Value of: Recapture penalty

[canuckster19]

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.

Yeah but the difference there is teams can't trade a recapture penalty. Detroit and Philadelphia got off easy.

 

[vipera1960]

Given that there will be another CBA renegotiation before this contract becomes an issue, I have no doubt that NSH will not be hit with an 8/12/24 mil penalty. I think the rules of CARP will probably be changed to a more team friendly rule or eliminated altogether. I find the most ridiculous aspect of this to be that while NSH gained a 24M cap advantage on the contract, they did so over a 4 year period, and I think they should get that much time to pay it back instead of just the remaining time.

 

[bbfan419]

Even if Nashville did want to get rid of that contract there is no law that says they have to trade it to Montreal, they could shop around for a team with lots of cap space needing to get to the cap floor and find the best deal possible.

 

[Curufinwe]

Yeah but the difference there is teams can't trade a recapture penalty. Detroit and Philadelphia got off easy.

Having the last few years of a HOF dman's career ruined by a freak eye injury isn't what I'd call getting off easy.

 

[Off Sides]

I could see some sort of penalty such as the loss of picks, but a 24.5m recapture penalty? c'Mon that isn't even remotely possible.

Sorry, but no team could just move 24.5m in salary even if they wanted to.

Besides, the recapture stuff is nonsense anyway because it's not unprecedented for a player to play into his late 30's or early 40's. I mean I could see a recapture penalty making sense if a player is signed until he's 45 but not 38-42.

But like I said 24.5 isn't possible.

I tend to agree,

If I could think of any reason they would not change the rules in the next CBA then maybe I'd think differently, but having these teams punished where there is no real world financial benefit to the league, to the PA, or to the teams themselves just will not make any sense to them at that point.

They may still be punished but I think they may find some way to have the recapture be spread out over many years. Which would satisfy the teams who already have been hit with recapture, the team still gets hit but not all at once like they would under these current rules.

If not it's going to go something like, "Hey that was a tough CBA negotiation, Welcome back to hockey, by the way Nashville, Minnesota, Chicago has to trade like 4 or 5 high cap hit marketable players, but please, to those in those markets go buy tickets anyway."

 

[Street Hawk]

Ex

I tend to agree,

If I could think of any reason they would not change the rules in the next CBA then maybe I'd think differently, but having these teams punished where there is no real world financial benefit to the league, to the PA, or to the teams themselves just will not make any sense to them at that point.

They may still be punished but I think they may find some way to have the recapture be spread out over many years. Which would satisfy the teams who already have been hit with recapture, the team still gets hit but not all at once like they would under these current rules.

If not it's going to go something like, "Hey that was a tough CBA negotiation, Welcome back to hockey, by the way Nashville, Minnesota, Chicago has to trade like 4 or 5 high cap hit marketable players, but please, to those in those markets go buy tickets anyway."

But was it fair for them to have gained the benefits of a lower cap hit all these years?

Hossa current cap hit is under $5.3. If he doesn't P lay any of his $1 mill salary years his cap hit should be $7.4 mill. The hawks need to be pay for that benefit. That is almost $17 million that they saved in cap space. Think what that $2.1 millon in savings allowed the hawks to do over the past several years. Same with the wild and their two big guys.

For the predators, that $24 million that is currently sitting as their benefit will likely be what they have to shoulder. It was their choice to deal him to . Montreal. Montreal isn't going to see much of a salary cap benefit as he is going to be paid an average of $8 million over the next 6years. Which takes his career earnings up to over $125 million at that point in time.

Makes it much easier for him to walk away from the final 4 years and $6 million left on his contract.

The earlier weber walks away, the lower the yearly penalty. That's why the kovy penalty is so small for NJ. They had like a dozen years to amortize it over.

I have sympathy for the predators, but none for the wild, hawks, and my Canucks for re-capture. They make those contracts willingly and gained an advantage. Just like the NFL, you can pay signing bonuses and stuff which gets spread out, but sooner or later when that player is off your roster you have to eat some dead cap space.

Only thin I could see the NHL do is to allow teams to trade part of the re-capture penalty. Maybe like 50% is tradeable.

Thus the teams that benefitted have to now give up an asset or two to move that could hit. That would work as a part solution in making things fair.

So, if weber does leave the 3 $1 million years on the table, the predators can trade $4 million a year of that $8 million yearly penalty to another team. NHL has shown they are fine with letting injured guys like pronger get traded.

 

[Mad Brills*]

This would destroy a team for years.

He isn't stopping player for a while unless he gets hurt, and even then they're fine since it would be LTIR.

 

[ijuka]

If I could think of any reason they would not change the rules in the next CBA then maybe I'd think differently, but having these teams punished where there is no real world financial benefit to the league, to the PA, or to the teams themselves just will not make any sense to them at that point.

