Value of: Recapture penalty

[Street Hawk]

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.

The way the cap is calculated now is fine, however the NHL never expected to see teams dish out double digit year contracts which dropped in salary so much in the final years.

The NHL could have stepped up way way earlier than the kovy contract and out a stop to these deals, but they didn't.

That's why the current CBA does 2 things. It limits the max term to 7 or 8 years and it limits the variance in compensation to cap hit each year to 35%. $6 million cap hit means your yearly compensation ranges from just under $4 million to just over $8 million.

The NFL way of calculating the annual cap hit is more complicated. Combination of your base salary, roster bonuses, Signing bonuses. Some things are prorated annually, others like base salary is what u are scheduled to earn that year.

 

[glenbuis]

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

im sure if montreal never liked the offer from nashville they could get a real nice package from a cap floor team drooling for 7.8 million cap hit and 1 million dollar salary. this is a competitive league where teams dont do other teams favors. nashville could try re obtaining him with the new team if they like. the habs wouldnt be forcing him to retire. just consider in quebec he will be taking home about 650,000 in salary after taxes compared to what hes used to. at 39 im doubting he will continue for that money.

 

[glenbuis]

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.

yes they will. right by the throat

 

[ThirdManIn]

yes they will. right by the throat

Neat observation with absolutely no proof to back it up!

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

This really isn't that complicated.

Philly sent Weber an offer sheet, which he signed. Nashville had the right to match said offer sheet within 7 days. The right of first refusal, if they elect to exercise that right, means that they match everything about the offer sheet: term, money, bonuses. Everything. No trade or no movement clauses can be worked out later if the player and the team decide to go that route. The matching contract has to be identical.

So you're splitting hairs here. Nashville had two options: 1) match exactly what Philly had offered, since Weber had accepted it, or 2) let him walk. That's it. There is no debate. The driving forces and architects of the contract Weber is now playing on were Ed Snider and Paul Holmgren. You can try to split hairs as much as you want, but it still doesn't make your fantasy that Montreal will one day have Nashville by the throat so that they may obtain Subban (and two firsts ) back for a set-to-retire Weber any less asinine. It also doesn't make your math correct.

 

[glenbuis]

Neat observation with absolutely no proof to back it up!





This really isn't that complicated.

Philly sent Weber an offer sheet, which he signed. Nashville had the right to match said offer sheet within 7 days. The right of first refusal, if they elect to exercise that right, means that they match everything about the offer sheet: term, money, bonuses. Everything. No trade or no movement clauses can be worked out later if the player and the team decide to go that route. The matching contract has to be identical.

So you're splitting hairs here. Nashville had two options: 1) match exactly what Philly had offered, since Weber had accepted it, or 2) let him walk. That's it. There is no debate. The driving forces and architects of the contract Weber is now playing on were Ed Snider and Paul Holmgren. You can try to split hairs as much as you want, but it still doesn't make your fantasy that Montreal will one day have Nashville by the throat so that they may obtain Subban (and two first :biglaugh) back for a set-to-retire Weber any less asinine. It also doesn't make your math correct.

well we gotta get one thing straight from the get go. im not interested in bringing subban back to that dressing room. all the mathematicians on hf boards have clearly shown that those last three years of the deal weber will make a million a season. he was paid 14 14 and 12 i think the first three years. thats a few dollars to even things up. dont worry if nashville dont want the contract 3 or 4 of the poorer teams will. theyll even burn a roster spot and let him watch games from the beach for that cap hit. again no subban back please.

 

[ThirdManIn]

well we gotta get one thing straight from the get go. im not interested in bringing subban back to that dressing room. all the mathematicians on hf boards have clearly shown that those last three years of the deal weber will make a million a season. he was paid 14 14 and 12 i think the first three years. thats a few dollars to even things up. dont worry if nashville dont want the contract 3 or 4 of the poorer teams will. theyll even burn a roster spot and let him watch games from the beach for that cap hit. again no subban back please.

So what you're saying is Montreal won't have Nashville by the throat.

