Is Brooks Orpik's new contract cap circumvention?

[Nico the Draft Riser]

While it is not neccesary for the teams to have colluded on the matter (if they did make a trade with intent to buyout and then sign, itd be illegal), the following is true:

Brooks Orpik was originally signed by Washington to a 5.5m cap hit until July 1, 2019. Brooks Orpik is now signed by Washington to a 1m cap hit until July 1, 2019.

Is it a legal loophole to renegotiate a contract? Agreement between Colorado and Washington theories aside, should Brooks Orpik have even had the chance to sign again with Washington before July 1, 2019 (when his original contract would have ended)?

Click to read more...

 

[VoluntaryDom]

I have no issues with it.

Also ur a devils fan pls remove rags avatar

 

[Midnight Judges]

I am curious what is the rationale for the 'no' voters.

We all knew this was going to happen, or at least that it was likely. Smells like cookie...

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

I am curious what is the rationale for the 'no' voters.

We all knew this was going to happen, or at least that it was likely. Smells like cookie...

I think most of their rationales is since it didnt break a rule its fine

But in reality I think its a simple case of a team realizing a potential loophole that most either didnt know ir didnt want to tread towards. The fact that Orpik is signed to a new contract with the same end date as his previous is extremely easy for me to determine it is circumvention, albeit legal in this current CBA

 

[North Cole]

While it is not neccesary for the teams to have colluded on the matter (if they did make a trade with intent to buyout and then sign, itd be illegal), the following is true:

Brooks Orpik was originally signed by Washington to a 5.5m cap hit until July 1, 2019. Brooks Orpik is now signed by Washington to a 1m cap hit until July 1, 2019.

Is it a legal loophole to renegotiate a contract? Agreement between Colorado and Washington theories aside, should Brooks Orpik have even had the chance to sign again with Washington before July 1, 2019 (when his original contract would have ended)?

What actually happened? They traded him to Colorado, who bought him out?

You don't give very much information, so it's hard to see the whole picture. I guess I could search it up? But if the OP is asking a thorough question, you should help to make people more informed on the whole time line of events.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

What actually happened? They traded him to Colorado, who bought him out?

You don't give very much information, so it's hard to see the whole picture. I guess I could search it up? But if the OP is asking a thorough question, you should help to make people more informed on the whole time line of events.

Just my 2 cents.

Well I gave the biggest piece of info, plus I assume most are informed and it isnt my job to do so.

Washington traded Orpik at 5.5 to Colorado, they bought him out, Washington then signed Orpik to 1m which is 4.5 lower. Both contracts were set to end July 1, 2019

 

[LarKing]

Well I gave the biggest piece of info, plus I assume most are informed and it isnt my job to do so.

Washington traded Orpik at 5.5 to Colorado, they bought him out, Washington then signed Orpik to 1m which is 4.5 lower. Both contracts were set to end July 1, 2019

You’re going to hate trying to work with people with this line of thought, trust me.

 

[North Cole]

Well I gave the biggest piece of info, plus I assume most are informed and it isnt my job to do so.

Washington traded Orpik at 5.5 to Colorado, they bought him out, Washington then signed Orpik to 1m which is 4.5 lower. Both contracts were set to end July 1, 2019

You gave no info. Other than he had two contracts with identical end dates....that's hardly ground breaking.

From what I searched up, it looks like they traded him in a package with Grubauer, so he was a cap dump. It's only cap cicumventing if you can prove that WSH knew he would be bought out by Colorado. How much of the cap hit remains in Colorado, since a portion of the buyout counts towards the cap, correct? At present they are sharing a cap hit, if this is the case. For all we know, Colorado really didn't want him, cut him, then he phoned up Washington and said, I want to play there, whom then offered him less because he's still being paid by Colorado. Which explains why he has the same term....did you expect him to sign for 1m × 3 years? The only way he signs more term is if it's more money, which Washington wouldn't pay, since they know some amount of his contract is retained on Colorado books. Sounds like Colorado is just dumb to me... so I voted no.

Can you prove that wsh knew he would be bought out? If not, then they haven't circumvented anything. If they have, then they have colluded to cap circumvention...but is it really cap circumvention? What's his current cap hit outside of the 1m?

Edit - also, if you run arundel assuming people are informed, then you don't get to complain if the results of the poll make no sense to you. The op should present relevant information to the question you asking. Not everyone follows every contract in the league and various trades.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

You’re going to hate trying to work with people with this line of thought, trust me.

