Salary Cap: Waivers

[phg]

Every time I hear of the tight cap situation, I always ask myself the same question...Maybe someone on the forum can shed light on it for me..Not too long ago a team could get some relieve from a bad contract by placing a player on waivers and while the player would continue to get his same salary albeit in the minors, the team would get for the most part equivalent cap relief. Now, however I understand that the cap relief his limited to $900,000.


My question is why was the cap process changed in this way..A low performer with a long contract has little incentive to improve his game, no other team would trade for him and his substantive can't get any cap relieve so the player sits in the big league press box with his salary.Was it a demand of the players association in the CBA and if so what was their thinking? It hardly seems a desirable situation from their perspective either..It seems the Leafs are stuck with one of these contracts for next couple of years and the only one who probable doesn't care is the player himself...Help me understand

Click to read more...

 

[Warden of the North]

Because it was a loophole to get out of bad contracts.

 

[Canada4Gold]

so teams can't just go out and spend money on UFA's saying if they don't work out we can just bury them in the minors. Now there's actual risk involved with signing a UFA.

Also they can bury 925k not 900k

 

[phg]

Because it was a loophole to get out of bad contracts.

I understand that, but it seems a bit one sided when you end with a player who for all kinds of reasons, beyond the control of the team who signed him, does not perform as anticipated and in fact is performing at a minor league level. I can appreciate his contract has to be respected but the Cap hit is somewhat unfair to the team.. It can ruin the a teams chances for years and there are many examples Ilya Kovalchuck is a case in point!

 

[Deebo]

Pandering to the small market clubs.

 

[Deebo]

I understand that, but it seems a bit one sided when you end with a player who for all kinds of reasons, beyond the control of the team who signed him, does not perform as anticipated and in fact is performing at a minor league level. I can appreciate his contract has to be respected but the Cap hit is somewhat unfair to the team.. It can ruin the a teams chances for years and there are many examples Ilya Kovalchuck is a case in point!

Kovalchuk is only on NJs cap for 250k.

 

[phg]

Kovalchuk is only on NJs cap for 250k.

Yeah New Jersery were fortunate that he "retired" Oh happy day!!

 

[hotpaws]

Like blasted sabre said they changed the rule to close a cap circumvention loophole .

Dumping players in the minors skews what's supposed to be an agreed upon split in revenues and increases the players share .

You can still get cap relief by buying out an underperforming player albeit a portion of his salary still stays on the cap .

 

[phg]

I believe there should be some consequences for an under-performing player!

 

[The Podium]

Unfair advantage for financially stable teams. It would be an easy solution for Toronto or NYR but teams like Florida and Phoenix would not have the means to do it.

 

[Warden of the North]

I believe there should be some consequences for an under-performing player!

The consequence is that they are buried in the AHL and cant play in the NHL. They are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to competition for future contracts.

 

[Mess]

Like blasted sabre said they changed the rule to close a cap circumvention loophole ..

Bettman and NHL essentially implemented "the Burke rule " in the new CBA, so teams were punished for poor GM decisions like Connolly and Komisarek on big UFA contracts and sent to the AHL.

It wasn't fair to budget teams for rich teams spending foolishly and then it only costing money in the past to cover up those mistakes so the loophole was closed.

To compensate the NHL also offered get-out-of-jail-cap-free compliance buyouts to help GMs remove a couple contract mistakes without cap hits.

Some teams had more bad contracts then compliance buyouts and that left teams like our Leafs penalized further with JM Liles contracts now eating precious cap space with only minor cap relief ($925k) to send them to the AHL.

 

[phg]

the "business" is playing a huge role in the game! Points well taken everybody and thanks very much..Grin and bare it for another season!

 

[hotpaws]

Bettman and NHL essentially implemented "the Burke rule " in the new CBA, so teams were punished for poor GM decisions like Connolly and Komisarek on big UFA contracts and sent to the AHL.

It wasn't fair to budget teams for rich teams spending foolishly and then it only costing money in the past to cover up those mistakes so the loophole was closed.

To compensate the NHL also offered get-out-of-jail-cap-free compliance buyouts to help GMs remove a couple contract mistakes without cap hits.

