2013 NHL Thread

[It's Damn Real!]

They had no choice. Recapture rules changed the game. They had every intention to trade Luongo until the lockout came into play and changed the game for all long-term contracts over seven years signed under the old CBA.

This from CapGeek.com:

Teams receiving a “cap advantage” from long-term contracts — defined as seven years or more for contracts signed prior to the January 2013 CBA — will be penalized in the event the player retires or “defects” from the NHL before the contract expires. A team receives a “cap advantage” when the player’s actual salary exceeds his cap hit in a given year.

Following retirement/defection, the “advantage” will be “recaptured” and charged against the club’s cap in equal amounts each year until the contract expires. This penalty applies to any team that received a cap advantage from the contract — ie. a traded contract — except in the event that the trade occurred prior to the new CBA coming into place in January 2013.

What this means is that any contract in excess of seven years (Lecavalier, Richards, Kovalchuk, Hossa, Luongo to name a few) that was signed prior to the current CBA will be retroactively penalized by the NHL in the event that player retires or leaves the NHL (including through demotions to the AHL or by signing with a rival league). How? By calculating the "savings" that player awarded the team who signed him in the first place where their cap hit vastly exceeded their actual salary over the life of the contract, and "recapturing" it to tag the team who signed him with ghost charges for a player no longer even on the roster. In other words, if you sign a player to a 10-year contract and he makes nearly all of it in the first six years, and the last four years he makes league minimum, despite still having a $5M cap hit because you thought you were slick with the numbers... yeah, all those "savings" you thought you were getting because you had a hand shake deal that the player would retire before them anyway are coming back to haunt you. The NHL is gonna calculate the difference, add it up and charge you with an average over the remaining years despite the fact that player is gone. This applies to every year where the cap hit exceeds the salary.

There is no alternative, including trading the player, because the team who originally signed the player is still retroactively dinged for having done so in the first place.

Per the CBA's Summary of Terms:

If the contract in question is ever traded or assigned to one or more other Clubs in the League, each Club will be subject to being charged with any and all “Cap Advantage” amounts it receives while being obligated pursuant the contract.

Schneider wasn't "shopped" until the last possible minute when they realized yet again that no one was gonna bite on sharing that recapture on Bobby Lu's contract.

 

[CH David]

They had no choice. Recapture rules changed the game. They had every intention to trade Luongo until the lockout came into play and changed the game for all long-term contracts over seven years signed under the old CBA.

This from CapGeek.com:



What this means is that any contract in excess of seven years (Lecavalier, Richards, Kovalchuk, Hossa, Luongo to name a few) that was signed prior to the current CBA will be retroactively penalized by the NHL in the event that player retires or leaves the NHL (including through demotions to the AHL or by signing with a rival league). How? By calculating the "savings" that player awarded the team who signed him in the first place where their cap hit vastly exceeded their actual salary over the life of the contract, and "recapturing" it to tag the team who signed him with ghost charges for a player no longer even on the roster. In other words, if you sign a player to a 10-year contract and he makes nearly all of it in the first six years, and the last four years he makes league minimum, despite still having a $5M cap hit because you thought you were slick with the numbers... yeah, all those "savings" you thought you were getting because you had a hand shake deal that the player would retire before them anyway are coming back to haunt you. The NHL is gonna calculate the difference, add it up and charge you with an average over the remaining years despite the fact that player is gone. This applies to every year where the cap hit exceeds the salary.

There is no alternative, including trading the player, because the team who originally signed the player is still retroactively dinged for having done so in the first place.

Per the CBA's Summary of Terms:



Schneider wasn't "shopped" until the last possible minute when they realized yet again that no one was gonna bite on sharing that recapture on Bobby Lu's contract.

Couldn't they just use their buyout clause on Bobby Lu? Would seem that would be the way to get around it for Vancouver. But Luongo is still a good goaltender. I think not having AV around will be a benefit, but I'm sure he will still have the pressure as the hometown boy. He's twitter gold though.

Bolland and Frolik traded away on draft day as well. Sad to see them go, but I get it. Got five million off the payroll by trading both, and they were basically 4th liners. Bolland was invisible for 90% of the playoffs, but did get the Cup winning goal. Frolik was tremendous on the PK all season long with Marcus Kruger. Helped get Bickell back for 4 mil for 4 years. Leddy and Kruger are also on the list, but as they are RFAs they weren't the top priority. Bickell's size and production would be tough to match from a rookie, and really the only forward the 'Hawks have in the system that could match his size would be Jimmy Hayes. Though production would suffer.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Couldn't they just use their buyout clause on Bobby Lu? Would seem that would be the way to get around it for Vancouver. But Luongo is still a good goaltender. I think not having AV around will be a benefit, but I'm sure he will still have the pressure as the hometown boy. He's twitter gold though.

