Speculation: Weber's Contract

[GAGLine]

Before accusing others of not understanding the cap, you should learn more about it. It is not as simple as you claim. Its not always a net zero when you have players on LTIR.

Under certain circumstances teams can increase their cap space by acquiring players on LTIR who won't play in the upcoming season.

This happened less than 3 years ago when the Leafs traded to reacquire David Clarkson from Vegas in the summer of 2019. They already had Nathan Horton who was also on LTIR. Neither player will ever play again. By getting Clarkson's contract over the summer the Leafs were able to increase their cap for the 2019-2020 season allowing them to sign Marner. Without the LTIR from Clarskon's contract they would not have had enough cap space to sign Marner.

Thanks for validating my post with your ignorance.

Toronto didn't add cap space by adding Clarkson. They added cap space by moving out players like Marleau and Kadri. Adding Clarkson didn't increase their cap space. It increased both their cap ceiling and their cap expenditure by the same amount.

Educate yourself:

LTIR FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

If the Clarkson contract helped them at all, it was in the offseason, not during the season.

 

[Gaud]

Dont know if this was mentionned already, but Friedman suggested that the Wild may be interested

 

[mouser]

This is why I think the Weber contract movement is too premature. Habs are not affected by it during our rebuild/youth movement and it's too long for another team to take on. This is a story to re-visit when he has 3 or less years left (if he don't retire). The guy has earned over $125M in his career. He might get tired of the LTIR protocol over time.

The other area to watch out with Seabrook is that $4M signing bonus he gets this July and then another $2M in July of 2023. Tampa can certainly pay the $4M this summer and then try to move him ($1M actual salary) and that is very attractive for this coming season.

You are not wrong that Weber has 4 years left and Seabrook has 2 but how much does the Coyotes like paying that $2M bonus for the 23/24 season up front? Personally, I think they ask for more to take on that contract cause of the actual money

Per reports Seabrook is insured at 60%. So that 2023-24 signing bonus would only cost AZ or any team that acquires Seabrook $800k.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Per reports Seabrook is insured at 60%. So that 2023-24 signing bonus would only cost AZ or any team that acquires Seabrook $800k.

Insurance pays signing bonuses as well? I was always curious on the insurance part and does the details vary by contract or is there some typical parameters with minor adjustments? Details that are very difficult to find

I've also see you talk about Weber's contract where you were not sure if it was insured or not. Also wondering about that and if the Flyers purposely didn't do insurance in their hostile move? Or was that an option for the Preds to consider after they match?

Also, Can you decide to insure a contract half way through the contract or is it a decision that has to be made when signing the contract?

 

[mouser]

Dont know if this was mentionned already, but Friedman suggested that the Wild may be interested

And Friedman showed a complete misunderstanding of how LTIR works during those remarks. Which is sad for someone who's supposed to be a big insider NHL reporter.

 

[mouser]

Insurance pays signing bonuses as well? I was always curious on the insurance part and does the details vary by contract or is there some typical parameters with minor adjustments? Details that are very difficult to find

Insurance covers both salary and signing bonuses. The coverage rate is 80% for players under age 35, and 60% for players age 35+.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Insurance covers both salary and signing bonuses. The coverage rate is 80% for players under age 35, and 60% for players age 35+.

Thanks for those details. First I see this after many years. So the team has the option to choose the set rules of insurance or not to insure it at all? I'm also curious about how insurance rates vary by team/team depending on how many contracts that are insured.

 

[mouser]

Thanks for those details. First I see this after many years. So the team has the option to choose the set rules of insurance or not to insure it at all? I'm also curious about how insurance rates vary by team/team depending on how many contracts that are insured.

The NHL negotiated a group plan with one insurance provider that all the teams can use. Teams can pick or choose player by player which ones they want to insure. I don't know how the rates are set but I would expect it's some combination of $'s remaining on the contract and player age, possibly with injury rider concerns. The insurer can pro-actively decline to cover recurrences of previous injuries (e.g. knee, hip, concussion, etc).

Teams could purchase different or supplemental insurance, but I would expect that's unlikely as the costs are probably higher then the league group insurance plan.

 

[Peter Puck]

Thanks for validating my post with your ignorance.

Toronto didn't add cap space by adding Clarkson. They added cap space by moving out players like Marleau and Kadri. Adding Clarkson didn't increase their cap space. It increased both their cap ceiling and their cap expenditure by the same amount.

Educate yourself:

LTIR FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

If the Clarkson contract helped them at all, it was in the offseason, not during the season.

You should stop digging. You are just demonstrating your ignorance on this aspect of the cap. Although you did admit that getting a LTIR contract did help the Leafs out.

Maybe you should take a look at this article from the time:
Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

"Under no circumstances"? Pretty sure Tampa fans would have said this was a ridiculous offer if you posted this last summer on HF boards before it actually happened.

