307 replies to this topic

[nfreeman]

apuszczalowski, on 11 January 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Is it possible to keep just half the Salary, or just half the cap hit?

No -- the team "keeping" the salary has to keep the same % of the cap hit.  So if you're trading a player with a $7MM salary and a $5MM cap hit, and keeping 50% of the salary -- you're also keeping a $2.5MM cap hit.

[shrader]

nfreeman, on 11 January 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Thanks chz.

Shrader:  I think some game-playing is possible -- because a rich team (like, say, the Sabres) could trade for someone else's overpriced player, taking 100% of that player's cash and cap hit in the deal, and then turn around and trade that same player to a less-wealthy team in a deal in which the Sabres keep half of the salary and cap hit.

In that situation -- especially if the cash is higher than the cap hit -- the Sabres would essentially be adding cash to a deal to sweeten the pot for a less-wealthy team -- maybe to get back someone the less-wealthy team couldn't afford to keep.

I'm not counting on Darcy to pull off any cutting-edge maneuvers like this, though, but I think someone will do it at some point.

They are always going to find ways to cheat the system.  At least they closed one opportunity here.  Also, I do remember seeing that there is a limit to the total amount of hit/money they are allowed to involve in trades.  That may help to prevent what you're suggesting.

[Taro T]

Spndnchz, on 11 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Both are split at whatever percent (up to 50%) the teams agree to.

$7 million cap
$5 million salary at trade with 50%

Would be 3.5 cap hit and 2.5 salary.  Cap hit would stay the same but salary $ could change.

That's my understanding as well.

1 additional Q.

Does the salary / cap hit retention: (a) only count for that season or (b) does it go forward for the rest of the contract or © could it be a mix & match:  Team A trades away n's hypothetical $10MM / $7MM player before (rather than during, to keep the math simple) year 4 of 7 year deal and keeps 50% of salary and cap hit in year 4 & 5 and then 100% goes to the other team in years 6 & 7?  My guess is that it would be (b).

shrader, on 11 January 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

They are always going to find ways to cheat the system.  At least they closed one opportunity here.  Also, I do remember seeing that there is a limit to the total amount of hit/money they are allowed to involve in trades.  That may help to prevent what you're suggesting.

I've seen teams can keep up to 50% of salary/cap hit for up to 3 players.

No data on whether that retained salary/cap hit can then be a tradable commodity itself.  I'd guess it isn't but haven't heard either way.  Chz - any light to shed on that one as well?

[apuszczalowski]

nfreeman, on 11 January 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

No -- the team "keeping" the salary has to keep the same % of the cap hit.  So if you're trading a player with a $7MM salary and a $5MM cap hit, and keeping 50% of the salary -- you're also keeping a $2.5MM cap hit.

Thats what I assumed, I just didn't know if it was a possibilty as I could see that being a loophole some teams might make work

[shrader]

Taro T, on 11 January 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

I've seen teams can keep up to 50% of salary/cap hit for up to 3 players.

No data on whether that retained salary/cap hit can then be a tradable commodity itself.  I'd guess it isn't but haven't heard either way.  Chz - any light to shed on that one as well?

I thought I saw that it was a cumulative percentage, but I'm not entirely sure where I saw that.

[Spndnchz]

Taro T, on 11 January 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

That's my understanding as well.

1 additional Q.

Does the salary / cap hit retention: (a) only count for that season or (b) does it go forward for the rest of the contract or © could it be a mix & match:  Team A trades away n's hypothetical $10MM / $7MM player before (rather than during, to keep the math simple) year 4 of 7 year deal and keeps 50% of salary and cap hit in year 4 & 5 and then 100% goes to the other team in years 6 & 7?  My guess is that it would be (b).


I've seen teams can keep up to 50% of salary/cap hit for up to 3 players.

No data on whether that retained salary/cap hit can then be a tradable commodity itself.  I'd guess it isn't but haven't heard either way.  Chz - any light to shed on that one as well?