Bolland and Frolik traded away on draft day as well. Sad to see them go, but I get it. Got five million off the payroll by trading both, and they were basically 4th liners. Bolland was invisible for 90% of the playoffs, but did get the Cup winning goal. Frolik was tremendous on the PK all season long with Marcus Kruger. Helped get Bickell back for 4 mil for 4 years. Leddy and Kruger are also on the list, but as they are RFAs they weren't the top priority. Bickell's size and production would be tough to match from a rookie, and really the only forward the 'Hawks have in the system that could match his size would be Jimmy Hayes. Though production would suffer.

Couldn't they? Of course. Good luck being the manager who asks for $20M+ to get rid of a player, though.

Fact is, NHL teams, even the rich ones, are not endless money pits. Owners fucking HATE to throw cash away, and buying out a starting goaltender (yes, he's still a starter) is throwing cash away.

 

[CH David]

Couldn't they? Of course. Good luck being the manager who asks for $20M+ to get rid of a player, though.

Fact is, NHL teams, even the rich ones, are not endless money pits. Owners fucking HATE to throw cash away, and buying out a starting goaltender (yes, he's still a starter) is throwing cash away.

True. Signing him for that long and that amount of money was awful. It's also the gift that keeps on giving as they try to find someone to either take him, or have to work around his contract. It's just delicious. Luongo really is the only one on that team that I like.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

True. Signing him for that long and that amount of money was awful. It's also the gift that keeps on giving as they try to find someone to either take him, or have to work around his contract. It's just delicious. Luongo really is the only one on that team that I like.

All those signings were horrendous mistakes, and worse yet, the Owners and GM's were all warned heading into this lockout the year prior to it to stop doing so. The league considered every deal to be circumvention of the CBA (because they were), but because it was a legal loophole, they refused. This is why recapture is in place now. It's retroactive punishment for a failure to heed clear warnings.

No one will take Luongo, trust me. No one. Recapture rules apply to any team who houses these players, including in the event the team who signed them trades that player to another team. The teams then share the recapture penalties if/when the player retires early.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Well, the Bruins did it. They traded Tyler Seguin and Rich Peverley for Loui Erikson and three prospects, all of which seem decent.

Great trade. Am I afraid that Seguin will live up to his potential and become Stamkos-esque? Absolutely. But that's all he is right now: $6 million of potential. Like another #19 that used to play for the Bruins, he's useless come playoff time. There are also maturity concerns. If you can get a guy like Loui Erikson for him, who will play awesome with Bergeron, then you have to go for it.

Losing Seguin and Peverley (who also had a bad contract) will allow the Bruins to free up money to extend Rask and Bergeron, and sign one or two more players who can make a significant impact.

Seguin is a question mark. The window keeps shortening and we can't wait to see if he'll ever wake up.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Hockey trade. Both sides gain.

Seguin is a center, naturally, and he was never going to get a top-6 center position with the Bruins with Krejci and Bergeron there.

Stars needed a top-line center to move Jamie Benn back to LW. They have him now.

Eriksson slides in on RW with Marchand and Bergeron, IMO.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Iginla to the Bruins - 1 year, $6 million.

I'm so confused right now. I never thought Iggy would come here considering the fanbase hates him. We still owe Tuuk a boatload of cash too!

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Bruins need a RW with Horton leaving for Columbus, and considering they missed the boat on Clarkson and Clowe as well, and based on the fact Penner is a LW, Iggy makes sense. He makes sense doubly as well because they nearly traded for him at the deadline before his camp nixed the deal at the last minute to orchestrate a trade instead to Pittsburgh.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Well of course... I just never thought he'd sign here and we were actually joking about it at work today saying it would never happen in a million years. I thought if anything we'd get a RW via trade or re-sign Jagr.

Deal is a total of $6 million (I thought it was $6 mill. base) $1.8 base, $3.7 games played bonus, $500k for team performance and goals scored. Not sure how incentives hit the cap but damn this is a great deal.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Fact is, he should have gone to BOS the first time. He was never a fit with the Pens, who actually had to move him to LW just to fit him into the top-6 based on their depth, and BOS had a natural position for him, and frankly, a better line-up that better fit his style of play.

The only real issue with his $6M hit is that the Bruins still need to re-sign both Rask and Bergeron, both of whom are going to end up with 8-year terms for big money.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

So, my question is: How do his incentives hit the cap? With a $1.8 million base salary, don't the Bruins still have room to play with to sign not only Bergeron and Rask but maybe even one more depth guy (perhaps a Jagr return on cheap money)?

What I do know is that a top six of:

Lucic-Krejci-Iginla
Erikson-Bergeron-Marchand

Is dreamy.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

So, my question is: How do his incentives hit the cap? With a $1.8 million base salary, don't the Bruins still have room to play with to sign not only Bergeron and Rask but maybe even one more depth guy (perhaps a Jagr return on cheap money)?

http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-do-performance-bonuses-count-against-the-cap

The performance bonus cushion allows teams to exceed the upper limit with performance bonuses to a maximum of 7.5 percent of the upper limit.