Well its a forum board designed to discuss hockey. Its not like im asking random folk their opinion on random hockey matters.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

You gave no info. Other than he had two contracts with identical end dates....that's hardly ground breaking.

From what I searched up, it looks like they traded him in a package with Grubauer, so he was a cap dump. It's only cap cicumventing if you can prove that WSH knew he would be bought out by Colorado. How much of the cap hit remains in Colorado, since a portion of the buyout counts towards the cap, correct? At present they are sharing a cap hit, if this is the case. For all we know, Colorado really didn't want him, cut him, then he phoned up Washington and said, I want to play there, whom then offered him less because he's still being paid by Colorado. Which explains why he has the same term....did you expect him to sign for 1m × 3 years? The only way he signs more term is if it's more money, which Washington wouldn't pay, since they know some amount of his contract is retained on Colorado books. Sounds like Colorado is just dumb to me... so I voted no.

Can you prove that wsh knew he would be bought out? If not, then they haven't circumvented anything. If they have, then they have colluded to cap circumvention...but is it really cap cicumvention? What's his current cap hit outside of the 1m?

The bolded is NOT the only determinant of cap circumvention.
The end dates of the original contract and the current contract being the same arr clear evidence of a re-negotiation tactic via an external buyout. If a team cannot buyout and then sign that player themselves, you dont think its the exact same motive through another team?

People keep bringing up what Washington and Colorado were 'thinking', when in reality that matters very little nor could ever be help up in a court of law. The problem at hand is Washington now has Orpik at 1m not 5.5m and both contracts end on July 1, 2019. If this isnt the biggest case of legal renegotiation in the NHL's current CBA than idk what is.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

If folks think this is easily not circumvention, then I ask why has nobody done it yet during this recent CBA until now?

 

[LarKing]

I don’t really see the problem because to me this is just like paying someone extra to retain money on the player you’re getting back. They used assets for this basically.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

I don’t really see the problem because to me this is just like paying someone extra to retain money on the player you’re getting back. They used assets for this basically.

Trading Orpik to Colorado, them retaining, and then trading him back at a discounted price is not allowed as per the CBA. A team must wait an entire year.

 

[LarKing]

Trading Orpik to Colorado, them retaining, and then trading him back at a discounted price is not allowed as per the CBA. A team must wait an entire year.

Okay well maybe this isn’t what the league wants, but I don’t think there should be a rule against it if that makes sense. Don’t see a big problem here.

 

[North Cole]

The bolded is NOT the only determinant of cap circumvention.
The end dates of the original contract and the current contract being the same arr clear evidence of a re-negotiation tactic via an external buyout. If a team cannot buyout and then sign that player themselves, you dont think its the exact same motive through another team?

People keep bringing up what Washington and Colorado were 'thinking', when in reality that matters very little nor could ever be help up in a court of law. The problem at hand is Washington now has Orpik at 1m not 5.5m and both contracts end on July 1, 2019. If this isnt the biggest case of legal renegotiation in the NHL's current CBA than idk what is.

It's only a renegotiating tactic if you can prove that wsh knew in advance that Colorado would buy him out, thus by talking to Colorado and having a plan in place. It's also less likely that Colorado would give up a 2nd round pick for grubauer if this was the case.

Currently the trade is:

WASHINGTON
2nd + Orpik (1m)

COLORADO
Orpik cap hit (remainder of buyout) + Grubauer

Looks like Colorado overpaid to me.. goalies aren't worth much, is Grubauer worth a 2nd or thereabouts on his own? So he basically paid a 2nd and some cash for a goalie in order to give Orpik back for free? Annti raanta is better than Grubauer and got way less return than this. He fetched a 7th +, and was traded with Stepan...

Looks to me like Sakic wanted a goalie, potentially overpaid because he has all kinds of cap space, then bought out the player because "who cares, I have money". then WSH took advantage of this. Part of being a GM is taking advantage of what your peers give you, it's a competitive and tight business. Unless you can prove they talked about this in advance and Sakic actually told MacLellan he would buy him out so he could resign, you have nothing. It's possible that the MacLellan knew he would buy him out, but that just means he's a smart guy..

 

[ole ole]

Well I gave the biggest piece of info, plus I assume most are informed and it isnt my job to do so.