As in Sabres trade player X and keep half the cap hit and then later with a different trade of player y the other team takes player x's retained cap hit?  Haven't seen that.  Would be too close to paying cash IMO.

I also think that if player x gets traded and the new team trades him again, his contract could be split up again with the third team.  But the first team would still be on the hook for the first trade cap hit/salary.  Kinda like re-entry waivers.

[Taro T]

Spndnchz, on 11 January 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

As in Sabres trade player X and keep half the cap hit and then later with a different trade of player y the other team takes player x's retained cap hit?  Haven't seen that.  Would be too close to paying cash IMO.

I also think that if player x gets traded and the new team trades him again, his contract could be split up again with the third team.  But the first team would still be on the hook for the first trade cap hit/salary.  Kinda like re-entry waivers.

Thanks.  That answers the q in my reply to Shrader.

Any thoughts on the 1st Q, whether a team keeping salary/eating cap room does it only for that season or for the life of the contract or if it could be for a portion of the life of the contract?  My guess was that it was for the life of the contract, but haven't seen the question addressed yet.

[Spndnchz]

Taro T, on 11 January 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Thanks.  That answers the q in my reply to Shrader.

Any thoughts on the 1st Q, whether a team keeping salary/eating cap room does it only for that season or for the life of the contract or if it could be for a portion of the life of the contract?  My guess was that it was for the life of the contract, but haven't seen the question addressed yet.

Big trivia question here:

You trade a player and retain, say, 40% of a 4 million salary ($1.6 million).
Come this summer or next, for whatever reason, the new team buys out the contract.

Is the previous team responsible for 40% of the buy out?

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Spndnchz, on 11 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Big trivia question here:

You trade a player and retain, say, 40% of a 4 million salary ($1.6 million).
Come this summer or next, for whatever reason, the new team buys out the contract.

Is the previous team responsible for 40% of the buy out?

I can almost guarantee that these idiots didn't consider this in the final CBA.

for a bunch of Lawyers, they are awesome at missing details like this.

[nfreeman]

LastPommerFan, on 11 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I can almost guarantee that these idiots didn't consider this in the final CBA.

for a bunch of Lawyers, they are awesome at missing details like this.

Whoa, big fella.  It's a very questionable logical leap to make an assumption about something and then criticize people (who generally are skilled professionals) based on that assumption.  I would guess that you wouldn't want people taking similar shots at your work product.

[shrader]

Spndnchz, on 11 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Big trivia question here:

You trade a player and retain, say, 40% of a 4 million salary ($1.6 million).
Come this summer or next, for whatever reason, the new team buys out the contract.

Is the previous team responsible for 40% of the buy out?

And along those lines, what if someone retires or goes on LTIR?  I would hope it is structured so that if you agree to take on money/cap in a trade, you are forced to take that cap hit no matter what happens.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

nfreeman, on 11 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Whoa, big fella.  It's a very questionable logical leap to make an assumption about something and then criticize people (who generally are skilled professionals) based on that assumption.  I would guess that you wouldn't want people taking similar shots at your work product.

Me thinks you were away from the board for too long and your sarcasm meter is rusty.


EDIT TO ADD:

Edited by Sabres Fan In NS, 11 January 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

nfreeman, on 11 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Whoa, big fella.  It's a very questionable logical leap to make an assumption about something and then criticize people (who generally are skilled professionals) based on that assumption.  I would guess that you wouldn't want people taking similar shots at your work product.

This board was created to make assumptions about people who are professionals and then criticize them.

The life of anyone who works in manufacturing is basically a series of conversations where design engineers and sales people make assumptions about the grunts in the factory and then criticize our work. I love it.

Sabres Fan In NS, on 11 January 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Me thinks you were away from the board for too long and your sarcasm meter is rusty.

No I'm being serious. It's like the last CBA where they didn't have a method adjusting cap hit relative to decades long contracts.

