mandatory time.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    I just read on twitter that he and Soderberg are skating right now, which could be a good sign!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    Davey that is great news

    NAS I think that date was Jan 2 for Kelly which should be the same for Eriksson, do not have link but remember reading that about Kelly status at the time

    I agree that reading the CBA would seem to take the fun out of the game. Although cap restraints do make it more interesting to play GM in your mind.

    From capgeek under the projection and today space it says:

    "cap space will be less than shown if Bonus exceeds 7.5% of upper limit"

    what ever the upper limit is. To me this means that there will be no replacement for Seidenberg coming unless roster players are being moved back. The only caveat I can see to that would be how much of the bonuses Chiarelli can move to next year

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to suffolkowner's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Davey that is great news

    NAS I think that date was Jan 2 for Kelly which should be the same for Eriksson, do not have link but remember reading that about Kelly status at the time

    I agree that reading the CBA would seem to take the fun out of the game. Although cap restraints do make it more interesting to play GM in your mind.

    From capgeek under the projection and today space it says:

    "cap space will be less than shown if Bonus exceeds 7.5% of upper limit"

    what ever the upper limit is. To me this means that there will be no replacement for Seidenberg coming unless roster players are being moved back. The only caveat I can see to that would be how much of the bonuses Chiarelli can move to next year

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    they have cap room. they can bring someone in if need be. 

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:

     it isn't an restriction on LTIR specifically. It's a restriction on spending. Let's say for example (just to make the numbers really easy) that the cap is 100 million, and a team has 3 rookies with bonuses totalling 9 million. A 6 million dollar player gets hurt the previous season, and starts the year on LTIR and is replaced. The team has spent to the cap, and used all the possible LTIR and bonus cushion room. The rest of the team can get hurt for all the CBA cares, they can't spend another penny outside of emergency call ups. 



    The only restriction is on the amount of bonus space leeway they get.  If they exceed that (in bonus money), it gets added to next year's cap hit.  In your scenario, every player that gets hurt could be replaced by a player with the same anual cap hit.

     

    There is nothing I have seen anywhere, in the CBA itself or on sites like capgeek, that indicates that LTIR is capped in any way; nor have I seen any kind of cumulative allowances limit.  It's a hard cap that can be exceeded up to the bonus cushion by bonuses (with the possibility of penalties for the next season) and by LTIR relief for injured players.  The first is limit by a cushion, the second is not.

    In any event Eriksson won't be on LTIR if he will be ready to come back this season, or his salary actually gets replaced before his return.  He could also be retro-actively placed on it if Kelly comes back first, and the Bruins need space.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    Exactly my thinking, not to cross over on sports or to think all concussions are similar but Welker will be back in two weeks to play for Denver.  He suffered his second a few weeks back.  I have to think Eriksson would have been placed on LTIR by the Bruins management especially in respect to Savard and Bergeron histories. 

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it's a lot more simple than any of this.

    I may be wrong, and have no interest in researching it, but:

    If a guy goes on LTIR, he must remain out of the lineup for 9 or 10 game and three or four weeks.  If the B's are expecting him to return sooner than that, they wouldn't put him out for a mandatory time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    The Bruins have current bonuses of approx $5.8 million

    current projected LTIR is approx $2.8 million

    bonuses are limited at approx $ 4.8 million

    Teams are allowed to go over the bonus limit(I think?) by 7.5% but once over the "overage amount" the equivalent money comes off any unused LTIR cap space and any additional bonus/ LTIR results in a penalty carried over to the next year.

    So the Bruins are over on the bonus cushion by $1 million and we know that LTIR will be at least $4 million (Savard) for a total of a $5 million penalty for next year(?)

    If you look at capgeek they project $3.5 million in capspace but once you click the bonus overage button it drops to $2.5 million

    I am not sure why there is 3.5/2.5 million in capspace if the Bruins need to LTIR Kelly?

    I have absolutely no confidence in any of the above statements though

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to islamorada's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly my thinking, not to cross over on sports or to think all concussions are similar but Welker will be back in two weeks to play for Denver.  He suffered his second a few weeks back.  I have to think Eriksson would have been placed on LTIR by the Bruins management especially in respect to Savard and Bergeron histories. 

