Value of: Recapture penalty

[glenbuis]

That article is wrong, was discussed back when it was posted for the first time. Habs would have a penalty if Weber retired earlier then 2023-24.

im a big fan of bergevin and i feel that this is something he would have been right on top of. i see no reason why bergevin should just hand him back to the preds if weber was to retire early. how many teams do other teams favors when it comes to money, picks, prospects ? that notion is rediculous. i would think that the dollar value staring nashville in the face will be worth picks, prospects down the road.

 

[Eric Sachs]

thats not true

cap recapture is calculated on total benifit minus total penalty and then averaged over remaining years

webers last 3 years are 1 mill salary any 7.8 hit... a penalty of 6.8

if nashville has him for 1 year playing... the recapture goes down 6.8
if nashville has him 2 years before he retires the recapture shrinks to just 6.8 mill

even if weber might retire the last season... nashville should still trade for him with those last 3 years left

montreals penalty will be off the books by then but nasvilles will never go away and will be nearly 7 mill the final year no matter what they do

edit im prob wrong about the 7 mill... but basically nasville can reduce the cap recapture by 6.8 mill for any of the last 3 years he might play for them before he retires... 4.8 mill the year before that... and 1.8 mill the seasons before that.

any year he makes less than his cap hit would reduce the cap recapture assumi g hes playing for nashville

this whole thing is assuming he's playing for Nashville.

I wasn't (and find it foolish to) assuming that a player intent on retiring will keep playing because his former team asks him nicely.

I pretty clearly addressed all possible scenarios in that post.

If Weber retires, the cap recapture penalty will be the same for Nashville (and Montreal, if applicable) no matter what team he is on.

If Weber goes on LTIR, there will be no cap recapture for Nashville (and Montreal, if applicable) no matter what team he is on.

The only scenario that Nashville trading for a retiring Weber that would reduce the cap recapture (again, assuming that he's not going to suddenly not want to retire) would be if they tell him not to retire and just stay at home. They will have to use a roster spot on him, pay him his full salary and be charged his full cap hit (~1M less if they bury him in the AHL). That seems highly doubtful but would result in a reduced cap recapture penalty for every year they pay him to sit at home.

So again, there is nothing that Nashville can realistically do to avoid the cap recapture by trading for a retiring Weber. If they reacquire him before he decides to retire, that's obviously different and not the scenario in the OP.

 

[Stuzchuk]

educate yourself first...

 

[Seanaconda]

It's not hard at all. In fact the CBA explicitly says the recapture rule was put in place to address contracts that were signed before the new CBA.

The league has already applied recapture penalties twice now to contracts that were signed before the latest CBA in Kovalchuk and Richards.

I really don't think nashville will be punished for matching a contract another team (Philly) made to bully them out of matching while keeping the cap hit low.

Jersey got its draft pick back nashville won't be punished for having to match a contract another team made to circumvent the cap. (Especially before it was a rule) if anyone should be punished it should be Philly for making the contract. Other teams that signed players to cap circumventing contracts themselves sure. But nashville had to match or lose weber without knowing this rule would be put in place

. Ps I'm an oilers fan and am not a fan of any of the teams involved.

 

[Baemon Severson*]

I really don't think nashville will be punished for matching a contract another team (Philly) made to bully them out of matching while keeping the cap hit low.

Jersey got its draft pick back nashville won't be punished for having to match a contract another team made to circumvent the cap. (Especially before it was a rule) if anyone should be punished it should be Philly for making the contract. Other teams that signed players to cap circumventing contracts themselves sure. But nashville had to match or lose weber without knowing this rule would be put in place

. Ps I'm an oilers fan and am not a fan of any of the teams involved.

Jersey did not get their pick back. They lost 20 spots in the first round, a 3rd, 3 million in cash and have to pay the recapture.

 

[jacks*]

That article is wrong, was discussed back when it was posted for the first time. Habs would have a penalty if Weber retired earlier then 2023-24.

I provided a link .
Now please provide a link that stats that this article is wrong. I have yet to see one.

 

[Eric Sachs]

im a big fan of bergevin and i feel that this is something he would have been right on top of. i see no reason why bergevin should just hand him back to the preds if weber was to retire early. how many teams do other teams favors when it comes to money, picks, prospects ? that notion is rediculous. i would think that the dollar value staring nashville in the face will be worth picks, prospects down the road.

there is no dollar value staring Nashville in the face. First of all, we're talking cap hit only.. they won't have to pay Weber anything if he retires. Second, as I laid out above, acquiring a retiring Weber does absolutely nothing for Nashville in terms of the cap recapture.