It doesn't take a mathematician to know what Weber's contract has grossed him so far. All it takes it a Google search for "shea weber contract." He made 14 million for the first 4 years. Then, 12 million for two. Then, 6 million for two. So on and so forth.

I'm really not sure what your point is, though. If you aren't in agreement with the OP, who claims that Montreal will be able to demand Subban and two first round picks, for Weber, who is apparently set to retire in Montreal but I guess will suddenly have a change of heart and wait out the rest of the contract on LTIR in Nashville (??), then I think we can move on from this.

 

[mouser]

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.

Doing so opens a whole different can of worms. There would be a different opportunity to abuse the cap system by effectively allowing teams to shift cap space from one season to another through creative contract structuring.

 

[glenbuis]

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.

i think tables and figures are back on page three. im looking to see how calculated

 

[glenbuis]

So what you're saying is Montreal won't have Nashville by the throat.

It doesn't take a mathematician to know what Weber's contract has grossed him so far. All it takes it a Google search for "shea weber contract." He made 14 million for the first 4 years. Then, 12 million for two. Then, 6 million for two. So on and so forth.

I'm really not sure what your point is, though. If you aren't in agreement with the OP, who claims that Montreal will be able to demand Subban and two first round picks, for Weber, who is apparently set to retire in Montreal but I guess will suddenly have a change of heart and wait out the rest of the contract on LTIR in Nashville (??), then I think we can move on from this.

montreal will want something in return for the contract. nashville will have an obvious desire to get the contract back. not interested in having subban back. try another package. if its not acceptable montreal will listen to offers from cap floor teams. nashville can then try to get it back from one of those teams . id bet the farm weber does not play those last three years for a million per season.

 

[Canada4Gold]

montreal will want something in return for the contract. nashville will have an obvious desire to get the contract back. not interested in having subban back. try another package. if its not acceptable montreal will listen to offers from cap floor teams. nashville can then try to get it back from one of those teams . id bet the farm weber does not play those last three years for a million per season.

what I would like to know is if Weber intends to retire and thus the contract ends(not a 35+ contract so the cap hit doesn't countinue to count unlike Datsyuk) why some cap floor will give up assets for a contract that won't count anymore once he retires.

and if Weber doesn't intend to retire and thus may be a contract some cap floor team wants to acquire why Nashville is concerned about it because they won't be getting any cap recapture because he's not retiring.

so in 1 instance Nashville may want the contract. In another some cap floor team may want it. But they both won't want it under the same circumstances so they won't be bidding against each other.

and there's a good chance the cap floor team wanting the contract will want assets coming with it instead of paying assets to get it. Even the Datsyuk 7 million cap, 0 money paid contract Arizona wasn't trying to pay assets to get it. They improved their pick position to get a guy they likely had rated much higher. Nobody is going to pay assets to get a bad contract that pays little. And even if they are it wouldn't be much so nobody would be holding Nashville over a barrel anyway, even though I've already explained why Nashville wouldn't care about obtaining the contract in this case

 

[glenbuis]

educate yourself first...

what I would like to know is if Weber intends to retire and thus the contract ends(not a 35+ contract so the cap hit doesn't countinue to count unlike Datsyuk) why some cap floor will give up assets for a contract that won't count anymore once he retires.

and if Weber doesn't intend to retire and thus may be a contract some cap floor team wants to acquire why Nashville is concerned about it because they won't be getting any cap recapture because he's not retiring.

so in 1 instance Nashville may want the contract. In another some cap floor team may want it. But they both won't want it under the same circumstances so they won't be bidding against each other.

and there's a good chance the cap floor team wanting the contract will want assets coming with it instead of paying assets to get it. Even the Datsyuk 7 million cap, 0 money paid contract Arizona wasn't trying to pay assets to get it. They improved their pick position to get a guy they likely had rated much higher. Nobody is going to pay assets to get a bad contract that pays little. And even if they are it wouldn't be much so nobody would be holding Nashville over a barrel anyway, even though I've already explained why Nashville wouldn't care about obtaining the contract in this case

if weber retires 3 years early with the contract in montreals hands nashville will have the recapture penalties. if a cap floor team wants to they can acquire the contract , send him to the ahl paying him a million but enjoying the cap hit of 7.8 million. for that team the ahl could stand for anywheres hot lately if 7.8 is worth it to them.