Some teams had more bad contracts then compliance buyouts and that left teams like our Leafs penalized further with JM Liles contracts now eating precious cap space with only minor cap relief ($925k) to send them to the AHL.

It was funny listening to Burkes constant *****ing about back sliding deals yet he had no problem circumventing the cap by dumping players in the minors ( Finger/Orr ) .

 

[namttebih]

It's also the GM's job to judge the character and expected longevity
of the player.

 

[phg]

I don't know how Finger ever made the NHL

 

[Warden of the North]

It was funny listening to Burkes constant *****ing about back sliding deals yet he had no problem circumventing the cap by dumping players in the minors ( Finger/Orr ) .

The cap was rarely an issue while Burke was here, those guys went to the minors because Wilson didnt want them on his team. So Burke shipped em out.

 

[hotpaws]

The cap was rarely an issue while Burke was here, those guys went to the minors because Wilson didnt want them on his team. So Burke shipped em out.

Burke not only spent to the cap but went over it one year and was issued a penalty the following season .

 

[Warden of the North]

Burke not only spent to the cap but went over it one year and was issued a penalty the following season .

What year was that?

 

[hotpaws]

What year was that?

I believe he went over in his second season and we had to count the mil and change we went over the following year .

 

[Mess]

Burke not only spent to the cap but went over it one year and was issued a penalty the following season .

True story

Chicago won the Cup back in 2010 and the performance bonuses earned while Kane and Toews were on their ELC based on playoff performance put the Hawks over the Cap.

The only other team to receive a Cap penalty carried forward that year was the Leafs at $1.4 mil in order for the Leafs to finish 29th and 2nd last overall.

Leafs Face $1.4 million Cap Penalty Next Season by Alex Tran on July 2, 2010http://mapleleafshotstove.com/category/leafsnews/ http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2010/07/02/leafs-face-1-4-million-cap-penalty-next-season/#comments

Bad news. According to the fine folks over at CapGeek, the Chicago Blackhawks aren’t the only team facing cap penalties next season. Here are the basics: a team is allowed to surpass the official salary cap by a “bonus cushion” maxmium of 7.5% for performance bonuses, such as those written into virtually every rookie contract. However, this number is then deducted from your maximum salary cap allowance for the following season.

For example, since winning the Cup, the Blackhawks received plenty of media attention when it was pointed out that Toews’ bonus for the Conn Smythe, among others, would push them well over the cap limit. As a result, the Blackhawks will face a $4.157 million penalty for this upcoming season. The Maple Leafs meanwhile will also have $1.4 million deducted from their limit this coming season, thus setting an internal budget at $58 million rather than the league wide $59.4 million.

Full Story: http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2010/07/02/leafs-face-1-4-million-cap-penalty-next-season/

 

[darrylsittler27]

Liles.

Sure hope Nonnis has a buyer because Komisarek had one year left at $3.5M,but then again it is Burke's mess.

 

[Swervin81]

It was funny listening to Burkes constant *****ing about back sliding deals yet he had no problem circumventing the cap by dumping players in the minors ( Finger/Orr ) .

Jeff Finger was a Fletcher signing and Orr was mostly Wilson that wanted him gone (not a fit in his system).

The one thing you can ding Burke for is the Kolzig trade to buy a 4th. The Leafs got that 4th taken away due to the Jonas Frogren debacle, so no real advantage gained in the end.

 

[diceman934]

Sure hope Nonnis has a buyer because Komisarek had one year left at $3.5M,but then again it is Burke's mess.

If we bought out Liles we would have less cap space this year.....Komisarek had a $4.5M cap hit.....We need cap space so it was the right player to buy out. A savings of $625,000.

I agree if he can trade him, we are a lot better off. Liles and Holzer for a 3rd round pick.

 

[hotpaws]

Jeff Finger was a Fletcher signing and Orr was mostly Wilson that wanted him gone (not a fit in his system).

The one thing you can ding Burke for is the Kolzig trade to buy a 4th. The Leafs got that 4th taken away due to the Jonas Frogren debacle, so no real advantage gained in the end.

So it's okay to bend your morals if you can blame someone else ?

I'm pretty sure the frogren mess was left over from granpa .