Retained Salary - Contract Extension

[JTG]

If a team has an impending free agent, can they sign that player to an extension, trade that player, and retain an amount on that extension? Or can the team only retain on a current contract?

 

[mouser]

If a team has an impending free agent, can they sign that player to an extension, trade that player, and retain an amount on that extension? Or can the team only retain on a current contract?

The CBA does not answer that question and it's never happened before.

My suspicion is the league would only allow retention on a contract currently in effect. Not a extension scheduled to go into effect in the future.

 

[LadyStanley]

Might it also be considered a cap circumvention (if extension signed too close to trade)?

 

[mouser]

Might it also be considered a cap circumvention (if extension signed too close to trade)?

There's nothing barring that behavior in the CBA. Players have signed extensions and been traded shortly afterward in the past.

 

[Fourier]

This is the NHL we are talking about. The record in dealing with such behaviour is spotty at best. I would not want to put $10 down on which way they would go on this one. Frankly, I don't think it is really all that different than allowing a third party team to retain a portion of the salary which is explicitly allowed. In both cases there is no intention of having the player play for you under the contract being considered. But my gut tells me that depending on who where and when this could easily go the other way and teh NHL could crack down.

 

[StreetHawk]

It would highly likely depend on the teams involved. We kind of know which ones get more rope than others when it comes to issues that are not officially covered in the cba.

 

[mouser]

It would highly likely depend on the teams involved. We kind of know which ones get more rope than others when it comes to issues that are not officially covered in the cba.

Disagree completely.

Can a team retain salary on a contract extension that has not yet gone into effect is a simple binary Yes or No answer applicable to all 32 teams.

There’s no middle ground where one team could retain salary on a extension but another team can’t.

 

[Fourier]

Disagree completely.

Can a team retain salary on a contract extension that has not yet gone into effect is a simple binary Yes or No answer applicable to all 32 teams.

There’s no middle ground where one team could retain salary on a extension but another team can’t.

I suspect that the poster could have meant the initial ruling. As much as it should be black and white I do think the circumstance of who is involved in the initial attempt does matter somewhat in how the league reacts. Whether we like it or not some teams do seem to have a bigger voice. Of course once the precedence is set then it does become black and white.

 

[mouser]

I suspect that the poster could have meant the initial ruling. As much as it should be black and white I do think the circumstance of who is involved in the initial attempt does matter somewhat in how the league reacts. Whether we like it or not some teams do seem to have a bigger voice. Of course once the precedence is set then it does become black and white.

I'd guess the NHL already has an answer on their position that hasn't been made public.

 

[Fourier]

I'd guess the NHL already has an answer on their position that hasn't been made public.

It could very well be. You would think some team may have inquired already but I still think you do have more faith in the NHL than I do!

 

[byrath]

It could very well be. You would think some team may have inquired already but I still think you do have more faith in the NHL than I do!

Yeah, the way all the 10+ year back-diving contracts were handled doesn't convince me that the league has a ton of foresight on stuff like this.
I wonder if there are any contracts still active that could be subject to cap recapture.

 

[mouser]

Yeah, the way all the 10+ year back-diving contracts were handled doesn't convince me that the league has a ton of foresight on stuff like this.
I wonder if there are any contracts still active that could be subject to cap recapture.

Crosby, Weber and Quick are the last three cap recapture eligible contracts remaining.

 

[StreetHawk]

I'd guess the NHL already has an answer on their position that hasn't been made public.

In the past the nhl didn’t permit the trading of injured players (at least not those who were permanently on ltir), til we got the Pronger from Phi to AZ.

After that became the standard then all teams could do that. You had a prominent influential organization in Phi and AZ who was bleeding money and needed to reach the floor.

NHL and PA have never been ahead of the curve. I mean there was never a provision initially of teams burying players in the A or Europe. So Chicago and Wash were able to send Huet and Nylander to Europe and gain full cap relief.

 

[mouser]

In the past the nhl didn’t permit the trading of injured players (at least not those who were permanently on ltir), til we got the Pronger from Phi to AZ.

After that became the standard then all teams could do that. You had a prominent influential organization in Phi and AZ who was bleeding money and needed to reach the floor.

NHL and PA have never been ahead of the curve. I mean there was never a provision initially of teams burying players in the A or Europe. So Chicago and Wash were able to send Huet and Nylander to Europe and gain full cap relief.

Can you cite any LTIR or injured player trade which was blocked by the NHL prior to Pronger?

There was always a provision since the cap started in 2005 to bury players in the A or Europe. Players could be loaned to any league so long as it was "affiliated" with the NHL. The change to that came in 2013 when they capped the amount of a contract that could be buried, i.e. the Wade Redden rule.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't know if this is still the case, but you couldn't trade an injured player in the EA games. This has never been a restriction in real life though.

Pronger wasn't even first. Nathan Horton was.