For example, if the upper limit is $64,300,000, teams can exceed it by $4,822,500 in performance bonuses. Any performances bonuses in excess of that total do not fall into the cushion and are counted as part of the team's cap payroll.

Any performance bonuses actually earned at season's end (ie. for games played, awards, all-star teams, etc.) are then added to the team's final cap payroll. The catch with the cushion is that if the bonuses earned at year's end push the team past the upper limit, the overage is carried over as a penalty the following season.

Make sense?

So Iggy's $1.8M in bonuses, if the Bruins decide to go to the $64.3M ceiling (which they are likely to) can roll over into next season when the cap is expected to rise to $70M or more.

What I do know is that a top six of:

Lucic-Krejci-Iginla
Erikson-Bergeron-Marchand

Is dreamy.

That's likely exactly what you'll see. Eriksson was brought in to flank Bergeron/Marchand, but Marchand can probably move up to the first line if need be, if for whatever reason Iggy doesn't pan out in the role (not likely).

 

[It's Damn Real!]

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/bos130709.html

Center Chris Kelly has been shopped around the league, but the Bruins haven't been able to find a deal they're willing to accept.

It is believed the Bruins have also entertained calls for fan-favorite Brad Marchand, but "nothing is close," a source close to the team told TFP on Monday.

Also on Monday, long-time Bruins and NHL reporter Kevin Paul Dupont tweeted, "Also would not be surprised to see Marchand and/or Kelly traded."

While it would take a significant trade for Chiarelli to part with Marchand, the focus appears to be on Kelly and his $3 million cap hit.

Kelly, however, has a no-trade clause and will have to approve any deal the Bruins attempt to complete.

--

Ah, the price of league "parity".

Kelly I can understand the Bruins being willing to move. His $3M ticket is a bit on the steep side for a third-line checking center, but moving the lil' ball of hate is gonna be a really tough sell in Boston. Far worse fan reaction, I'd imagine, than the Seguin trade.

 

[Mac Attack]

Honestly I'm intrigued to see D'agostin's role in Pittsburgh. I figure he'll probably play on the third line however I'm bit entirely sure as he may end up being on the fourth line. In general I like the move as it seems a good fit to replace the hole from Cooke. Also I'm extremely happy to see Scuderi back on the Pens as I think he's a great fit for the team. Penguins cap space is slightly a scary scenario however I think that with what we have we have been making good moves.

 

[mwat9050]

Pretty shocked that Kovi retired today. Lot of money left on the table still. I'm sure he will play in the KHL still.....

In other news......you guys think Rask is worth the money he just got? Quite a pretty penny. He's good, but not 7 mil a year good

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Pretty shocked that Kovi retired today. Lot of money left on the table still. I'm sure he will play in the KHL still.....

I was really shocked earlier, but based on what I've been reading since, it's not nearly as surprising as I initially thought. Fact is, the Devils have been in financial peril for a while now, only very recently getting back into position to where their debt became "manageable" (though they're still upward of $230M in the hole to the Prudential Center, and apparently paying players late), and in mutually voiding Kovalchuk's contract, they actually get off nearly scot-free. They'll pay round about $300K in recapture penalties based on the age of Kovalchuk when the deal was voided for the next twelve years where they could have been facing much more substantial charges had he retired where he "intended" to (36) and played out the majority of the deal.

Ken Campbell had great insight to this earlier:

The Devils, meanwhile, should be breaking out streamers and noisemakers over this one. It’s obvious Kovalchuk’s heart was not in playing for the Devils, since he was apparently the one who initiated this process. But Kovalchuk’s contract was just beginning to get costly for the Devils. In fact, they would have paid out a total of $56 million over the next five years. For a team that is carrying a debt load of reportedly $230 million, that’s exorbitant for a player whose production did not match the zeroes in his paycheck. An amnesty buyout would have cost the Devils $51.3 million this summer, so that was out of the question. Had Kovalchuk decided to retire after Year 9 of his 15-year deal, he would have earned $86 of his $100 million, but the NHL’s punitive cap-recapture scheme would have hit the Devils with a cap hit of $4.3 million for each of the last five years of that contract, as opposed to a hit of just over $250,000 now until 2024-25.

Basically, the Devils just got away with "paying out" only $300K (give or take) for the next twelve years in recapture penalties under the new CBA for a player who wanted to leave anyway (and who never intended to play out the duration of his contract in the first place). And by pay, I mean only against their cap. Zero of it comes out of their pocket.

In other news......you guys think Rask is worth the money he just got? Quite a pretty penny. He's good, but not 7 mil a year good

Yes, he's worth it.