Are you serious? Do you realize what they actually did with the contract? They were paying him a 14mil/year salary but only had a cap hit of 7.857mil. Do you think that that's fair? Do you think it should be standard that, as a recent example, Stamkos would get paid 8.5mil a year but his cap hit would only be 5mil/year? And you don't see the benefit in doing so? In a salary capped league, how is this not blatant cheating if this isn't properly punished? It's cap circumvention and nothing else.


If Weber's cap hit had been 14mil/year like it should have been, then they'd not have to suffer any recapture penalties. What do you think that that would have done for the team?

 

[Street Hawk]

Are you serious? Do you realize what they actually did with the contract? They were paying him a 14mil/year salary but only had a cap hit of 7.857mil. Do you think that that's fair? Do you think it should be standard that, as a recent example, Stamkos would get paid 8.5mil a year but his cap hit would only be 5mil/year? And you don't see the benefit in doing so? In a salary capped league, how is this not blatant cheating if this isn't properly punished? It's cap circumvention and nothing else.


If Weber's cap hit had been 14mil/year like it should have been, then they'd not have to suffer any recapture penalties. What do you think that that would have done for the team?

I agree. There is their current cap hit per NHL rules and then there is what I call their "real" cap hit. When you take their salary paid up to when you believe they will retire and divide that by the number if years they actually play.

Hossa would have a real cap hit of $7.4 million if he never plays any of those $1 million per year years.
Lu would be about $7.11 in real cap hit is he doesn't play his final 3 years
Weber is like. $10.4 real cap hit if he retires with 4 years left. It would be $9.7 if he plays that $3 million season.
Suter would be like $9.4 if he doesn't play his final 3 years.

So we are talking about some serious cap savings that these teams are getting right now.

Thus, I want the hawks to have to take the $4.2 million per season for 4 years for hossa. Canuckswould eat like $2.8 million for 3 years for lu. Wild would eat $6 million per for Suter. And so on.

I also want the NHL to investigate if there are any potential LTIR shenanigans if these guys get placed there despite playing a full regular season in the previous year and playing all playoff games. Too convenient. At least pronger and Savard are legitimately concussed and can't okay.

Same with bollard and Horton. No back diving deal, but significant cap hits. LTIR should be legit.

 

[varano]

Thats what I don't really get about it...

If they kept shea, down the road if he wanted to retire, I'm sure they could have convinced him
to be injured and avoid the recapture.... But now that they've traded him...Why wouldn't he retire
early if he so chooses instead of giving nashville a break..

 

[glenbuis]

Teams can already beat it. Not that hard to convince the league a player has a hurt back or head when you can't prove it's real or not. Players will go on ltir if they don't wanna play anymore.

They get paid and the team doesn't get raped by a cap recapture. Win win

thats fine and dandy when they actually own that players rights. in this case they traded those rights and would have to reaquire him. thats where the fun begins. if he does not want to play the last 3 years for a million a season there would be a 24.5 million dollar cap recapture penalty. how much is 24.5 million worth in draft picks and prospects to an nhl team?

 

[varano]

Offer sheets are so ******

 

[glenbuis]

Even if Nashville did want to get rid of that contract there is no law that says they have to trade it to Montreal, they could shop around for a team with lots of cap space needing to get to the cap floor and find the best deal possible.

they already did get rid of that contract to montreal

 

[Paranoid Android]

Thats what I don't really get about it...

If they kept shea, down the road if he wanted to retire, I'm sure they could have convinced him
to be injured and avoid the recapture.... But now that they've traded him...Why wouldn't he retire
early if he so chooses instead of giving nashville a break..

IMO, Poile wouldn't have made this trade unless he knows something we don't.

 

[mouser]

IMO, Poile wouldn't have made this trade unless he knows something we don't.

Maybe that it won't be his problem if it comes to pass in the future.

 

[ThirdManIn]

Ok so theres always talk about the Weber Subban trade but lets fast forward time a bit and have some fun. let's say the 2022-2023 season just finished (and another lottery win for Toronto lol). A healthy 38 year old Shea Weber is conteplating retirement and who can blame him 1 mill per year at that point in his contract.. And lets say you are the Nashville GM and are very well aware of the situation and relize next year you will pay 8 mill in cap for year 1, 12 mill for year 2 and a team crippling 24.5 million for year 3. what do you offer montreal to get that contract and save any channce of negating the penalty... If im montreals GM i ask for a return of 2 firsts and a much older and mature P.K Subban. what do you ask for and what are you willing to give up givving the circumstances. By the looks of it Montreal will soon have Nashville by the throat and will be willing to ask pretty much anything.

