yes i agree with that but the the hit to nashville will be substantial if he retires during the last three years. for them to avoid this they could reobtain him to give them other options
Value of: Recapture penalty
- Thread starter elite1prospects
- Start date
yes i agree with that but the the hit to nashville will be substantial if he retires during the last three years. for them to avoid this they could reobtain him to give them other options
jacks*
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2013
- 11,311
- 4
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
i didnt take time to add up the dollars to the decimal... but my point was to address the notion that nashville can do nothing to ease their penalty
every year weber plays for nashville after the 2017-18 season will reduce that teams exposure to cap recapture penalty
i guess today the number stands around 24 mill
the next 2 seaons it grows by around 4.2 mill if i remember right... montreal is on the hook for that
afterwards the numbers start to shrink
in my theory... with 3 years left... nashville should deal for weber and hope he plays 2 more years (or better yet all 3 years)
if weber intends to retire immediately, then no... theres no benefit
but maybe weber doesnt file his retirement papers...
maybe nashville finds a team with cap room... gives them a prospect to hold onto webers contract. weber collects his 3 million while being a pressbox guy... new team gets a cap floor contract...
nashville avoids cap recapture by making sure weber doesnt officially retire... avoids dead cap by giving montreal an asset and new team an asset
No.We have two links.Each stating different things.
Who's to say which one is right.
Anyone who understand the recapture rule and is able to do the maths (not even maths in fact, but arithmetics).
Smack down...
jacks*
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2013
- 11,311
- 4
Anyone who understand the recapture rule and is able to do the maths (not even maths in fact, but arithmetics).
Smack down...
To bad the rule has a lot of confusion added to it because of the trade.
Different people are seeing it differently.Who's to say your right?
The math was put in place for the Flyer /Nashville trade.
It seems no one has come up with an answer and solid proof.
Have fun smacking.
What makes him wrong below?I've yet to see the proof.
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/...Weber-Nashville-Predators--Flyers-Offer-Sheet
You see i really don't know.I can only go on what i find and read.If he's right great. but with different links making different claims it hard to know who's right.
Last edited:
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
and what are these other options?
There's one. Get Weber to keep playing. I don't get this idea that if they ask nicely, Weber will suddenly have a change in heart and decide not to retire.
and how exactly does Nashville do that? I'd love to see the conversation between Weber and Nashville. Weber tells them he wants to retire. Nashville says no. Weber files his retirement papers and retires. Nashville can't do a ****ing thing.
The only way Nashville's cap penalty is reduced is if:
1) Weber plays out more of his contract for any team, which would reduce the length of the penalty but increase the cap hit. This won't happen if he's retiring.
2) Weber plays more late years of his contract for the Predators, which would reduce both the length and size of the cap hit. This won't happen if he's retiring.
So.. if Weber wants to retire, there's literally nothing Nashville can do to get a lower penalty. Weber holds ALL the power as retirement papers don't involve the team at all.
To bad the rule has a lot of confusion added to it because of the trade.
Different people are seeing it differently.Who's to say your right?
The math was put in place for the Flyer /Nashville trade.
It seems no one has come up with an answer and solid proof.
Have fun smacking.
What makes him wrong below?I've yet to see the proof.
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/...Weber-Nashville-Predators--Flyers-Offer-Sheet
You see i really don't know.I can only go on what i find and read.If he's right great. but with different links making different claims it hard to know who's right.
math makes him wrong.
you've yet to see proof because you take random links on the internet as automatic truths without employing any sort of analysis of your own. The rule isn't hard to understand at all but does require actual critical thinking and basic math.
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
@jacks, here is my last attempt. Please quote and bold the part that you disagree with.
Simple method for calculating cap recapture penalty:
1) Add up total cap hit incurred by a team.
2) Add up total salary paid out by a team.
3) Subtract total cap hit from total salary. This number is the total cap benefit.
4) Determine the number of years remaining on the contract. This is the length of the cap recapture penalty.