Washington traded Orpik at 5.5 to Colorado, they bought him out, Washington then signed Orpik to 1m which is 4.5 lower. Both contracts were set to end July 1, 2019

Once he was traded to Col and they bought him out his contract is void/gone/doesn't exist. Now he can sign with any team for what ever he wants.
PS I'm not sure bit i do believe he couldn't resign with Col.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

Okay well maybe this isn’t what the league wants, but I don’t think there should be a rule against it if that makes sense. Don’t see a big problem here.

The problem is this is literally the only avenue to getting a new contract on a recent player on your team. This smells more like an unknown loophole that was found and will be filled next CBA.

 

[North Cole]

Trading Orpik to Colorado, them retaining, and then trading him back at a discounted price is not allowed as per the CBA. A team must wait an entire year.

Where is it not allowed per the CBA. Which rule/article # are you citing speficially. You seem to have some idea of a time frame for the resigning period, does that come directly from the CBA?

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

Where is it not allowed per the CBA. Which rule/article # are you citing speficially. You seem to have some idea of a time frame for the resigning period, does that come directly from the CBA?

Yes it comes directly from the CBA.

"You cannot reacquire such a player for one year after the trade -- unless his contract has expired in the meantime (i.e., he became a free agent, signed a new deal, and you traded for him)." Referring to trading back for a retained player you traded prior. (This quote may not be direct but it explains the reference. If you want a literal direct quote feel free to sift through the CBA)

The avenue Orpik just took is the ONLY one allowed via the CBA and I get the hint it wasnt meant to be that way. Just like the large 10-12 year deals that were pushing the limits, this is as well. It likely will be covered in the next CBA because if it isnt it will become a norm for teams.

 

[North Cole]

Yes it comes directly from the CBA.

"You cannot reacquire such a player for one year after the trade -- unless his contract has expired in the meantime (i.e., he became a free agent, signed a new deal, and you traded for him)." Referring to trading back for a retained player you traded prior. (This quote may not be direct but it explains the reference. If you want a literal direct quote feel free to sift through the CBA)

The avenue Orpik just took is the ONLY one allowed via the CBA and I get the hint it wasnt meant to be that way. Just like the large 10-12 year deals that were pushing the limits, this is as well. It likely will be covered in the next CBA because if it isnt it will become a norm for teams.

It's possible that it's not meant to be way way, but I don't get why the NHL would change this.... It's not somehing that has the potential to happen very often, because most players being traded are not going to be immediately bought out, else why would you trade for them? This seems like a niche scenario, and not worth spending real significant time during CBA negotiations... not when they have things like... the Olympics to discuss.

I feel like you are blowing this out of proportion a little. Like you said, the avenue was available; therefore, not illegal. He was a UFA.

Also, the team buying him out is punished. Because they retain some of his cap hit, so it's less likely to occur.

 

[Silky mitts]

It's only a renegotiating tactic if you can prove that wsh knew in advance that Colorado would buy him out, thus by talking to Colorado and having a plan in place. It's also less likely that Colorado would give up a 2nd round pick for grubauer if this was the case.

Currently the trade is:

WASHINGTON
2nd + Orpik (1m)

COLORADO
Orpik cap hit (remainder of buyout) + Grubauer

Looks like Colorado overpaid to me.. goalies aren't worth much, is Grubauer worth a 2nd or thereabouts on his own? So he basically paid a 2nd and some cash for a goalie in order to give Orpik back for free? Annti raanta is better than Grubauer and got way less return than this. He fetched a 7th +, and was traded with Stepan...

Looks to me like Sakic wanted a goalie, potentially overpaid because he has all kinds of cap space, then bought out the player because "who cares, I have money". then WSH took advantage of this. Part of being a GM is taking advantage of what your peers give you, it's a competitive and tight business. Unless you can prove they talked about this in advance and Sakic actually told MacLellan he would buy him out so he could resign, you have nothing. It's possible that the MacLellan knew he would buy him out, but that just means he's a smart guy..

Grubauer signed for 3x$3.333M since he was a RFA, if the Avs thought he was worth about 3x$5M were he a 26 year old UFA, plus there weren’t a lot of guys available, looks ok for them.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

It's possible that it's not meant to be way way, but I don't get why the NHL would change this.... It's not somehing that has the potential to happen very often, because most players being traded are not going to be immediately bought out, else why would you trade for them? This seems like a niche scenario, and not worth spending real significant time during CBA negotiations... not when they have things like... the Olympics to discuss.

