Can two teams collude?

[tarheelhockey]

but you are allowed to retain salary? isn't that in itself skirting the cap?

That's not defeating or circumventing the intent of the CBA.

 

[bobbyt911]

That's not defeating or circumventing the intent of the CBA.

maybe not to the same level as I talk about in the OP but if a team is supposed to have no more than X cap but they have a bunch being paid by other clubs on deals that include salary retention isn't it similar? Wait as a whole its all good cuz what ever Team A is saving team B is paying against the cap so all the $$ is accounted for unlike the sit with the front loaded deals.

 

[Church of Toews*]

Look at LA and Columbus their recent trades is the closet thing to one team helping another

 

[MarkGio]

Game theory.

The Commissioner is given his role to oversee parity where individuals cannot. The league would turn into a 10 team apocalypse of it's former self if collusion like this was allowed.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Look at LA and Columbus their recent trades is the closet thing to one team helping another

Aren't trades always supposed to benefit both party's.

I thought that was the general idea

 

[tarheelhockey]

maybe not to the same level as I talk about in the OP but if a team is supposed to have no more than X cap but they have a bunch being paid by other clubs on deals that include salary retention isn't it similar?

Put another way -- teams aren't allowed to do something which skirts the intention of the CBA. The intention of the CBA is to have salary retention as an option for making trades easier, but not to allow teams to use it as a loophole.

The circumvention section is basically a catch-all that provides authority to overrule any loophole. That's why the league was able to step in and put a stop to the frontloaded contracts, without having to negotiate a new CBA first.

Wait as a whole its all good cuz what ever Team A is saving team B is paying against the cap so all the $$ is accounted for unlike the sit with the front loaded deals.

That's exactly right, from a league-wide perspective it all balances out.

 

[bobbyt911]

Put another way -- teams aren't allowed to do something which skirts the intention of the CBA. The intention of the CBA is to have salary retention as an option for making trades easier, but not to allow teams to use it as a loophole.

The circumvention section is basically a catch-all that provides authority to overrule any loophole. That's why the league was able to step in and put a stop to the frontloaded contracts, without having to negotiate a new CBA first.



That's exactly right, from a league-wide perspective it all balances out.

so I wonder where the line is? say if a team hold some cap to make a guy more appealing is OK but if a team hold cap so a player can fit under the acquiring teams cap I wonder at what amount of $$ being held the NHL will say no to much$$ actually is there a limit to the amount of yrs a team can hold salary? or is it half as in half the cap hit for the duration or half the cap hit for half the duration? and is it still half for massive 7 mil+ contracts?

 

[tarheelhockey]

so I wonder where the line is? say if a team hold some cap to make a guy more appealing is OK but if a team hold cap so a player can fit under the acquiring teams cap I wonder at what amount of $$ being held the NHL will say no to much$$ actually is there a limit to the amount of yrs a team can hold salary? or is it half as in half the cap hit for the duration or half the cap hit for half the duration? and is it still half for massive 7 mil+ contracts?

Up to half the cap hit for the entire duration of the contract. No ceiling for an individual contract -- it's up to the two GMs to negotiate a number that works for both of them. As long as it's done in good faith within the system, there shouldn't be an issue with the league.

 

[El Nino 22]

Sometimes I would do this on NHL 14 season mode.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Up to half the cap hit for the entire duration of the contract. No ceiling for an individual contract -- it's up to the two GMs to negotiate a number that works for both of them. As long as it's done in good faith within the system, there shouldn't be an issue with the league.

Can two different teams retain salary on the same player?

Ex: Richards @ 50% retained + 2nd to Edmonton for whatever, then Edmonton trades RIchards to a contender at 50% of whatever's left on his contract, effectively 1.4-ish million?

I'd imagine a contract can only get retained once, or there's a 50% total retention cap on it, as in you can only retain 2.5 of a 5 million dollar cap hit regardless if one team retains all 2.5 or team A retains 2 and team B retains 0.5. Otherwise this is hugely open to abuse where cap-floor teams can essentially sell cap space for assets and contenders can pick up overpaid stars at 25% of their cap hit through a middleman.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

wow talk about a political situation. From what I read it was blocked by Stern the owner more than Stern the comish. Because it would have sent to much salary to the Hornets and made them harder to sell.

I'm confused, Stern was an owner and the commish or there are 2 Sterns?

 

[DutchShamrock]

Bettman vetoed a Rangers/Isles trade for Ziggy Palfy based around some players, cash, and I may have it wrong, but games carried on MSG.

But he has vetoed trades before. Collusion wouldn't fly.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

What if.

