Value of: Recapture penalty
- Thread starter elite1prospects
- Start date
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,445
- 10,262
As someone already said early on, the CBA will likely have been updated by the time this becomes an issue and you can certain that it won't be one anymore.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6726565/Screen_Shot_2016-06-29_at_5.20.33_PM.0.png)
educate yourself first...
If he retires at 37 or before, I don't think Nashville has any issues. Even today they have 5.5M in cap space with a full roster and multiple buyouts on the book. With the cap likely going higher, they probably will be under the cap ceiling by 6M+ anyways by the time Weber retires. It's not like they are a cap team.
If he retires at 38, that's probably pushing it for 3 years but for them it's probably promoting a rookie or paying a 4th liner to play 3rd line. Not huge.
At 39 and 40 is the franchise crippling ones. But could Nashville not trade for Weber and instead of letting him retire, just buy him out? Cap hit of 7M and a financial cost of 666K with Weber at 40. Not a big deal. Montreal gets something in return, Weber gets an extra 666K, and Nashville doesn't get hit with a 24M cap hit. Win-win-win, no?
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
well... if montreal deals him for a cap dump... they get the going rate... like detroit got from arizona
the point many of us are arguing here is the idea that a 24 mill caphit forces nashville to bend over.
weber has to willfully want to mess nashville up and the question is why would he do this?
if he doesnt like playing for a mill... why not retire 3 years early?
if he can stay on someones roster without having to play... why retire at all?
the league wont allow false ltir... they demand a 50 player contract limit and a 23 man roster... but other than that the league has no rule against players not being dressed... sitting at home...
if some team wants to give a roster space to weber... they just need to pay a mill salary and eat a 7.9 mill cap hit
7.9 is much better than 24 or 12
and if montreal deals weber to a 3rd team the hit to nashville is zero
unless weber retires which brings us back to why?
ultimately montreal will get something for weber if they trade him... but it wont be a kings ransome.
and of course this entire debate assumes weber doesnt want to keep playing... most guys do keep playing. the most likely occurence is weber will play out his contract
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
Lol, the NHL and NHLPA don't even know what will be in the next CBA but surely you do with certainty.
Do most players earn about $125 million in their careers and still want to keep going for $1 million per season for 3 years?
ThirdManIn
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2009
- 55,115
- 4,034
You're still not making a lot of sense to me. There must be a fundamental disconnect between us here. I fail to see why any team would trade for a player who has announced his retirement. In fact, that isn't allowed anyway. If he isn't going to retire, but will, as you said earlier, "watch the games from the beach" Nashville still isn't interested. The only way Nashville cares is if Weber explicitly states that he will only not retire if he is traded to the Predators, which I really don't see happening but I guess it's possible. At that point Nashville's interest is wholly dependent on things we do not know: what does the new CBA say about recapture? What is the cap at? What is Nashville's roster looking like? How many years are left?
The idea that Montreal is going to be able to call Nashville up in seven years and basically demand whatever they want for Weber is a fantasy with absolutely no basis in reality. That has been my point. As for trying another package, I don't want to trade for him anyway. I love Weber, but at this point it would make zero sense to re-obtain him so I'll not try another package of it's all the same to you.
There will 100% be discussions in 2020 about this.
Unless weber retires before 2020-2021, the predators are fine.
There will be discussions and the rule will probably be altered a bit to protect the preds from a $24m one year penalty, but I doubt it'll be gone completely. I think the league is still going to want to punish teams that signed deals with the intent to circumvent he cap.
ThirdManIn
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2009
- 55,115
- 4,034
How many of those cap circumventing contracts which were targeted by this CBA will still be on the books in 2020 do you all think? Weber's probably will be. Who else?
If there aren't many left, or if only Weber's remains, then the purpose was served, no? Set a cap for the amount a team can be on the hook for, extend the cap penalty over more years and call it a day.
If there aren't many left, or if only Weber's remains, then the purpose was served, no? Set a cap for the amount a team can be on the hook for, extend the cap penalty over more years and call it a day.
Suter and Parise could still be playing, but they'll retire with the wild. Their recapture won't be as damaging as Weber's could be.
I think the recapture rule only applies to deals signed before that CBA, so there is a finite number of contracts that it can affect. By 2021 almost all should be expired except for the most extreme examples which I think were the primary target of the rule.
But yeah, they'll probably need to do someone like that.Teams should have to pay for the benefit they received, but they shouldn't incur roster killing penalties.
Lindberg Cheese
Registered User
Vikke
ViktorAllvin twitter
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Player Discussion Tyler Kleven (D) at 44th Overall (Sens traded up)
- Latest: BankStreetParade
-
Prospect Info: Logan Mailloux Part 3 The Only Hockey Talk Thread- Latest: Estimated_Prophet
-