Salaries are on the rise league-wide. This is what happens when you pay players the types of salaries the market says they are worth without the ability to tack on dummy years at near league minimum to artificially lower the AAV.

Fact is, they went eight years with him, which means they bought seven years of unrestricted free agency from him. If you don't think he'd net $7M in AAV on the open market, put down the pipe, because reality is passing you by a lot faster than you might think.

 

[mwat9050]

I guess I'm still just drunk of the Blackhawks Stanley Cup win....

He's a great goaltender, don't get me wrong, but that's a lot of scratch for a guy who gave up 6 goals in a Stanley Cup Finals game....

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I guess I'm still just drunk of the Blackhawks Stanley Cup win....

He's a great goaltender, don't get me wrong, but that's a lot of scratch for a guy who gave up 6 goals in a Stanley Cup Finals game....

Welcome to the world of the new CBA. Get used to these prices, because they aren't going anywhere, least of all down. This is the product of the NHL lockout, which effectively removed both dummy years and contract terms in excess of eight years (for your own players, seven for free agents), which means that the AAV (annual average value) of every deal signed going forward is going to be worth a lot more based purely on the fact that you can no longer artificially lower the cap hit of a player by tacking on years he will not play at near league minimum the way so many of the long-term deals signed under the old CBA operated.

Marián Hossa, for example, carries a cap hit of only $5.275M on a contract he signed back in 2009. Why? Because he signed for 12 years — the final four of which he only makes $1M, which is barely 50% more than league minimum ($550K).

If you take his contract and chop those years off, wanna know what his cap hit becomes? $7.412M. A substantially higher cap hit that's utterly and artificially reduced by tacking on years to the deal he never intended to play.

Fast forward to now, and you are still seeing long-term deals signed, but like Hossa, teams are now having to own up to the more natural average of their term. Simple as that.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

...and like that, the Flyers fire Peter Laviolette and bring on Craig Berube to replace him. Can't say I'm all that shocked, to be honest. He was an inch away from being fired last season, when they should have pulled the trigger, but didn't. Now the new coaching staff has the awesome task of picking up the pieces of this shattered mess of a team and trying to make something of it while Ed Snider breathes down their necks instead of Lavs and Holmgren (who Dreger tweets is now in the crosshairs).

Just like Torts, coaches like this have a shelf life of around four years. You can only scream and yell at your players for so long before eventually you become Charlie Brown's parents to them — womp womp womp womp womp. As flawed as the Flyers roster is (and that's on management, not Lavs), there's not one player on that team who plays up to their capability these days. That's on the coach. It may only be three games, but their top line hasn't recorded a single point yet this season. That's embarrassing.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Nearly four months since our last post in here? No bueno, boys.

For all intents and purposes, we're halfway through the year — how happy are you with where your team is? Any league surprises?

In other news, Phaneuf re-upping with Toronto takes yet another premiere player off an already weak market this summer. Good luck to any GM who has intentions of heavy shopping in that thing. The cupboards are bare!

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Has anyone used NHL Gamecenter for watching live games? I am thinking of getting in hopes to watch games easier. I don't live in the US or Canada so watching games often takes quite an effort.

That and I plan on getting a Smartphone (yeah I don't have one yet) soon it would make a great app to have.

 

[Septumus]

Seems dead here so I'll liven it up. Being completely anti-Canucks(can't stand the fans I see every day what with living in BC) I was disappointed to see that they were up 3-0 going into the 3rd. The joy I felt later in the night seeing they let in 7 goals in the third to lose 7-4 absolutely made my night.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Seems dead here so I'll liven it up. Being completely anti-Canucks(can't stand the fans I see every day what with living in BC) I was disappointed to see that they were up 3-0 going into the 3rd. The joy I felt later in the night seeing they let in 7 goals in the third to lose 7-4 absolutely made my night.

As a Canucks fan it's probably a blessing in disguise. And will probably tell them that things need to change dramatically.

Maybe someone told them to tank the game because they wanted to get a higher pick? I dunno this is embarrassing they collapsed in the 3rd period after a 3 goal lead in an Islanders team without Tavares, Grabner (3rd period), Vanek/Moulson.

I sure hope something happens in this team quick. It doesn't have to be a playoff spot maybe just to show any indication the team is ready to rebuild.

But there was a rumor that John Tortorella would have been fired if he lost the Flames game. Though if losing to the Flames was enough reason to fire him, collapsing at the 3rd with a 3 goal lead is just, if not more, a reason to let go of him.

 

[Septumus]

With the Luongo trade it seems that they realize the time to win the cup is over and they need to rebuild. Most experts said they had 5 years starting in 09-10 and here we are 4 years later and that window seems to have shut on them.

I'm still surprised Mike Gillis has a job every morning still.