5) Divide the total cap benefit by the years remaining on a contract. This is the cap hit for cap recapture.
Let's take Montreal's part of the Weber deal one year at a time and run through the above steps.
Retiring after Year 1
1) Total cap hit = $7,857,142
2) Total salary = $12M
3) Total cap benefit = $4,142,858
4) Years remaining = 9
5) Recapture cap hit = 460k
Retiring after Year 2
1) Total cap hit = $15,714,284
2) Total salary = $24M
3) Total cap benefit = $8,285,716
4) Years remaining = 8
5) Recapture cap hit = $1,035,714.5
I'll stop here because it'll be painfully obvious if you can follow to this point that the chart you posted is incorrect. Do the math yourself, please. I can link you to a calculator because you love links.
Simple method for calculating cap recapture penalty:
1) Add up total cap hit incurred by a team.
2) Add up total salary paid out by a team.
3) Subtract total cap hit from total salary. This number is the total cap benefit.
4) Determine the number of years remaining on the contract. This is the length of the cap recapture penalty.
5) Divide the total cap benefit by the years remaining on a contract. This is the cap hit for cap recapture.
Let's take Montreal's part of the Weber deal one year at a time and run through the above steps.
Retiring after Year 1
1) Total cap hit = $7,857,142
2) Total salary = $12M
3) Total cap benefit = $4,142,858
4) Years remaining = 9
5) Recapture cap hit = 460k
Retiring after Year 2
1) Total cap hit = $15,714,284
2) Total salary = $24M
3) Total cap benefit = $8,285,716
4) Years remaining = 8
5) Recapture cap hit = $1,035,714.5
I'll stop here because it'll be painfully obvious if you can follow to this point that the chart you posted is incorrect. Do the math yourself, please. I can link you to a calculator because you love links.
if weber has had enough and calls it a day early then you would agree nashville will suffer some cap penalties. i think that point you will agree. now if they re obtain him they could let him sit in the press box and pay him a million a year to watch hockey games. he could even watch from home. they burn a roster spot but not 24 million.
To bad the rule has a lot of confusion added to it because of the trade.
Different people are seeing it differently.Who's to say your right?
The math was put in place for the Flyer /Nashville trade.
It seems no one has come up with an answer and solid proof.
Have fun smacking.
What makes him wrong below?I've yet to see the proof.
http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/...Weber-Nashville-Predators--Flyers-Offer-Sheet
You see i really don't know.I can only go on what i find and read.If he's right great. but with different links making different claims it hard to know who's right.
The rule is quite simple.
Apply it and do the arithmetics...
You are right. The Recapture penalty is the actual salary - cap hit = cap benefit. So you have to add up all of your cap benefit. If the players retire early you need to pay that back divided by the number of years you have left on the contract.
Both Mon and nash will get penalize for it if Weber retires early. Nash will pay back the cap benefit before 2016 and Mon after 2016
It's the same thing Luongo in Van. If Luongo retires early. Canucks have pay the cap benefit.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
the way i see it...
weber says im sore... i want to spend time with family... a mill isnt worth playing for
nashville says... you can get your mill without playing... stay home with your family... collect 3 mill over 3 years for doing nothing... just please dont retire
nashville says to montreal... lets make a reasonable deal since weber is retiring anyhow... and if he does play again we will throw something extra to you. now montreal might want to screw nashville but usually most teams are civil with one another
nashville says to phoenix... take weber and let him spend 3 years on your 23 man roster. you will pay him a mill each year but he will help you get to the floor. we will give you something extra to help with the 3 mill... maybe take a bad contract... or something.
now weber gets 3 mill for doing nothing
montreal earns good will and probably gets a pick
arizona saves money probably
nashville avoids an around an 8 mill per year cap recapture penalty
might nashville need to sweeten the offer to weber? promise webers cousin a job? maybe lend webers family access to the tropical island beach house for the summer? a promise of a future job as a club ambassodore?
i mean either way... weber gets what he wants by not playing hockey but under my suggestion he also get 3 million dollars
do you really think its impossible for nashville to ask weber to not file retirement papers?