 

[Canada4Gold]

So Weber isn't retiring then? Great, Nahville doesn't have to deal with the recapture penalties. They'll gladly tell the Habs to trade him to the other team that wants him who will then keep him in the minors or at home collecting a million dollars from said other team all the while he's not retired and Nashville doesn't have any recapture penalty.

Nashville is fine with him literally playing with anyone, being under contract to anyone, as long as he doesn't retire. So the only case in which Nashville wants to acquire him if is he will retire unless he gets traded to Nashville to collect a paycheck. In which case nobody else will care for his "services" because he plans to retire.

 

[glenbuis]

what I would like to know is if Weber intends to retire and thus the contract ends(not a 35+ contract so the cap hit doesn't countinue to count unlike Datsyuk) why some cap floor will give up assets for a contract that won't count anymore once he retires.

and if Weber doesn't intend to retire and thus may be a contract some cap floor team wants to acquire why Nashville is concerned about it because they won't be getting any cap recapture because he's not retiring.

so in 1 instance Nashville may want the contract. In another some cap floor team may want it. But they both won't want it under the same circumstances so they won't be bidding against each other.

and there's a good chance the cap floor team wanting the contract will want assets coming with it instead of paying assets to get it. Even the Datsyuk 7 million cap, 0 money paid contract Arizona wasn't trying to pay assets to get it. They improved their pick position to get a guy they likely had rated much higher. Nobody is going to pay assets to get a bad contract that pays little. And even if they are it wouldn't be much so nobody would be holding Nashville over a barrel anyway, even though I've already explained why Nashville wouldn't care about obtaining the contract in this case

in detroits case the cap hit still existed which they needed to get rid of to pay other players. the hit to arizona meant nothing because there not spending near the cap and have the space to put it.

 

[glenbuis]

weber may be still be retiring but if someone was to pay him a million to go fishing before he retires for 3 years he might say yes. whoevers paying him would get 7.8 million closer to the floor. i didnt make the rules but apparently thats how they work.

 

[Canada4Gold]

in detroits case the cap hit still existed which they needed to get rid of to pay other players. the hit to arizona meant nothing because there not spending near the cap and have the space to put it.

the point is Arizona didn't just gladly pay to take the contract because they could. If teams were gladly willing to pay for a contract like that then Detroit would have held out until Arizona traded assets for it because in your scenario teams are willing to pay assets for contracts like that. They aren't, but they're happy to put up with them for the right price because they don't do any harm to them.

and like I've already explained in a scenario where another team is willing to "pay for" Weber's contract to sit at home and not retire then Nashville is fine letting them do that because as long as he's under contract to someone they're not paying recapture penalties. They're not going to outbid said other team just to accomplish them same thing except worse for them(they would then have the cap hit and pay the million dollars instead of said other team doing it for them)

 

[glenbuis]

So Weber isn't retiring then? Great, Nahville doesn't have to deal with the recapture penalties. They'll gladly tell the Habs to trade him to the other team that wants him who will then keep him in the minors or at home collecting a million dollars from said other team all the while he's not retired and Nashville doesn't have any recapture penalty.

Nashville is fine with him literally playing with anyone, being under contract to anyone, as long as he doesn't retire. So the only case in which Nashville wants to acquire him if is he will retire unless he gets traded to Nashville to collect a paycheck. In which case nobody else will care for his "services" because he plans to retire.

by george i think you got it.

 

[mouser]

montreal will want something in return for the contract. nashville will have an obvious desire to get the contract back. not interested in having subban back. try another package. if its not acceptable montreal will listen to offers from cap floor teams. nashville can then try to get it back from one of those teams . id bet the farm weber does not play those last three years for a million per season.

While lotta prognosticating, who's to say Weber isn't still a great player and want to play till he's 40. Or maybe Montreal trades him in the next few seasons and we're having a similar discussion over whether the Habs will want to reacquire him to escape their recapture penalty towards the end of Weber's contract.