[Taro T]

Spndnchz, on 11 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Big trivia question here:

You trade a player and retain, say, 40% of a 4 million salary ($1.6 million).
Come this summer or next, for whatever reason, the new team buys out the contract.

Is the previous team responsible for 40% of the buy out?

I would expect that the previous team would be on the hook for 40% of the original deal and the original cap hit.  I'd hope the league doesn't cut that original team slack because the next team wanted out.

As there was talk near the time the 2 sides reached the deal that on a case like that where an over 35 traded player retires during the contract that both teams take the full cap hit for that, I'd have to believe the original team would be on the hook for minimum 40% of the buyout.

[Punch]

wonderbread, on 06 January 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Can we start to Doan thread back up.

There were a lot of snarky comments in that thread by the anti-Doan contingent (not that many of their concerns weren't legitimate--- they were) mocking Doan's PaulBunyon/Pecos Bill/John Henry style mythology. Recalling that made me laugh when I read this Globe & Mail story essentially crediting Doan's character and integrity with ending the lockout:

"The untold story: How Shane Doan’s sincerity paved way to the deal"
http://www.theglobea...article7270557/

[Spndnchz]

Punch, on 11 January 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

There were a lot of snarky comments in that thread by the anti-Doan contingent (not that many of their concerns weren't legitimate--- they were) mocking Doan's PaulBunyon/Pecos Bill/John Henry style mythology. Recalling that made me laugh when I read this Globe & Mail story essentially crediting Doan's character and integrity with ending the lockout:

"The untold story: How Shane Doan’s sincerity paved way to the deal"
http://www.theglobea...article7270557/

Just read that.

Quote

There was a feeling Bettman was under increasing pressure from some owners, sponsors and the NBC television network to make sure the season was not lost. By the early hours of Jan. 6, the players thought, Bettman and the owners felt they were running out of time to get a deal to save a 48-game season, so they decided to move.

[wjag]

So it's official.. Players ratify CBA...  Both sides still need to sign MOU for it to be signed, sealed and delivered....

Edited by wjag, 12 January 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[DGW54321]

wjag, on 12 January 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

So it's official.. Players ratify CBA...  Both sides still need to sign MOU for it to be signed, sealed and delivered....

OK....release the game schedule!

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

DGW54321, on 12 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

OK....release the game schedule!

23-20-5


You're welcome  

[Vanek-Man]

Quote

Told Memo of Understanding should be completed and signed "very soon" #nhl #nhlpa

https://twitter.com/...293452598571010

Wonder if schedule will still be released tonight? Two hours after MOU is signed, Hecht will officially be a Sabre again.

MOU signed.

Schedule release is IMMINENT.

[DGW54321]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 12 January 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

23-20-5


You're welcome  

Thanks....now how about the playoffs?

Edit...saw on another site that the schedule will be released by about 11:30 pm eastern time.

Edited by DGW54321, 12 January 2013 - 10:27 PM.

[Spndnchz]

Done.  Trades can start at midnight.

[BRAWNDO]

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
NHL Lockout: Sept. 15, 2012 - Jan. 12, 2013. Now over. Officially. MOU signed by NHL and NHLPA.


Yeah!!!

[TheChimp]

I almost forgot my login name and password here lol

[Sabres Fan In NS]

TheChimp, on 13 January 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

I almost forgot my login name and password here lol

So glad you remembered it.

Welcome back my friend.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

Looks like 12 players voted against the new CBA ...

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...tification.html

I wonder who they are?

I could see two being Redden and Gomez, maybe.

[sizzlemeister]

In before the lock!

The lock-out is dead, all hail the lock-out!

[apuszczalowski]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 13 January 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Looks like 12 players voted against the new CBA ...

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...tification.html

I wonder who they are?

I could see two being Redden and Gomez, maybe.

Cole of the Canadians would be one of them, he is alreqady talking retirement next season because of the CBA