Salary Cap: Contracts and Salary Cap (Contract Info in Posts #1 & #2)

[Hunter Gathers]

Fehr did a good job looking out for the big market teams and the players.

Well, the big market teams were basically aligned with the players (they were so far to that side that you may as well say that -- they want a large cap with freedom to move contracts). So it makes sense.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.

Agreed.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.

That language makes it sound like Philly will be on the hook for Carter/Richards.

1. Applies to existing deals
2. "the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract."

 

[Cliffy1814]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that Redden's attractive for cap floor purposes. If it happens, it would happen in exchange for a (much) more expensive buyout candidate. Wade will be owed peanuts next season (in real dollars) compared to some of the other potential candidates. Saving 8 figures on a buyout would be very attractive, especially to small market owners.

(Of course, one thing we don't yet know is if this is even possible - if I'm not mistaken, under the NBA CBA you could only buy out a player who was on your roster at the time of the CBA signing.)

I only find three players that fit the criteria above (which makes sense)
Wisnewski is owned $27m , Umburger $23m, and Ville Leiono about $23m. If the intention of those teams is to buy the player out next summer, they could trade them for Redden (only owed $13m) and save thmselves significant cash by buying him out instead. From Ranger perspective, if those players don't pan out it's not a big deal as you can buy them out next summer anyway.
Actually, I can see Wisnewski or Umburger fitting in fairly well.

 

[Thirty One]

So the team that signed the player to the contract is on the hook for the charge if the player ends his career before the conclusion of the deal? That seems crazy. If you acquire a player in a trade you ought to then be responsible for all future charges, IMO.

I guess that's a mechanism to make sure that the team that signed the circumventing deal gets punished. Otherwise the Wild could trade Suter and Parise to a cap-floor team (who view the cap benefit recapture hit as an asset) minutes before they retire.

 

[Thirty One]

That language makes it sound like Philly will be on the hook for Carter/Richards.

1. Applies to existing deals
2. "the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract."

Oh God I hope so.

 

[The Gloaming]

Wait. Does this mean that Philly carries Carter's and Richards' cap hit?

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Wait. Does this mean that Philly carries Carter's and Richards' cap hit?

Nothing is official but it sounds like they would carry the retirement cap charge if/when they retire under their current deals.

 

[iamitter]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Here's how salary cap will function in this CBA: It will be 15% above the midpoint, to a minimum of $8-million and maximum of $14-million.

ie. Midpoint is 60 mil. Cap is 69 mil.

 

[Thirty One]

Wait. Does this mean that Philly carries Carter's and Richards' cap hit?

No, they may (still unclear) carry a cap benefit recapture charge if they retire before their contracts expire.

Richards contract expires when he's 35 and Carter's when he is 37, so I'd say it's unlikely, anyways.

 

[NYR Viper]

Wait. Does this mean that Philly carries Carter's and Richards' cap hit?

If they retire during this deal than I believe that would be the case, yes.

 

[MadHookUp]

I like that it hurts the team that signed him to the insane contract. That way if New Jersey traded Kovy to a team trying to reach the cap floor, and Kovy retired 2 minutes after the trade was completed, New Jersey still takes the hit. I think the teams that got around the cap like this should be punished.

 

[nyr2k2]

I guess that's a mechanism to make sure that the team that signed the circumventing deal gets punished. Otherwise the Wild could trade Suter and Parise to a cap-floor team (who view the cap benefit recapture hit as an asset) minutes before they retire.

I like that it hurts the team that signed him to the insane contract. That way if New Jersey traded Kovy to a team trying to reach the cap floor, and Kovy retired 2 minutes after the trade was completed, New Jersey still takes the hit. I think the teams that got around the cap like this should be punished.

Yeah that makes sense. I have trouble wrapping my feeble brain around some of this stuff.

Still, not sure I like it. I guess it's just because I dislike the cap and don't mind "circumvention" attempts.

 

[Tawnos]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle


ie. Midpoint is 60 mil. Cap is 69 mil.

Only true if revenue is over 3.55B. If it is less, the midpoint+15% is less than $64.3m and the minimum ceiling kicks into effect. Sounds like the floor will still be midpoint-15% in that case.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeah that makes sense. I have trouble wrapping my feeble brain around some of this stuff.

Still, not sure I like it. I guess it's just because I dislike the cap and don't mind "circumvention" attempts.

I am in the same boat. IMHO, the cap should be a soft cap with revenue sharing toing to small market teams. Let the Rangers pay a 150M salary if they want. Just that 80M of that above the 70M soft cap would then be doubled and paid into a revenue sharing pool (160M would be paid by the Rangers to a revenue sharing pool in my world).

It would allow teams to spend as much as they want and still benefit the **** market teams that shouldn't exist.

 

[Leetch3]

its a joke to make rules retroactive and punish teams for doing things that were allowed under the old cba

 

[iamitter]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

Teams will be able to retain salary/cap hit in a trade. This will be a very complex and carefully worded portion of new CBA I'm sure.

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288374375911129088

 

[Leetch3]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288374375911129088

thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.

 

[Tawnos]

thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.

The wording sounds like it's going to say that the recapture hits the original team, no matter who the guy retires with.

 

[Thirty One]

thats a life-saver for anyone potentially hit with cap hits after guys retire...depending on how it works, it might let us trade the dead cap space richards creates if he retires to a team that wants to get to the floor without actually spending.

Doubt you'll be able to do that.

 

[iamitter]

I wonder which it is - can you retain salary in a trade? Can you retain cap hit?

If we're at the trade deadline, can the acquiring team absorb the full salary but only half the cap hit? That has the potential to stack some teams.

On the flip side, can you trade away players and keep paying them in part while the new team gets the full cap hit but only part of the salary?

Maybe both?

 

[Tawnos]

I wonder which it is - can you retain salary in a trade? Can you retain cap hit?

If we're at the trade deadline, can the acquiring team absorb the full salary but only half the cap hit? That has the potential to stack some teams.

On the flip side, can you trade away players and keep paying them in part while the new team gets the full cap hit but only part of the salary?

Maybe both?

It's going to be both. You're not going to be able to do one without the other. It's going to be maximum 50% for contracts under $6m or $3m for contracts over $6m, it sounds like. You pay both the salary and take the cap hit.

If a guy is making $4m, but his cap hit is $5m, then if you're paying 50% you take on $2m in salary and a $2.5m cap hit. It's the only logical way to do it.

 

[Thirty One]

I wonder which it is - can you retain salary in a trade? Can you retain cap hit?

If we're at the trade deadline, can the acquiring team absorb the full salary but only half the cap hit? That has the potential to stack some teams.

On the flip side, can you trade away players and keep paying them in part while the new team gets the full cap hit but only part of the salary?

Maybe both?

No to both.

Early indications were that you could assume a portion of the cap hit relative to the salary you're paying.

 

[Hire Sather]

Honestly, with it coming out that the retired players thing counting against the cap it really makes it a possibility to buy out Richards in summer 2014..

I realize this is a silly conversation to have now, especially if his next 2 years are top notch, but none of us here see Richards being nearly as effective after 5-6 years of this deal. It would be wise to replace that money with a player in his prime and not have to worry about Richards' aging process.

I doubt it happens though if Richards has (hopefully) two good seasons coming up here

 

[Thirty One]

Honestly, with it coming out that the retired players thing counting against the cap it really makes it a possibility to buy out Richards in summer 2014.

Yeah, but we're still unclear if you will be able to use the amnesty in the summers of 2013 and 2014, or just 2013.