Or Nashville just eats the cap hit instead of being doubly-stupid and making the absolutely asinine trade you propose here. Also your numbers are way off. If he retired in 2023 Nashville wouldn't be paying anything more than the ~$8.2m for each of the remaining three years. It would be pretty ******, but not crippling.

So, no. Montreal wouldn't have Nashville by the throat in any way, shape or form.

 

[elite1prospects]

Or Nashville just eats the cap hit instead of being doubly-stupid and making the absolutely asinine trade you propose here. Also your numbers are way off. If he retired in 2023 Nashville wouldn't be paying anything more than the ~$8.2m for each of the remaining three years. It would be pretty ******, but not crippling.

So, no. Montreal wouldn't have Nashville by the throat in any way, shape or form.

well who are they going to get rid of to clear the 24 Mill that year?

 

[ThirdManIn]

well who are they going to get rid of to clear the 24 Mill that year?

You're asking me a question about roster moves that will happen, hypothetically, 7 years from now. I have no clue. Neither does anyone else. We don't even know where the cap will be by then, nor do we know what the new CBA (yes, there will even be a new CBA by then) will say about it considering it was an offersheet and not a contract the team itself offered.

You're grasping at too many invisible straws here.

edit: and it appears you still don't know the numbers. The only way Weber's recapture will hit $24m is if he retires with a single year left. Your hypothetical has him retiring with three years left, meaning it will remain a constant at ~$8.2m. To do the math you have to take the supposed cap relief (so far there hasn't actually been any cap relief since the Preds haven't actually spent to the cap, but that's another conversation) over the course of the entire contract, and divide it by how many seasons remain on the contract after the player retires.

 

[Eric Sachs]

You're asking me a question about roster moves that will happen, hypothetically, 7 years from now. I have no clue. Neither does anyone else. We don't even know where the cap will be by then, nor do we know what the new CBA (yes, there will even be a new CBA by then) will say about it considering it was an offersheet and not a contract the team itself offered.

You're grasping at too many invisible straws here.

edit: and it appears you still don't know the numbers. The only way Weber's recapture will hit $24m is if he retires with a single year left. Your hypothetical has him retiring with three years left, meaning it will remain a constant at ~$8.2m. To do the math you have to take the supposed cap relief (so far there hasn't actually been any cap relief since the Preds haven't actually spent to the cap, but that's another conversation) over the course of the entire contract, and divide it by how many seasons remain on the contract after the player retires.

This is an interesting point. I think the recapture penalty could be tweaked to account for cap space that wasn't taken advantage of. I haven't though through the ramifications of this (and you still theoretically get the advantage of being able to spend to the cap) but it could be an easy adjustment.

as an example, player X was paid 14M while his cap hit was only 7M. This equates to a 7M cap benefit that would go towards an eventual cap recapture penalty. If the team was 3M under the cap ceiling, they didn't really get 7M of cap benefit.. they only got 4M of cap benefit. That could be the new contribution towards the cap recapture penalty.

 

[ThirdManIn]

Are you serious? Do you realize what they actually did with the contract? They were paying him a 14mil/year salary but only had a cap hit of 7.857mil. Do you think that that's fair? Do you think it should be standard that, as a recent example, Stamkos would get paid 8.5mil a year but his cap hit would only be 5mil/year? And you don't see the benefit in doing so? In a salary capped league, how is this not blatant cheating if this isn't properly punished? It's cap circumvention and nothing else.


If Weber's cap hit had been 14mil/year like it should have been, then they'd not have to suffer any recapture penalties. What do you think that that would have done for the team?

First of all, you are blaming the Predators for something the Flyers did. I know, I know. The Preds decided to match, but if you were privy to the situation you would know that they had just lost Suter. Losing Weber, too, would be devastating not only to the team but to the in-roads made in the growing fan base. To their ability to attract free agents. To their ability to sign players they already had. And don't you think other teams might have, just maybe, decided they could try something similar? Nashville matched it, but if you want to blame someone for the contract blame Snider and Holmgren. They were the jack ***** who thought they could strong arm another team because they needed a defenseman and weren't getting results elsewhere.

Second, the cap hit should never have been $14m. Under the old CBA the way it was structured was playing by the rules, or lack thereof, of structuring contracts. It was a ******** tactic, but a shrewd move nonetheless. Even if you applied the rules of today's CBA to that contract it wouldn't have reached $14m. There are upper limits of cap hit, you know. There are also perimeters in which teams may work to reduce salary over the span of the contract.

Third, the Preds never spent to the cap while they had Weber, so they weren't exactly gaining relief. They weren't buying up other players with the "relief" that they could be charged later, mostly because those players simply weren't available and Piole isn't a dumb ass GM who tosses out contacts to whichever overrated UFAs have hit the market (this could prove to be prophetic if the Preds are able to convince the NHL to work in an amendment to the recapture rule in the next CBA). They did what they had to do to keep their player, plain and simple. If they have to bite the bullet later on, fine, but they did what they had to do at the time.