The future is an uncertain thing, and maybe the horse will learn to talk.

 

[glenbuis]

the point is Arizona didn't just gladly pay to take the contract because they could. If teams were gladly willing to pay for a contract like that then Detroit would have held out until Arizona traded assets for it because in your scenario teams are willing to pay assets for contracts like that. They aren't, but they're happy to put up with them for the right price because they don't do any harm to them.

and like I've already explained in a scenario where another team is willing to "pay for" Weber's contract to sit at home and not retire then Nashville is fine letting them do that because as long as he's under contract to someone they're not paying recapture penalties. They're not going to outbid said other team just to accomplish them same thing except worse for them(they would then have the cap hit and pay the million dollars instead of said other team doing it for them)

detroits case was different because they needed to clear space from a deadweight contract and basically had to give stuff to get a team to help them.

 

[Canada4Gold]

by george i think you got it.

I've always had it. For some reason you think Nashville will willingly outbid another team from taking Weber when Nashville is better off by letting the other team take and pay for Weber's cap and million dollars.

Literally the only way Nashville will contemplate taking Weber to avoid recapture if if he will only sit at home collecting a paycheck from them and he won't do it for anyone else. In which case there are no other bidders. Montreal can then take what Nashville is offering to avoid recapture, or they can get nothing and let him retire.

 

[Shmuffalo]

No. They put the recapture rules on the books for a reason. They'll enforce them.

Nashville could potentially be on the hook for 24.5 million in recapture penalties. The NHL is not going to enforce this. It would cripple the franchise.

 

[glenbuis]

While lotta prognosticating, who's to say Weber isn't still a great player and want to play till he's 40. Or maybe Montreal trades him in the next few seasons and we're having a similar discussion over whether the Habs will want to reacquire him to escape their recapture penalty towards the end of Weber's contract.

The future is an uncertain thing, and maybe the horse will learn to talk.

this is all so true. if montreal were paying a 40 year old weber at that stage im thinking theyll be dealing him for the cap relief alone if the rules dont change.

 

[glenbuis]

Nashville could potentially be on the hook for 24.5 million in recapture penalties. The NHL is not going to enforce this. It would cripple the franchise.

it wouldnt cripple the franchise. it would make it difficult to stay competitive for three years.

 

[glenbuis]

I've always had it. For some reason you think Nashville will willingly outbid another team from taking Weber when Nashville is better off by letting the other team take and pay for Weber's cap and million dollars.

Literally the only way Nashville will contemplate taking Weber to avoid recapture if if he will only sit at home collecting a paycheck from them and he won't do it for anyone else. In which case there are no other bidders. Montreal can then take what Nashville is offering to avoid recapture, or they can get nothing and let him retire.

that would suck for nashville no ?

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

educate yourself first...

For Montréal, the 2018-19 line should be 1,035,714 per year for 8 years.

The subsequent lines are also wrong.

 

[Canada4Gold]

that would suck for nashville no ?

what would? Having some other team trade for Weber's cap hit, and thus they don't acquire any 7+ Weber cap or 1 million salary, and they also don't get stuck with any recapture because he's not retiring. That would be great for Nashville. They'd be stupid to outbid said other team, lose those assets they traded, just to obtain a 7+ cap hit and 1 million dollar salary when they would have had 0 cap hit and 0 salaray if the other team just takes him to not retire.

I still don't think you understand how this works after 3 or 4 times I've explained it to you. If there are any other bidders to take the contract and have Weber not retire so said team can take the cap hit then that's what Nashville wants, Weber to not retire and be under contract to somebody. If that happens they have 0 cap hit. 0 from Weber contract, and 0 from recapture.

Worse case scenario Weber wants to retire, nobody else wants him(exactly what you've been arguing against) for his cap hit and to tell him to stay home and in which case it's a game of chicken between Nashville a Montreal, and we see how much value Montreal can extract from Nashville, and that's assuming Weber is even willing to stay "unretired" at home to collect the paycheck.

You're reletently arguing that Nashville will have to outbid someone when if anyone else is willing to take the contract to keep Weber unretired than that's exactly what Nashville wants and they won't be bidding against them.