I'll try to lay it out:

Cap recapture is based on the difference between total salary paid out and total cap charge incurred. It's distinct for each team.

For Weber's case:
Total cap hit = $31,428,572
Total salary paid = $56M
Total cap benefit (salary - cap hit) = $24,571,428.

That's the amount of cap the Predators have to pay back if Weber retires early. It will be split up evenly over the remaining years that Weber leaves on the table. That means its a 24M cap charge for one year if he retires with one year left, 12M cap charge for two years if he retires with two years left, etc.

That number is also static. Nashville is no longer paying him or incurring a cap charge so their total cap benefit isn't changing.

Take Montreal, now.
Cap hit every year: $7,857,143
Remaining salaries: 12M, 12M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 3M, 1M, 1M, 1M

For the first two years, Montreal will be paying Weber more than his cap charge and will be getting a cap benefit (i.e. incurring a cap recapture penalty). They will then begin to pay it back and reduce the cap benefit in the years where his cap hit > salary.

For Montreal to have no cap recapture when Weber retires:
Maximum cap benefit = 24M- (2*7,857,143) = $8,285,714.
For the 6M years, Montreal pays back = 7,857,143-6M = 1,857,143 every year for a total of $7,428,572.
So we now have Weber playing the next 6 years of his contract and still have a remaining cap benefit of $8,285,714 - $7,428,572 = ~857k.
That means the cap charge if he retires would be fairly minimal (285k a year if he retires with 3 years left).
If he plays one more year, Montreal will be off the hook entirely as they will no longer have had a cap benefit. He needs to play at least 7 years for that to happen.

But that doesn't affect Nashville at all. If Nashville were to reacquire him, things change as they start paying back some of the cap benefit if he plays.. but if he just goes and retires on him, they don't get to do that and his original 24M penalty remains.

 

[Seanaconda]

Jersey did not get their pick back. They lost 20 spots in the first round, a 3rd, 3 million in cash and have to pay the recapture.

So they got a first back instead of losing it completely? Anyways tho jersey knew what it was doing and still got off better than they were cuz im pretty sure they werent supposed to have a first at all that year.

Nashville didn't make that contract they just matched it. Shouldn't be punished. Sure the keith and Luongo contracts should be punished because the teams made those contracts themselves but not nashville and weber. That's on Philly.

 

[jacks*]

there is no dollar value staring Nashville in the face. First of all, we're talking cap hit only.. they won't have to pay Weber anything if he retires. Second, as I laid out above, acquiring a retiring Weber does absolutely nothing for Nashville in terms of the cap recapture.

I'll try to lay it out:

Cap recapture is based on the difference between total salary paid out and total cap charge incurred. It's distinct for each team.

For Weber's case:
Total cap hit = $31,428,572
Total salary paid = $56M
Total cap benefit (salary - cap hit) = $24,571,428.

That's the amount of cap the Predators have to pay back if Weber retires early. It will be split up evenly over the remaining years that Weber leaves on the table. That means its a 24M cap charge for one year if he retires with one year left, 12M cap charge for two years if he retires with two years left, etc.

That number is also static. Nashville is no longer paying him or incurring a cap charge so their total cap benefit isn't changing.

Take Montreal, now.
Cap hit every year: $7,857,143
Remaining salaries: 12M, 12M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 3M, 1M, 1M, 1M

For the first two years, Montreal will be paying Weber more than his cap charge and will be getting a cap benefit (i.e. incurring a cap recapture penalty). They will then begin to pay it back and reduce the cap benefit in the years where his cap hit > salary.

For Montreal to have no cap recapture when Weber retires:
Maximum cap benefit = 24M- (2*7,857,143) = $8,285,714.
For the 6M years, Montreal pays back = 7,857,143-6M = 1,857,143 every year for a total of $7,428,572.
So we now have Weber playing the next 6 years of his contract and still have a remaining cap benefit of $8,285,714 - $7,428,572 = ~857k.
That means the cap charge if he retires would be fairly minimal (285k a year if he retires with 3 years left).
If he plays one more year, Montreal will be off the hook entirely as they will no longer have had a cap benefit. He needs to play at least 7 years for that to happen.

But that doesn't affect Nashville at all. If Nashville were to reacquire him, things change as they start paying back some of the cap benefit if he plays.. but if he just goes and retires on him, they don't get to do that and his original 24M penalty remains.