 

[elite1prospects]

You're asking me a question about roster moves that will happen, hypothetically, 7 years from now. I have no clue. Neither does anyone else. We don't even know where the cap will be by then, nor do we know what the new CBA (yes, there will even be a new CBA by then) will say about it considering it was an offersheet and not a contract the team itself offered.

You're grasping at too many invisible straws here.

edit: and it appears you still don't know the numbers. The only way Weber's recapture will hit $24m is if he retires with a single year left. Your hypothetical has him retiring with three years left, meaning it will remain a constant at ~$8.2m. To do the math you have to take the supposed cap relief (so far there hasn't actually been any cap relief since the Preds haven't actually spent to the cap, but that's another conversation) over the course of the entire contract, and divide it by how many seasons remain on the contract after the player retires.

Why does everyone say Nashville did not right the contract??? Philly wrote the first contract that weber signed which was negated because Nashville wrote up an identical contract. So ya Nashville wrote there own contract. Don't know what the debate there is

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

the 24 mill number is super scary... but only for 1 year. for it to be reality weber must agreed too already play the first two seasons at a mill so then the question is why play those two seasons and then retire? what is his reason for that after already being okay the first 2 seasons?

if weber simply cant play anymore and hes embarrassed to keep going... then nashville is better off trading for him... they then ask him to accept an assignment to ahl... the cap hit reduces to under 7 mill instead of 24 mill at that point so we see why its better for nashville

why does weber agree? he gets a mill for doing nothing... he earns nashvilles gratitude... the minor league team grants him time off... effectively he is retired, he simply doesnt file his papers but he still gets his time to himself and is paid a million dollars for cooperating.

and why does montreal agree? they get some compensation from nashville... but its nominal. after all hes basically a cap killer for them since hes retiring cause he cant play. if they refuse to cooperate, he might decide to play after all and kill 7.9 of their own cap to punish them for screwing around with his dignity. nashville would definity consider it an attack... i think other teams would fear montreal might screw them too... this could all reflect very poorly on montreal if they try to force a hof defenseman into a disgraceful retirement.

now if weber wants to retire 3 years early... maybe its differnt... maybe weber doest want to stay on the books for 3 years? but weber really has no known bad blood with nashville. almost all players want to remain in good standing with the alumni. most players like to do charity work and ambassadore work with their former teams.

by filing retirement papers he screws nashville... by not filing he doesnt.

wheres the incentive to file?

just let montreal suspend him... if it comes to that... go home... be suspended... filing retirement papers isnt mandatory

 

[NYRFAN218]

We're already past that point but can someone explain to me back in 2005 why the league just didn't use whatever the player was paid that specific season as the players cap hit? The only thing I could think of is extreme front loading when the team is going to be poor so that they have tons of space on the back end of a deal when a team is ready to compete but I'm sure that could have been resolved by % variance from year to year in salary.

I don't know, it seems like that would have been a better route than using the average of a contract as the cap hit.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Why does everyone say Nashville did not right the contract??? Philly wrote the first contract that weber signed which was negated because Nashville wrote up an identical contract. So ya Nashville wrote there own contract. Don't know what the debate there is

hence the term... right to match...

match means...copy

copy means same

hence the logical conclusion philly negotiated this contract and nashville had 2 options... swallow or spit

honestly its a little difficult to get your point you are trying to make here... weber agreed to a deal with philly... it was philly and weber that negotiated this... nashville had ZERO ABILITY to change a single detail of the deal

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

We're already past that point but can someone explain to me back in 2005 why the league just didn't use whatever the player was paid that specific season as the players cap hit? The only thing I could think of is extreme front loading when the team is going to be poor so that they have tons of space on the back end of a deal when a team is ready to compete but I'm sure that could have been resolved by % variance from year to year in salary.

I don't know, it seems like that would have been a better route than using the average of a contract as the cap hit.

it was more a players thing... players obviously like money in hand... money in hand is easier to invest... easier to draw interest on...

traditionally players have asked for money up front... if suddenly upfront money was a cap killer, teams will stop giving it.

the union will fight against this

and the big spending teams will agree... they can afford front loaded deals. poor teams cant. this agreement is a competive advantage for big teams to get the best players. after all you dont front load a deal for a 7th dman. big teams feel superstars should be in big markets cause of media and promoting the game. big teams feel this is good for everyone.

the poor teams had to pick their battles. neither the union nor the big teams wanted the cap at all. to get the cap, the poor teams had to allow compromises like this one