I feel like you are blowing this out of proportion a little. Like you said, the avenue was available; therefore, not illegal. He was a UFA.

Also, the team buying him out is punished. Because they retain some of his cap hit, so it's less likely to occur.

Its the only avenue to 'renegotiate'a contract, and a league like the NHL who for a long time has been advocates of not allowing renegotiations to promote parity and safety for players' incomes, this will turn into something Im sure of it.

This is the first ever recorded case of this type of move IIRC, so I dont doubt it will happen again. Trade a bottom feeder your overpaid middling player and then sign them back for a cheaper cap hit. No collusion required nor is there any way to prove that

 

[North Cole]

Its the only avenue to 'renegotiate'a contract, and a league like the NHL who for a long time has been advocates of not allowing renegotiations to promote parity and safety for players' incomes, this will turn into something Im sure of it.

This is the first ever recorded case of this type of move IIRC, so I dont doubt it will happen again. Trade a bottom feeder your overpaid middling player and then sign them back for a cheaper cap hit. No collusion required nor is there any way to prove that

Yes there is collusion required. Otherwise you could potentially lose a lot of value in a trade.... because if they don't get Orpik back, they need to find someone else to fill the hole, which means another trade, ufa, or filling from within (which not all teams can do safely).

In that respect I think it does require a bit of collusion if you are making the claim that WSH did this on purpose and from the start. There's some risk involved here unless the player is heavily overpaid. It seems unlikely to me they colluded, which makes it harder for me to claim there was outright circumvention. My opinion of course.

Grubauer signed for 3x$3.333M since he was a RFA, if the Avs thought he was worth about 3x$5M were he a 26 year old UFA, plus there weren’t a lot of guys available, looks ok for them.

That's fair, but it still depends how much is on the books. I'm no expert in retained cap hits of bought out contracts. If they still have 3.5m retained, then they are paying Grubauer an effective amount of 6.8m plus giving up a 2nd for his rights.

Could be that there was no one else. Is he slated to be a starter or backup? That's a lot for a backup, and risky if he doesn't turn out to be a starter. Though.... its only one year of Orpik.

Food for thought I guess. I just don't see any cap circumvention here.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

Yes there is collusion required. Otherwise you could potentially lose a lot of value in a trade.... because if they don't get Orpik back, they need to find someone else to fill the hole, which means another trade, ufa, or filling from within (which not all teams can do safely).

In that respect I think it does require a bit of collusion if you are making the claim that WSH did this on purpose and from the start. There's some risk involved here unless the player is heavily overpaid. It seems unlikely to me they colluded, which makes it harder for me to claim there was outright circumvention. My opinion of course.



That's fair, but it still depends how much is on the books. I'm no expert in retained cap hits of bought out contracts. If they still have 3.5m retained, then they are paying Grubauer an effective amount of 6.8m plus giving up a 2nd for his rights.

Could be that there was no one else. Is he slated to be a starter or backup? That's a lot for a backup, and risky if he doesn't turn out to be a starter. Thought its only one year of Orpik.

Food for thought I guess. I just don't see any cap circumvention here.

Im not trying to insinuate Washington planned this so if thats how it comes off I apologize

My problem is Orpik was originally signed (pre-trade) until July 1, 2019 with Washington and should not be allowed to sign back with them until July 1, 2019.

 

[North Cole]

Im not trying to insinuate Washington planned this so if thats how it comes off I apologize

My problem is Orpik was originally signed (pre-trade) until July 1, 2019 with Washington and should not be allowed to sign back with them until July 1, 2019.

No need to apologize to me, I'm an oiler fan. I understand where you're coming from, I just can't get on board with Washington having done anything wrong unless they knew he would be bought out so they could resign him.

It also doesn't take into consideration that he could have signed elsewhere; which means if they knew he would be boughtout, they would also need assurances from him that he would resign for 1m, in advance of thr negotiating period for the second contract.

IDK, it seems like too many things needed to happen for Washington to have planned it without some level of collusion along the line. And if we can't rule that rhey colluded, then I can't see how it was planned by Washington. MacLellan could have decided this is what he would try and do if Orpik was bought out, but having no guarantees in place, it can't really be viewed as malicious or detrimental to the cap.