Provide a link to confirm that.

 

[Eric Sachs]

I provided a link .
Now please provide a link that stats that this article is wrong. I have yet to see one.

because someone posted it online, it must be true? Really?

do the math. that chart is wrong.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shea-weber

I guess because it's not clear enough, this chart is ENTIRELY for the Canadians. The second to last column shows the annual cap recapture penalty for the Canadians if Weber were to retire at the end of the league year shown to the left. The final column is Nashville's cap recapture penalty.

That's my calculations. I don't have a blog to make them official though. If you want to disprove it, maybe actually do the math yourself instead of just trusting random people on the internet. The math isn't that hard and the rules are spelled out in the CBA (that's not a blog though so hopefully still trustworthy).

edited to add the nashville penalty in the chart

 

[jacks*]

That article is wrong, was discussed back when it was posted for the first time. Habs would have a penalty if Weber retired earlier then 2023-24.

Another link .
http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2016/06/examining-salary-cap-recapture-in-the-shea-weber-trade.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/4qhxjh/nashville_shea_weber_and_the_cap_advantage/

 

[Classic Devil]

So they got a first back instead of losing it completely? Anyways tho jersey knew what it was doing and still got off better than they were cuz im pretty sure they werent supposed to have a first at all that year.

Nashville didn't make that contract they just matched it. Shouldn't be punished. Sure the keith and Luongo contracts should be punished because the teams made those contracts themselves but not nashville and weber. That's on Philly.

The recapture and the pick penalty are for two independent things. The recapture is on the second contract that Kovalchuk signed with New Jersey. The pick penalties were for the first, which never went into effect. The Devils have received absolutely no reprieve on Kovalchuk's contract (at least not from the League).

Moreover, it's not on Philly. Nashville was under no obligation to sign the contract. They could've let Weber walk and taken the picks. The decision not to was one Nashville made with their eyes wide open, as was the decision to trade him.

 

[jacks*]

because someone posted it online, it must be true? Really?

do the math. that chart is wrong.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shea-weber

That's my calculations. I don't have a blog to make them official though. If you want to disprove it, maybe actually do the math yourself instead of just trusting random people on the internet. The math isn't that hard and the rules are spelled out in the CBA (that's not a blog though so hopefully still trustworthy).

edited to add the nashville penalty in the chart

That is Nashville's hit.
Now show us what the hit is for the Habs.
We already know what the hit is for Nash.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Another link .
http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2016/06/examining-salary-cap-recapture-in-the-shea-weber-trade.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/4qhxjh/nashville_shea_weber_and_the_cap_advantage/

The first link says nothing about Montreal's recapture, which is the point being contested.

The second is reddit. Really? Reddit is an acceptable source? Even then, it too says nothing about Montreal's recapture.

The chart has Nashville's recapture correct. It doesn't have Montreal's recapture.

It doesn't even make sense if you sit and look at it for a second. Weber gets paid 14M for 2017-2018, far more than his cap hit of 7.1M. How does Montreal's cap recapture penalty go DOWN if he plays that year?? Hint: it doesn't.

 

[Eric Sachs]

That is Nashville's hit.
Now show us what the hit is for the Habs.
We already know what the hit is for Nash.

The entire chart is for the Habs. The only column that pertains to Nashville is the final one.

The Habs penalty is in the second to last column.

 

[jacks*]

educate yourself first...

there is no dollar value staring Nashville in the face. First of all, we're talking cap hit only.. they won't have to pay Weber anything if he retires. Second, as I laid out above, acquiring a retiring Weber does absolutely nothing for Nashville in terms of the cap recapture.

I'll try to lay it out:

Cap recapture is based on the difference between total salary paid out and total cap charge incurred. It's distinct for each team.

For Weber's case:
Total cap hit = $31,428,572
Total salary paid = $56M
Total cap benefit (salary - cap hit) = $24,571,428.

That's the amount of cap the Predators have to pay back if Weber retires early. It will be split up evenly over the remaining years that Weber leaves on the table. That means its a 24M cap charge for one year if he retires with one year left, 12M cap charge for two years if he retires with two years left, etc.

That number is also static. Nashville is no longer paying him or incurring a cap charge so their total cap benefit isn't changing.

Take Montreal, now.
Cap hit every year: $7,857,143
Remaining salaries: 12M, 12M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 6M, 3M, 1M, 1M, 1M

For the first two years, Montreal will be paying Weber more than his cap charge and will be getting a cap benefit (i.e. incurring a cap recapture penalty). They will then begin to pay it back and reduce the cap benefit in the years where his cap hit > salary.