* Johnson
* 2nd
for
* Seabrook

I think you should change your "under no circumstances" narrative. I get your point but it's not always black and white like that

That trade doesn’t counter my point. Seabrook didn’t make Johnson’s value less negative. Tampa does not actively want to be in LTIR as there’s no benefit, just mild downsides (complicated daily roster management and no banked space at the deadline). It was just preferable to keeping Johnson on the books.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Dont know if this was mentionned already, but Friedman suggested that the Wild may be interested

Do you believe in Friedman knowledge on how LTIR contracts work? I think Friedman is a click bait reporter where 25% is of value and the rest is just to get clicks.

 

[Habs Halifax]

That trade doesn’t counter my point. Seabrook didn’t make Johnson’s value less negative. Tampa does not actively want to be in LTIR as there’s no benefit, just mild downsides (complicated daily roster management and no banked space at the deadline). It was just preferable to keeping Johnson on the books.

You said under "no circumstance" and the Blackhawks were able to escape that contract and get both Johnson and a 2nd in return. They basically got someone who is overpaid but still can play on their roster and a 2nd rounder on top.

That's a good counter to your "Under no circumstance" narrative. Basically you are not wrong to some degree but you are using exaggeration

 

[Habs Halifax]

You should stop digging. You are just demonstrating your ignorance on this aspect of the cap. Although you did admit that getting a LTIR contract did help the Leafs out.

Maybe you should take a look at this article from the time:
Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson

Quote from the article you just posted (Article from July 25, 2019):
"From reading the CapFriendly insights about the Clarkson deal, the scenario works best for the Maple Leafs if Marner doesn’t sign before the start of the season. In fact, CapFriendly noted that, “Another option for the #Leafs is to build a roster right up until the $81.5M ceiling, then place both Clarkson & Horton on LTIR once the season starts, and giving the club (about) $10.5 M in additional cap space. This scenario is only likely if Marner doesn’t sign before the season begins.

A few questions on that:
1) When did Marner sign? I believe it was in September, not after the season started. So there goes that theory out the window
2) I don't remember but did the Leafs put both Clarkson and Horton on LTIR before the season started or after? Or just one of them went on LTIR before the season started and then the other on LTIR after the season started to offset the accrued cap space?

Habs put Weber on LTIR before the season started (we were forced to). If not for Price on LTIR (after the season started), we would not have much cap space today.

I'm not 100% sure you are aware of all the little details and actually how it played out. Nice article though and it does provide some good context

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Doesn’t this contract decimate the predators?

 

[Habs Halifax]

Doesn’t this contract decimate the predators?

A little over $24M in cap recapture. And no team can convince Weber what to do with his personal decision. Not even if the Preds try to trade for him and try to convince him not to retire.

Preds have $24M in cap recapture (divided by how many years Weber retires early) but the NHL changed the rules where the single season recapture hit can't be higher than the actual contract AAV.... which is just under $8M

Weber has earned about $125M in his career so far. I think he collects his $3M for next year but the last 3 years after at $1M? That's anybody's guess. Preds would be smart to not spend to the max cap year/year and maintain $8M in cap space.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

You said under "no circumstance" and the Blackhawks were able to escape that contract and get both Johnson and a 2nd in return. They basically got someone who is overpaid but still can play on their roster and a 2nd rounder on top.

That's a good counter to your "Under no circumstance" narrative. Basically you are not wrong to some degree but you are using exaggeration

Johnson had meaningful negative value. Tampa gave up a 2nd and took on Seabrook's contract, actively putting them in LTIR (mild negative value), to dump it.

I'm pretty careful with my wording. Those contracts haven't been worth anything in the past, sometimes the opposite, and won't be in the future because there's no reason for them to be. LTIR or keeping an injured player on the cap is a bad thing in general, but preferable to the alternative is select scenarios.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Johnson had meaningful negative value. Tampa gave up a 2nd and took on Seabrook's contract, actively putting them in LTIR (mild negative value), to dump it.

I'm pretty careful with my wording. Those contracts haven't been worth anything in the past, sometimes the opposite, and won't be in the future because there's no reason for them to be. LTIR or keeping an injured player on the cap is a bad thing in general, but preferable to the alternative is select scenarios.

It's all good but the Blackhawks got a player to play on their roster (overpaid yes but not not in historic levels) and a 2nd rounder for their LTIR contract. I think they did pretty good with that and yeah, it's all about circumstances.

So with Weber, we can't pretend to know the circumstances that may or may not play out. I'm pretty that proposing that Seabrook/Johnson and a 2nd trade would have not gone well on HF boards (before the official trade).