i mean some guys go years without ever filing retirement papers.
the ONLY reason to retire is if the team is forcing weber to report... and even then weber can accept a suspension.
if weber retires he KNOWS nashville is screwed. his good name in nashville is gone... his chance at a front office job is gone... his chance to do local endorsements is gone.
if weber hated the team/management/ownership he might not care... but most players want to be associated with the team long after they retire. play charity games... get their number retired... maybe broadcast...
very few players intentionally create bad blood.
weber got his money... got it up front... got treated well...
wheres his motive to screw anyone now?
if you tell me a 40 year old might not want to play nhl hockey for a mill... i can agree you might be right... however my suggestion gives weber the same freedom without all the badwill and gives him 3 mill on top of that
You forgot to deduce between the cap hit and the actual salary paid for the years where the cap hit is higher than the salary paid.
Nashville can't profit from that unless they reacquire him in the future.
Montréal can unless they trade him before his salary dips below his cap hit.
mouser
Business of Hockey
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.
We have people posting here who understand how the CBA rules regarding the Recapture penalty work, and people posting links from other sources that didn't understand the Recapture formula, and got it wrong.
Yes I did remember that's why I wrote actually salary - cap hit = cap benefit. So for example weber salary for first year 14 M I think and cap hit is 7.8 so the cap benefit is around 6.2 m. So that will count against Nashvilla cap + whatever other cap benefit they have if Weber retires + whatever other cap benefit they got in the 2nd and 3rd and 4th year.
I don't understand what your last 2 points have to do with anything.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
i was thinking like you... until i realized real cap hit is almost as bad as cap recapture.
putting weber on the roster is a 7.9 mill blackhole for any team if hes not actually playing.
thats as bad for nashville as retirement would be.
weber would need to be dealt to a budget team that doesnt care about cap hit. that team will need to be compensated for spending 1 mill per season and a roster spot on weber.
and weber will need to agree to finish up his contract without filing retirement papers
and montreal will be able to ask for something from nashville which is what this thread is all about.
my thought is... weber says i cant play anymore i want to retire. nashville says let us help
montreal tries to strongarm nashville possibly
now weber can tell montreal he changed his mind... he will play after all. montreal now has a 7.9 blackhole cap hit. at 40 is weber still worth 7.9 of your cap?
boston has this problem with chara now... luckily charas hit drops to 4 mill next season. but will he even be worth 4 mill. boston had to buy out seidenberg because he wasnt worth the hit.
if weber feels montreal is using him to screw nashville... and assuming weber might want to join nashville front office... weber does have power to screw montreal if he chooses
i personally dont see it coming to this.
the origional post asked what weber might be worth to nashville. assuming weber and nashville agree to my idea, i think montreal would deserve a second round pick or so... and a promise of more if weber does come out of his 'retirement' and plays again.
its a favor to nashville so they dont get killed on the cap after philly raided them. montreal isnt the type of organization that plays dirty. if weber is washed up and ready to retire montreal wont hijak nashville imho
if montreal dont like the deal with nashville they ship him to a team who wants to get to the cap floor with his 7.8 hit and 1 mil salary
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 43,055
- 9,244
Eric Sachs is clearly right here.
There's 1 part about the rule I don't get though. If Weber plays out the entire contract then nobody gets tacked with any recapture penalty because he played the entire thing out, what Nashville gained at the beginning was made up for by the extra cap compared to salary Montreal made back at the end.
But if he retires a year or more early then Nashville has to make all of their back up and in that situation as far as Nashville is concerned it doesn't matter what Montreal made back up. They have to make up all that they gained.
So what I don't really get it, it's like double standards, hey if he plays out the entire contract then Montreal made it up, even though you benefited by 24.5 million no harm no foul. But instead if he retires a year early, hey you benefitted by 24.5 million, Montreal made it all up except the 6,857,143 benefit from the last year, but now it doesn't matter what Montreal made up you owe all of the 24.5 million and change in penalty.