For Montreal to have no cap recapture when Weber retires:
Maximum cap benefit = 24M- (2*7,857,143) = $8,285,714.
For the 6M years, Montreal pays back = 7,857,143-6M = 1,857,143 every year for a total of $7,428,572.
So we now have Weber playing the next 6 years of his contract and still have a remaining cap benefit of $8,285,714 - $7,428,572 = ~857k.
That means the cap charge if he retires would be fairly minimal (285k a year if he retires with 3 years left).
If he plays one more year, Montreal will be off the hook entirely as they will no longer have had a cap benefit. He needs to play at least 7 years for that to happen.

But that doesn't affect Nashville at all. If Nashville were to reacquire him, things change as they start paying back some of the cap benefit if he plays.. but if he just goes and retires on him, they don't get to do that and his original 24M penalty remains.

That is exactly the same as the link i posted said.

http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/...Weber-Nashville-Predators--Flyers-Offer-Sheet

 

[Eric Sachs]

That is exactly the same as the link i posted said.

http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/...Weber-Nashville-Predators--Flyers-Offer-Sheet

No, it's not. That chart has Montreal's cap recapture penalties completely wrong after the first one. Both the penalties and the year the penalties start are incorrect. Nashville's column is correct.

 

[jacks*]

No, it's not. That chart has Montreal's cap recapture penalties completely wrong after the first one. Both the penalties and the year the penalties start are incorrect. Nashville's column is correct.

Again your calling it wrong but don't offer a link showing the difference.

All we have are your calculations.
Again show us a link showing the Habs cap hit.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

hahah brah

But he/she is right...

 

[Eric Sachs]

Again your calling it wrong but don't offer a link showing the difference.

All we have are your calculations.
Again show us a link showing the Habs cap hit.

Here's a link: http://i.imgur.com/ehzLXUU.png
It has literally as much legitimacy as a random blogger. Not sure why your link is better than mine. I actually showed you some of my work too and didn't just pull numbers out of thin air.

If you try the math yourself, you'll see who is right.

Or, again, think about this:

How does the cap recapture penalty get bigger?
- by more years where the salary > cap hit

What would happen to the cap recapture penalty if a player who was paid 14M only had a cap charge of 7.1M?
- it should get bigger

Why does Weber's cap recapture penalty get smaller despite Weber being paid 14M with only a cap charge of 7.1M?
- because the link says so

Hopefully the NHL also uses random internet links instead of doing the calculations themselves. That way, Montreal will definitely not have a cap recapture charge if Weber retires before 2023.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

thats not true

cap recapture is calculated on total benifit minus total penalty and then averaged over remaining years

webers last 3 years are 1 mill salary any 7.8 hit... a penalty of 6.8

if nashville has him for 1 year playing... the recapture goes down 6.8
if nashville has him 2 years before he retires the recapture shrinks to just 6.8 mill

even if weber might retire the last season... nashville should still trade for him with those last 3 years left

montreals penalty will be off the books by then but nasvilles will never go away and will be nearly 7 mill the final year no matter what they do

edit im prob wrong about the 7 mill... but basically nasville can reduce the cap recapture by 6.8 mill for any of the last 3 years he might play for them before he retires... 4.8 mill the year before that... and 1.8 mill the seasons before that.

any year he makes less than his cap hit would reduce the cap recapture assumi g hes playing for nashville

I believe you're wrong about about the recapture rules.

The number is $24.5M.

If he retires with 4 years left, the cap hit will be $6.1+M per year.

If he retires with 3 years left, the cap hit will be $8.1+M per year.

etc...

If Nashville trades for him while his cap hit is higher than his salary, the recapture goes down by the difference between his cap hit and his (lower) salary.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Again your calling it wrong but don't offer a link showing the difference.

All we have are your calculations.
Again show us a link showing the Habs cap hit.

Which are correct as he understands the recapture rule.

If you don't believe him, do your own calculations...

It's not that difficult.

 

[jacks*]

Which are correct as he understands the recapture rule.

If you don't believe him, do your own calculations...

It's not that difficult.

Either way the cap hit to the Habs are next to nothing.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Either way the cap hit to the Habs are next to nothing.

Strategic retreat ?

 

[jacks*]

Strategic retreat ?

No.We have two links.Each stating different things.Do i know which one is correct?No and i'm pretty sure you don't either.
Who's to say which one is right.