 

[Peter Puck]

Quote from the article you just posted (Article from July 25, 2019):
"From reading the CapFriendly insights about the Clarkson deal, the scenario works best for the Maple Leafs if Marner doesn’t sign before the start of the season. In fact, CapFriendly noted that, “Another option for the #Leafs is to build a roster right up until the $81.5M ceiling, then place both Clarkson & Horton on LTIR once the season starts, and giving the club (about) $10.5 M in additional cap space. This scenario is only likely if Marner doesn’t sign before the season begins.

A few questions on that:
1) When did Marner sign? I believe it was in September, not after the season started. So there goes that theory out the window
2) I don't remember but did the Leafs put both Clarkson and Horton on LTIR before the season started or after? Or just one of them went on LTIR before the season started and then the other on LTIR after the season started to offset the accrued cap space?

Habs put Weber on LTIR before the season started (we were forced to). If not for Price on LTIR (after the season started), we would not have much cap space today.

I'm not 100% sure you are aware of all the little details and actually how it played out. Nice article though and it does provide some good context

I don't remember when Marner signed. My only point here is that there are situations where acquiring the contract of a player on LTIR (like Weber) can be useful for creating cap space. It does require a particular set of circumstances.

My point can be summarized by the headline of the article: "Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson".

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don't remember when Marner signed. My only point here is that there are situations where acquiring the contract of a player on LTIR (like Weber) can be useful for creating cap space. It does require a particular set of circumstances.

My point can be summarized by the headline of the article: "Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson".

Marner signed Sept 13th, 2019. Before the season started.

I do agree with the unique circumstances though. I don't remember but I believe the Leafs probably put one them on LTIR before the season started and then the other on LTIR after the season started. This basically gave them ability to accrue some cap space. Very similar to how Weber and Price played out this year.

 

[GAGLine]

You should stop digging. You are just demonstrating your ignorance on this aspect of the cap. Although you did admit that getting a LTIR contract did help the Leafs out.

Maybe you should take a look at this article from the time:
Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson

Okay. I read it. You're still wrong. The person who wrote that article did a poor job of explaining how LTIR works, which is probably why you are confused.

Let's assume the following:

Cap ceiling: 81.5 mil
Team cap hit: 80 mil
Injured player: 5 mil cap hit

So, the team is operating 1.5 mil under the cap when the player gets hurt. They place him on LTIR and their new cap ceiling becomes 85 mil. The 80 mil they were spending, plus the 5 mil for the injured player. The amount they are spending doesn't change though. They are still spending 80 mil.

Now let's introduce Weber into this equation, and for simplicity sake, let's round his cap hit up to 8 mil.

The team trades for Weber and makes no other moves. The team's cap ceiling goes up to 93 mil (85 + 8). But the team's cap cost goes up to 88 mil (80 + 8). The net effect is zero. With or without Weber's contract, the team still only has 5 mil in cap space.

The same thing is true when Toronto traded for Clarkson. His contract enabled them to increase their cap ceiling, but it also increased the amount they were spending by the same amount. That's why they traded players. That's why they gave up a 1st round pick to get rid of Marleau.

Simply bringing in a player who is on LTIR doesn't add cap space. If you actually read the link I posted, you'd see this is true.

If you still think you're right, then point out where my math is wrong.

 

[lwvs84]

I see a lot of people saying high cap teams (Toronto, Tampa, etc.) would like him. Wouldn't it only benefit them if they traded for him with a player making significant cap? I think Weber's hit is just under $8 mil? So if a team sent a player making $5 mil, then put him on LTIR they'd get rid of $5 mil off the cap. Otherwise, it's just like not having him on the team?

 

[CupInSIX]

I don't remember when Marner signed. My only point here is that there are situations where acquiring the contract of a player on LTIR (like Weber) can be useful for creating cap space. It does require a particular set of circumstances.

My point can be summarized by the headline of the article: "Maple Leafs Create Cap Space by Acquiring Clarkson".

Taking advantage of the final year of the Clarkson contract is not the same as taking nearly 8M of dead cap for 4 years.

Speaking of the Clarkson contract, Columbus had to give up a 1st and a 2nd to move it - and that was 5.25M of dead cap with 3 years remaining.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

Doesn’t this contract decimate the predators?

Decimate? No. The rule changed so the per year cap penalty can't exceed the AAV of the contract. It would suck to have a $7.825M hit for a few seasons, but since we're undergoing a re-tool of sorts, Poile has the Preds about as well placed to absorb it as they could be.

 

[Maitz]

Has this ever occurred in the NHL? Typically it’s the team moving the huge contract out (Detroit; Datsyuk) paying up the asset in order to free up space. LTIR is tricky business. Much easier to simply just have the cap space

I don't remember it happened in the past but I remember an offseason of the Panthers where they gave huge contracts to bad players just to have the floor, Upshall Fleishmann if I recall correctly both got 4M

 

[Soundgarden]

Doesn’t this contract decimate the predators?

No