Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 2:37:33 GMT
That's not true, I can link some articles explaining the math if you want. In any case, isn't this the kind of thinking that burned you on Iginla...Peter? I would like those links please. The whole point of recapture penalties is so you can't circumvent the cap by paying more money tha is on your cap. In this case the team would be paying less than is on their cap. And Iginla was a bonus issue. Hossa doesn't have any bonuses. No it's not. The point of the recapture penalties are to punish teams that lower cap hits by tacking on meaningless years of a million bucks or so at the end. That's why someone like Ovechkin, (you got me there) who only has a variance of 1 million in year one and year 13, isn't going to draw any penalites. I did try to look this up in the CBA before I posted my original post, but that's 540 PDF pages, and I didn't bother. Let's be logical though, if a team could trade for Marian Hossa and receive no penalty from recaptures, he would be in the rumor mill instead of Bickell and Sharp. espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-detailsThere's even a mention of Hossa in the last paragraph of the section. (The Luongo Rule)
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 26, 2015 2:54:22 GMT
I would like those links please. The whole point of recapture penalties is so you can't circumvent the cap by paying more money tha is on your cap. In this case the team would be paying less than is on their cap. And Iginla was a bonus issue. Hossa doesn't have any bonuses. No it's not. The point of the recapture penalties are to punish teams that lower cap hits by tacking on meaningless years of a million bucks or so at the end. That's why someone like Ovechkin, (you got me there) who only has a variance of 1 million in year one and year 13, isn't going to draw any penalites. I did try to look this up in the CBA before I posted my original post, but that's 540 PDF pages, and I didn't bother. Let's be logical though, if a team could trade for Marian Hossa and receive no penalty from recaptures, he would be in the rumor mill instead of Bickell and Sharp. espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-detailsThere's even a mention of Hossa in the last paragraph of the section. (The Luongo Rule) That article proves my point. The term they keep bringing up is cap savings. They constantly list scenarios in which both teams pay amount x, and receive a cap hit of y. In all those scenarios, x is bigger than y, meaning that they spend more than the cap hit, which is why they get the penalty. In this scenario, the bruins pay (x) 2.65 million per year with a cap hit (y) of 5.233. When y (the cap hit) is bigger than x (the real dollars paid) there is no cap circumvention, no cap savings, and thus no penalty. The only way the Bruins could get a penalty is if they traded for him this year, and he retired after 2 years. The Bruins pay 11.9, and receive a cap hit of a little south of 10.5. If this happened, the Bruins would recieve a cap hit of 350k for 4 years, and the Hawks would pay 4 million per year. If hossa lasts 3 years or more, no penalty for the Bruins
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 11:26:48 GMT
No it's not. The point of the recapture penalties are to punish teams that lower cap hits by tacking on meaningless years of a million bucks or so at the end. That's why someone like Ovechkin, (you got me there) who only has a variance of 1 million in year one and year 13, isn't going to draw any penalites. I did try to look this up in the CBA before I posted my original post, but that's 540 PDF pages, and I didn't bother. Let's be logical though, if a team could trade for Marian Hossa and receive no penalty from recaptures, he would be in the rumor mill instead of Bickell and Sharp. espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-detailsThere's even a mention of Hossa in the last paragraph of the section. (The Luongo Rule) That article proves my point. The term they keep bringing up is cap savings. They constantly list scenarios in which both teams pay amount x, and receive a cap hit of y. In all those scenarios, x is bigger than y, meaning that they spend more than the cap hit, which is why they get the penalty. In this scenario, the bruins pay (x) 2.65 million per year with a cap hit (y) of 5.233. When y (the cap hit) is bigger than x (the real dollars paid) there is no cap circumvention, no cap savings, and thus no penalty. The only way the Bruins could get a penalty is if they traded for him this year, and he retired after 2 years. The Bruins pay 11.9, and receive a cap hit of a little south of 10.5. If this happened, the Bruins would recieve a cap hit of 350k for 4 years, and the Hawks would pay 4 million per year. If hossa lasts 3 years or more, no penalty for the Bruins Nope. But hey, this is an American board. We're all free to think whatever we want. Any big variance in monies paid and cap hit is punished. Feel free to ask someone smarter than I am for a better explanation. I have to ask though, after Cup number three, do you still think slow ass, washed up Seidenberg is better than Hjallmarsson?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 26, 2015 14:05:16 GMT
That article proves my point. The term they keep bringing up is cap savings. They constantly list scenarios in which both teams pay amount x, and receive a cap hit of y. In all those scenarios, x is bigger than y, meaning that they spend more than the cap hit, which is why they get the penalty. In this scenario, the bruins pay (x) 2.65 million per year with a cap hit (y) of 5.233. When y (the cap hit) is bigger than x (the real dollars paid) there is no cap circumvention, no cap savings, and thus no penalty. The only way the Bruins could get a penalty is if they traded for him this year, and he retired after 2 years. The Bruins pay 11.9, and receive a cap hit of a little south of 10.5. If this happened, the Bruins would recieve a cap hit of 350k for 4 years, and the Hawks would pay 4 million per year. If hossa lasts 3 years or more, no penalty for the Bruins Nope. But hey, this is an American board. We're all free to think whatever we want. Any big variance in monies paid and cap hit is punished. Feel free to ask someone smarter than I am for a better explanation. I have to ask though, after Cup number three, do you still think slow ass, washed up Seidenberg is better than Hjallmarsson? So you're blatanlty wrong so you change the subject?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 26, 2015 14:28:57 GMT
From the collective bargaining agreement:
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.