Toronto being a rich team wants gold ol Canadian Ontarion boy Stamkos. They are near the salary cap. So they say to Ottawa what if you sign Stamkos to a 14 million 7 year deal and pay 50% (7 million)
In a trade
For Morgan Reilly and 4 first rounders.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can two different teams retain salary on the same player?

Yep, a single player can have his salary retained by two different teams. It's honestly not clear to me whether the 50% cap is in total or per transaction.

While this may theoretically open the door for abuse like you described in the rest of your post, there's always 26.3 hanging over the GMs if they try to manipulate the system. The league can just say "no" and that's that.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Yep, a single player can have his salary retained by two different teams. It's honestly not clear to me whether the 50% cap is in total or per transaction.

While this may theoretically open the door for abuse like you described in the rest of your post, there's always 26.3 hanging over the GMs if they try to manipulate the system. The league can just say "no" and that's that.

Gotta wait on a Kovulchuk-level precedent setter on that I guess. Mixing salary retention and buy-outs too actually. You could really screw a team over if they're expecting 4 years of salary retention on a contract that ends up being a 7+ year buyout.

 

[nothingbutrum]

What if.

Toronto being a rich team wants gold ol Canadian Ontarion boy Stamkos. They are near the salary cap. So they say to Ottawa what if you sign Stamkos to a 14 million 7 year deal and pay 50% (7 million)
In a trade
For Morgan Reilly and 4 first rounders.

Toronto needs to add big time (and get bent at the same time)

 

[bobbyt911]

I'm confused, Stern was an owner and the commish or there are 2 Sterns?

from the little I read the NBA owned the Hornets like how the NHL owned the Yotes and it was Stern with the owner hat that vetoed the trade cuz of too much salary coming back to the Hornets making them harder to sell.

 

[bobbyt911]

Yep, a single player can have his salary retained by two different teams. It's honestly not clear to me whether the 50% cap is in total or per transaction.

While this may theoretically open the door for abuse like you described in the rest of your post, there's always 26.3 hanging over the GMs if they try to manipulate the system. The league can just say "no" and that's that.

I would be very interested to see something like that just to see A) how it works and B) If its allowed

 

[CrypTic]

I would be very interested to see something like that just to see A) how it works and B) If its allowed

The CBA language is pretty clear in allowing two teams to retain salary on a particular player (IMO anyway). It is not clear if the 50% applies to each transaction (so 75% in total for two, which is the max per contract). The way it is worded suggests to me that the 50% applies per transaction but the CBA is not clearly worded (IMO) and it is easiest to understand when examples are provided. Unfortunately, it does not give an example of this.

I would also like to know the answer to this Q. I was trying to figure out how that would work for a contract like Richards or Clarkson.

Gotta wait on a Kovulchuk-level precedent setter on that I guess. Mixing salary retention and buy-outs too actually. You could really screw a team over if they're expecting 4 years of salary retention on a contract that ends up being a 7+ year buyout.

Yeah, this has to give a lot of teams pause when thinking about retaining salary on a player who might be bought out later. They'd get a lower cap hit but it could be for a longer time and could really mess with their planning.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

I don't think GMs would even try this. Risk getting screwed in 5 years when the other team (who maybe has a new GM at that point) doesn't honour the agreement, and risk alienating every other GM in the league who refuses to deal with you anymore.

You not only have to worry about the other guy ripping you off in 5 years. What are the odds both guys would still have their jobs in 5 years?

There is no upside for anyone to try this, all risk and no reward for one team.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

The CBA language is pretty clear in allowing two teams to retain salary on a particular player (IMO anyway). It is not clear if the 50% applies to each transaction (so 75% in total for two, which is the max per contract). The way it is worded suggests to me that the 50% applies per transaction but the CBA is not clearly worded (IMO) and it is easiest to understand when examples are provided. Unfortunately, it does not give an example of this.

I would also like to know the answer to this Q. I was trying to figure out how that would work for a contract like Richards or Clarkson.

That or trading a player to a team for a 7th, then having them retain salary and trade him back to you for assets (possibly through a middleman, I remember something against these kinds of trades being mentioned).

Really, even just rebuilding teams overpaying top UFAs by 10% of whatever the next closest offer was (on a short term contract at least) and then trading them at the deadline at 50% retained for huge returns.

Player gets paid, gets to play for a contender. Rebuilding team fans get to watch top players until the deadline they wouldn't otherwise see and get a boatload of assets at the deadline. Contenders get to add top talent for playoff runs that they couldn't previously afford. Seems like everyone involved wins.

I think we may be in for interesting loophole abuse with salary retention.