They don't need to move Weber, he is on LTIR, the approach here is to trade him to a team with no budget who needs to get to the salary cap floor. He will count for 7.8M on the salary cap while the team only needs to pay him 6M for 4 years. For a low budget team in a rebuild this is a pretty good move.
Speculation: Weber's Contract
- Thread starter Mike Jones
- Start date
They don't need to move Weber, he is on LTIR, the approach here is to trade him to a team with no budget who needs to get to the salary cap floor. He will count for 7.8M on the salary cap while the team only needs to pay him 6M for 4 years. For a low budget team in a rebuild this is a pretty good move.
General Fanager
Registered User
mouser
Business of Hockey
2) Teams that are already committed to using LTIR all season, might find it beneficial to acquire a second+ LTIR contract if it helps them set a higher ACSL (accruable cap space limit). This is what Toronto did.
The odds of this situation arising are very rare.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Arizona currently has 12 open slots for next season and needs $24m to hit cap floor. They shouldn’t have any problem hitting cap floor. Take on 1-2 overpaid contracts for assets like they just did with Ladd & Eriksson this season, and fill out the roster at an average of $1m or so per player.
I can easily see Tampa wanting to move Seabrook’s contract so they don’t need to use LTIR next season. With $2.2m in cash remaining (after TB pays the signing bonus & accounting for 60% insurance) and 2x $6.875m cap hit I could see something like a 2nd +4th worth of value from Tampa getting an Arizona deal done. e.g. 2nd plus B/B- prospect.
Two years of Seabrook is much better then four years of Weber.
I can easily see Tampa wanting to move Seabrook’s contract so they don’t need to use LTIR next season. With $2.2m in cash remaining (after TB pays the signing bonus & accounting for 60% insurance) and 2x $6.875m cap hit I could see something like a 2nd +4th worth of value from Tampa getting an Arizona deal done. e.g. 2nd plus B/B- prospect.
Two years of Seabrook is much better then four years of Weber.
Last edited:
Under no circumstances does Weber’s contract have positive value. It’s either negative or nothing (future considerations).
why would a team needing to reach the cap floor not see any benefit in it ?
I didn't claim the opposite. If Arizona or another team in a similar niche circumstance wants it, they just won't have to pay for it in a trade. Montreal will give it away if it can.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Teams very very rarely need a LTIR contract to hit the cap floor.
To the best of my knowledge it’s only happened two times in NHL history. Ottawa a few years ago and Buffalo this season.
There are enough bad contracts in the league that teams with lots of cap space are better off weaponizing that space to be compensated for taking the bad contracts. Think of it as a supply and demand problem—the supply of bad contracts is much larger then the demand for bad contracts.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 7,786
- 11,994
I think Weber's average 7.8m cap hit and 1.5m in cash for the next four years, not accounting for insurance claims, is quite unique itself. Maybe it isn't worth much but I doubt the Habs will have to pay to get rid of his contract.
if nashville reacquired the contract after weber is paid the year with three million, can they
A. buy out the remaining 3 years of the contract which is only 1 million a year for three years ?
B. just leave him on ltir for the remaining 3 years thus avoiding the cap recapture penalties ?
viceroy
Registered User
However bad contracts still have to be paid out whereas Weber's deal is likely no cash out. 2 different beasts altogether.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 7,786
- 11,994
Just to note again: the issue with leaving a player on LTIR is the off-season where LTIR doesn't apply. Clubs are allowed a 10% Cap Overage but LTIR doesn't apply, so Weber's 7.85m is just under 10% of the cap so that's fine, but if the club has another LTIR-type player, then they are actually in pain and cannot register contracts until they're cap compliant (110% of the cap in the offseason, and 100%+LTIR from the first day of the season).
The Habs for instance could have Price (12% of the cap) and Weber (8.5% of the cap) as LTIR-type contracts. That means they're in some pain if they intend to spend to the cap, they'll be only allowed to spend to ~90% of the cap at most.
i believe management were not being honest when they said they would be active in free agency this year . after trading toffoli, chariot and kulak this year and drouin byron and allen next year , being cap compliant will not be an issue
You can put a player on LTIR in the off season. Toronto did it a couple years ago with Horton.
The bigger problem with a contract like Weber is the lack of ability to accrue cap space.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 7,786
- 11,994
You can exceed the cap by up to 10% and that’s it — from my understanding this is a problem because Price is likely another LTIRetirement case and there is no way he’s giving up 40m he’s owed over the next four years.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Actual salary for the next 4 years
$3M
$1M
$1M
$1M
There is a fair chance he collects his $3M salary next year and then retires (He's earned over $125M in his hockey career). Going through yearly LTIR protocol might not be worth it for him at that point. Especially if he is interested in a management role (maybe development team) and can collect a salary doing that job.
Certainly not 100% he retires but I think he considers it
Oates2Neely
Registered User
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
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
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
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
"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
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Agreed. Teams that take on LTIR contracts have unique circumstances that make sense for what they are going through but most teams avoid it. This is not an advantage.
GAGLine
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,025
- 20,636
I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who don't know how LTIR works, yet act like they do.
Players on LTIR still count against the cap. So if you bring in a player on LTIR, yes, your cap ceiling goes up, but your cap commitment also goes up by the same amount, resulting in zero benefit. A team like Vegas would only benefit from bringing in Weber if they are sending out cap at the same time. If they traded Reilly Smith for Weber, they would open up 5 mil in cap space. Their cap ceiling would go up by 7.9 mil due to Weber, but their cap commitment would only go up by 2.9 mil (Weber - Smith). Vegas has no reason to trade for Weber unless that's the only way they are able to move out salary, which it obviously would not be.
Players on LTIR still count against the cap. So if you bring in a player on LTIR, yes, your cap ceiling goes up, but your cap commitment also goes up by the same amount, resulting in zero benefit. A team like Vegas would only benefit from bringing in Weber if they are sending out cap at the same time. If they traded Reilly Smith for Weber, they would open up 5 mil in cap space. Their cap ceiling would go up by 7.9 mil due to Weber, but their cap commitment would only go up by 2.9 mil (Weber - Smith). Vegas has no reason to trade for Weber unless that's the only way they are able to move out salary, which it obviously would not be.
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.
A. Yes, during one of the buy out windows. The money is only 2/3 of 3 million (so 2 million) but they would also have 2/3 of the remaining cap (spread over 6 years).
B. Yes, if chooses not to retire.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
You can exceed the cap by 10% in the offseason but once the season starts, you need to be cap compliant. Lets say Price is on LTIR next year as well, what are the problems for Montreal who is thinking youth/rebuild and not the playoffs? All the Habs need to do is place Weber on LTIR before the season starts to be cap compliant and then Price to LTIR after the season starts and that's how they create accrued cap space during the season where they might consider taking on other teams bad contracts that are about to expire but they want the room now. Basically exactly how this current season is going.
It would only be a negative to the Habs situation if they actually were shooting for a retool/reset and trying for the playoffs next year and they have plans to spend in UFA
- Jan 18, 2022
- 7,786
- 11,994
The issue isn’t exactly next year but the next four years. We can’t have both of them on LTIRetirement because at one point we’ll need to spend to the Cap and won’t be able to.