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think it's a lot more simple than any of this.

    I may be wrong, and have no interest in researching it, but:

    If a guy goes on LTIR, he must remain out of the lineup for 9 or 10 game and three or four weeks.  If the B's are expecting him to return sooner than that, they wouldn't put him out for a mandatory time.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    Its my understanding that the date is Jan 2 the same for Kelly so why is Kelly on LTIR and not Eriksson? Are they waiting until the 2nd to retroactive Eriksson? That is only Tuesday's and Thursday's game, what is Eriksson's chance of playing in these games? Clearly Kelly is not going to play this week, so his LTIR contribution will continue to increase.

    http://capgeek.com/faq/how-can-LTIR-cause-bonus-overages

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    suffolkowner, take a look at the daily tracker, it may help:

    http://www.capgeek.com/bruins/tracker/

    What you are seing is that, if things remain exactly as they are (Savard on LTIR, Kelly as well, roster at what it is) they will exceed the cap by $2.77M.  If they don't hit any bonuses, they will have an additional $3.547M in LTIR relief to play with.  If Iginla is going to hit his bonuses, that may be lower.  I'm not sure why this is just over the $7M it should be for Savard+Kelly.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    suffolkowner, take a look at the daily tracker, it may help:

    http://www.capgeek.com/bruins/tracker/

    What you are seing is that, if things remain exactly as they are (Savard on LTIR, Kelly as well, roster at what it is) they will exceed the cap by $2.77M.  If they don't hit any bonuses, they will have an additional $3.547M in LTIR relief to play with.  If Iginla is going to hit his bonuses, that may be lower.  I'm not sure why this is just over the $7M it should be for Savard+Kelly.

    [/QUOTE]

    DRCC the problem is the bonuses for Iginla, Hamilton, and Krug are pretty much guaranteed. I dont have them in front of me but I remember that they were pretty easy to hit so unless the bruins lose Iginla to LTI (not LTIR) the Bruins will be $1 million over the bonus cushion and that $1 million counts towards this years cap. Capgeek accounts for that but you have to click the box on each page. You can also see that on the opening page where the Bruins are explicitly starred and on every (?) where the cap room is listed

     

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

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    That's right, and what happens is first that overage would go towards any unused actual cap space (which the Bruins don't have), then it becomes a penalty for next season.  LTIR relief cannot be used to handle bonus money overages.  They should still be able to use that relief for actual player salary, if needed.

    You've actually seen what the bonus conditions are?  They generally aren't released.  I would assume Iginla's are pretty easy to get, I didn't think Hamilton's or Krug's were though.  That bonus calculation also includes Spooner (who could still be on the vasrsity) and Fraser (who likely won't); though both have pretty small bonus numbers.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from suffolkowner. Show suffolkowner's posts

    Re: loui eriksson ltir

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's right, and what happens is first that overage would go towards any unused actual cap space (which the Bruins don't have), then it becomes a penalty for next season.  LTIR relief cannot be used to handle bonus money overages.  They should still be able to use that relief for actual player salary, if needed.

    You've actually seen what the bonus conditions are?  They generally aren't released.  I would assume Iginla's are pretty easy to get, I didn't think Hamilton's or Krug's were though.  That bonus calculation also includes Spooner (who could still be on the vasrsity) and Fraser (who likely won't); though both have pretty small bonus numbers.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah whats throwing me is the part on capgeek that seems to suggest that not all of the bonus overage can be transferred to the next year. Clearly playoff bonuses must be. Obviously the Bruins do not want to accumulate more overage which is why Eriksson and Seidenberg have not been LTIR'ed (I could be wrong, we'll know by the end of the week, and/or capgeek could just be slow in updating).

    Not the actual contracts obviously just what was reported. I remember thinking at the time that they were not unrealistic in terms of Hamilton, a little too easy for Iginla and while I don't remember Krugs at all I do remember seeing them. Too be honest I never expected Krug to play more than that 1 game for the Bruins. Iginla's were widely reported at the time of his signing and should be the easiest to track down.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share