Dumpster Flyers
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2006
- 5,931
- 1,233
Speculation: Immediately trading a UFA signing and retaining salary. Legal?
- Thread starter Dumpster Flyers
- Start date
Suntouchable13
Registered User
I don't know for sure, but definitely sounds like cap circumvention to me. Don't think teams are allowed to do this.
Drumman44
Kyle Beach Deserved Better
- May 2, 2017
- 1,956
- 2,829
You even get yelled at in NHL22 for doing this
Harvey Birdman
…Need some law books, with pictures this time…
I’m not sure if it’s allowed under the CBA or not. But you’d look like an utter piece of shit organization if the player wasn’t onboard for where you were sending him. 
seroes
Registered User
Even if you could, why would a team do that? They would need to give up a kings ransom to get a team to retain for the length of a contract.
If my memory serves me correct teams have to keep players around for X amount of time or games when they sign them as UFAs. That way it stops teams from singing a player just to immediately trade them.
The one exception that I can think of is Montreal with Zach Kassian. Then again that might have been a contract termination.
The one exception that I can think of is Montreal with Zach Kassian. Then again that might have been a contract termination.
Dumpster Flyers
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2006
- 5,931
- 1,233
I'm assuming the player agreed to it beforehand haha.I’m not sure if it’s allowed under the CBA or not. But you’d look like an utter piece of shit organization if the player wasn’t onboard for where you were sending him.
Dumpster Flyers
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2006
- 5,931
- 1,233
Let's say contenders are only willing to pay $7M for a player but he feels he's worth $9M. So he signs with a rebuilding team for $9M on the condition he'd be traded before the start of the season to a team on his limited NMC, then the rebuilding team trades him for picks and youth. Everybody wins!
Captain97
Registered User
Djp
Registered User
League Blocks this trade and severely fines teams involved
If it's not allowed it really should be, league allows pure retention for assets with having a 3rd team involved in trades just to eat salary. Doesn't seem much different then that.
seroes
Registered User
That's alot of picks and youth for 2 million over what sounds like at least 3 years.Let's say contenders are only willing to pay $7M for a player but he feels he's worth $9M. So he signs with a rebuilding team for $9M on the condition he'd be traded before the start of the season to a team on his limited NMC, then the rebuilding team trades him for picks and youth. Everybody wins!
Djp
Registered User
No
its anticompetitive just using teams to retain salaries just to maintain the cap floor requirements.
a team like say Ottawa could do large retentions on say 3 players fir 15% of the cap ( CBA max) thrn actually put out there a $46M or so team of actual players.
it’s no different than trading a player, he gets bought out, thrn original team resigns him.
same with team trading a player then getting him back.
RCPXP
Registered User
pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,482
- 2,762
If it was pre-arranged, it's cap circumvention.I’m not sure if it’s allowed under the CBA or not. But you’d look like an utter piece of shit organization if the player wasn’t onboard for where you were sending him.
If it wasn't, it kills your chance of ever, ever, signing another UFA. And still reeks of cap circumvention.
jbeck5
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2009
- 16,791
- 3,652
The premise makes sense.
Toronto wants to sign 5 million dollar player but only have 3 million cap space.
All 3 parties aware of what's going on.
"Hey Arizona, sign buddy to a 3 year-5 mil contact and trade him to us half retained for a second and a prospect"
Why Arizona does it? They are rebuilding and need to reach the floor. A 2nd and a good prospect help rebuild.
Why does Toronto do it? Because they can effectively get a better roster than what the cap would allow through another team retaining.
This is actually a very good question. Well done OP.
Akrapovince
Registered User
- May 19, 2017
- 3,859
- 4,350
Not sure a player would be quite too happy to be traded from a destination where they wanted to play.
Think about it this way, if you finally had some rights as an unrestricted free agent, why would you let someone else decide your fate? Even if it was a coordinated effort, it makes no sense.
Example: If I wanted to play in Edmonton, why would I sign in Minnesota just for them to trade me to that destination and have my team that I will eventually play on lose assets?
EDIT nvm misunderstood but seems like clear cap circumvention
Think about it this way, if you finally had some rights as an unrestricted free agent, why would you let someone else decide your fate? Even if it was a coordinated effort, it makes no sense.
Example: If I wanted to play in Edmonton, why would I sign in Minnesota just for them to trade me to that destination and have my team that I will eventually play on lose assets?
EDIT nvm misunderstood but seems like clear cap circumvention
uncleben
Global Moderator
Don't think there is anything explicit against it in the CBA, but the League can intervene if they feel a contract was made in bad faith
seroes
Registered User
I’m really racking my brain trying to figure out which 7th defender we are trying to get. So many options
2 aspects: what should be and what actually is....
In theory, if player signs as ufa and does not have juice to dictate NMC [or limited ntc applicable here] as part of his deal, then it appears he has contractually given permission for this.
And this is something that happens -- a player acquired via ufa signing -- being dealt w/retention; it just doesn't happen to minutes after the signing.
In theory a team ultimately wanting and trading for a player would sign him and not pay assets, but the kicker here is the signing team is able to retain, and the cost of the retention in dollars and cap space is doable + worth acquiring the assets the suitor coughed up.
Should not be illegal but league office may not see it that way.
In theory, if player signs as ufa and does not have juice to dictate NMC [or limited ntc applicable here] as part of his deal, then it appears he has contractually given permission for this.
And this is something that happens -- a player acquired via ufa signing -- being dealt w/retention; it just doesn't happen to minutes after the signing.
In theory a team ultimately wanting and trading for a player would sign him and not pay assets, but the kicker here is the signing team is able to retain, and the cost of the retention in dollars and cap space is doable + worth acquiring the assets the suitor coughed up.
Should not be illegal but league office may not see it that way.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
me2
Go ahead foot
I don't see how it is call circumvention of the entire cap hit is accounted for, which it would be (split over two teams but combined it is still accounted for).
If the league doesn't step in when teams trade players to other teams to be brought out, I'm not sure why it should step in here.
Djp
Registered User
the league must approve of a deal fir it to be legal
they don’t approve it
its not legal