I just feel like if he plays out the entire contract and they're on the hook for nothing because it was played to it's conclusion and all made up then what was made up should come into play into figuring out the penalty when part of it is made back up by another team post trade.
I feel like it should be, once he retires you determine how much was gained by everyone combined. So if Nashville gained 24.5 million but Montreal makes 14 of it back up, then 10.5 was gained throughout the life of the contract, and then the teams are responsible for a portion of that each depending on how much they gained. In this case Nashville would be on the hook for all of it because they gained and Montreal didn't, but if he played for 4 more years and then retired then Montreal gained as well and they both would be responsible for what they gained.
So basically team A gains x, then the player is traded and team B gains y then the player retired both are on the hook for what they gained. But if team A gains x and then post trade team B make up y back. Then team B is on the hook for nothing obviously, but team X is only on the book for x-y, the traded the player to another team, the contract changed hands and the other team made it up for them, that's part of the transaction.
There's 1 part about the rule I don't get though. If Weber plays out the entire contract then nobody gets tacked with any recapture penalty because he played the entire thing out, what Nashville gained at the beginning was made up for by the extra cap compared to salary Montreal made back at the end.
But if he retires a year or more early then Nashville has to make all of their back up and in that situation as far as Nashville is concerned it doesn't matter what Montreal made back up. They have to make up all that they gained.
So what I don't really get it, it's like double standards, hey if he plays out the entire contract then Montreal made it up, even though you benefited by 24.5 million no harm no foul. But instead if he retires a year early, hey you benefitted by 24.5 million, Montreal made it all up except the 6,857,143 benefit from the last year, but now it doesn't matter what Montreal made up you owe all of the 24.5 million and change in penalty.
I just feel like if he plays out the entire contract and they're on the hook for nothing because it was played to it's conclusion and all made up then what was made up should come into play into figuring out the penalty when part of it is made back up by another team post trade.
I feel like it should be, once he retires you determine how much was gained by everyone combined. So if Nashville gained 24.5 million but Montreal makes 14 of it back up, then 10.5 was gained throughout the life of the contract, and then the teams are responsible for a portion of that each depending on how much they gained. In this case Nashville would be on the hook for all of it because they gained and Montreal didn't, but if he played for 4 more years and then retired then Montreal gained as well and they both would be responsible for what they gained.
So basically team A gains x, then the player is traded and team B gains y then the player retired both are on the hook for what they gained. But if team A gains x and then post trade team B make up y back. Then team B is on the hook for nothing obviously, but team X is only on the book for x-y, the traded the player to another team, the contract changed hands and the other team made it up for them, that's part of the transaction.
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
Arizona will be making the cap floor easily the next few years and have some picks to show for it. I think Luongo just might end up playing out his contract anyways. If he does retire though, it's not that hard of a pill to swallow if he does it before 2020.
Although most teams will probably just end up pulling a Chris Pronger I imagine.
that could be fair ( if i understood it all ) but you would have to be rewriting the collectivve bargaining agreement
I think predator fans are hoping to acquire Weber with the hopes that they may be able to LTIR him if he has had a injury in the prior couple of years.
You can take tips from the Blackhawks and what they plan to do with hossa after this coming year, his salary drops to $1 million over the next 4 years.
See what they are able to do with hossa and take your cue from that.
For players who have made tens of millions of dollars in their careers, are they going to put their late 30's bodies against the rigours of the NHL for $1 million per season?
That said, the NHL didn't give the red wings a break from datsyuk. They had to deal him to Arizona.
Salary - cap hit = recapture penalty if the result is positive.
If the result is negative, it reduces the recapture penalty (if any) for that team...
Does anyone understand the word FUN?? lol i just wanted to see what some people would give up to save themselves from that type of recapture. This is suppose to be a "what if" not "this is exactly what's going to happen"..... Just a bunch of fun suckers lol....hurry up october
mouser
Business of Hockey
Never assume that your idea of "fun" is the same as every other posters' idea of "fun".