So. No. Feel free to track down one of those smarter guys to tell you you're wrong. If you want to tell me there will be a recapture penalty for the 2.5 million they save in year 1, I might have to dig in the CBA further to disprove that, but this lays tat out plain and simple, cap advantages are only when you pay more than the cap hit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 16:35:17 GMT
From the collective bargaining agreement: 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. That's actually a quote from Spector's Hockey ripped from Cap Geek, not the CBA. spectorshockey.net/blog/fun-with-the-nhls-cap-advantage-recapture-rule/I know that because I researched the rule before I made my first post about this. I can also tell you that there is only one article out there (Lebrun) that was quoted extensively with a clarification about the cap ramifications to the second team that receives a player with a front loaded contact. If you want to interpret the article differently than I did, whatever. I think that if a team who needs to reach the salary floor acquires a bad contract, (like FL/Luongo) that's also a "cap advantage" which is why the rule is like I think it is. Furthermore, for you to expound on a minor technicality in a post from four days ago reeks of desperation. Are you that worried about being proven wrong on a message board? What did you do in the previous three days? Did you email Gary Bettman?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 26, 2015 16:55:09 GMT
From the collective bargaining agreement: 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. That's actually a quote from Spector's Hockey ripped from Cap Geek, not the CBA. spectorshockey.net/blog/fun-with-the-nhls-cap-advantage-recapture-rule/I know that because I researched the rule before I made my first post about this. I can also tell you that there is only one article out there (Lebrun) that was quoted extensively with a clarification about the cap ramifications to the second team that receives a player with a front loaded contact. If you want to interpret the article differently than I did, whatever. I think that if a team who needs to reach the salary floor acquires a bad contract, (like FL/Luongo) that's also a "cap advantage" which is why the rule is like I think it is. Furthermore, for you to expound on a minor technicality in a post from four days ago reeks of desperation. Are you that worried about being proven wrong on a message board? What did you do in the previous three days? Did you email Gary Bettman? Let's drop the animosity before this gets ugly. Sandog is the only poster I want to actively dislike. I do think that the difference between our views on a cap advantage isn't minor. As for the article I was under the impression he was quoting the CBA. If I was mistaken I apologize.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 16:59:23 GMT
That's actually a quote from Spector's Hockey ripped from Cap Geek, not the CBA. spectorshockey.net/blog/fun-with-the-nhls-cap-advantage-recapture-rule/I know that because I researched the rule before I made my first post about this. I can also tell you that there is only one article out there (Lebrun) that was quoted extensively with a clarification about the cap ramifications to the second team that receives a player with a front loaded contact. If you want to interpret the article differently than I did, whatever. I think that if a team who needs to reach the salary floor acquires a bad contract, (like FL/Luongo) that's also a "cap advantage" which is why the rule is like I think it is. Furthermore, for you to expound on a minor technicality in a post from four days ago reeks of desperation. Are you that worried about being proven wrong on a message board? What did you do in the previous three days? Did you email Gary Bettman? Let's drop the animosity before this gets ugly. Sandog is the only poster I want to actively dislike. I do think that the difference between our views on a cap advantage isn't minor. As for the article I was under the impression he was quoting the CBA. If I was mistaken I apologize. The rules in the CBA start on page 261 of the document, not the PDF. You're welcome to look. Lebrun ripped illustration 3 practically word for word and applied the math to the Luongo deal, and it's the only source I can see repeated. What a low level of reseach... www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf50.5 (d) There's no example given of what a team pays if they acquire a contract after the money dips well below the AAV, so I have no idea now after reading this if I'm right or not.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 26, 2015 17:09:57 GMT
Let's drop the animosity before this gets ugly. Sandog is the only poster I want to actively dislike. I do think that the difference between our views on a cap advantage isn't minor. As for the article I was under the impression he was quoting the CBA. If I was mistaken I apologize. The rules in the CBA start on page 261 of the document, not the PDF. You're welcome to look. Lebrun ripped illustration 3 practically word for word and applied the math to the Luongo deal, and it's the only source I can see repeated. What a low level of reseach... www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf50.5 (d) There's no example given of what a team pays if they acquire a contract after the money dips well below the AAV, so I have no idea now after reading this if I'm right or not. This is taken directly from the CBA as of NHL.com any “Cap Advantage” that may have been gained by a Club during the time the Player was playing in the League under his SPC (defined as the amount by which a Player’s actual cash compensation exceeds his full Averaged Amount (“AA”)), both annually and in the aggregate, will be “Recaptured,” and charged against the Club’s Upper Limit from year-to-year in equal amounts over the remaining term of the Player’s SPC. My understanding is that it specifically defines as cap advantages as a contract where the real dollars exceeds the cap hit. Because the definition goes out of its way to state that, and does not mention situations where the cap hit exceeds the real dollar amount, the only conclusion I can draw is that such a situation does not qualify as a cap advantage under the CBA
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 26, 2015 18:13:13 GMT
Just read where Fat has included LA, SJ & ANA on his 15 team acceptable trade list. How about Fat to the Sharts for Burns, then the B's trade Hamilton to the Yotes for the 3rd overall and take Crouse?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 28, 2015 18:13:00 GMT
Just read where Fat has included LA, SJ & ANA on his 15 team acceptable trade list. How about Fat to the Sharts for Burns, then the B's trade Hamilton to the Yotes for the 3rd overall and take Crouse? Lucic + for burns makes too much sense for sweeneys taste
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 28, 2015 20:20:26 GMT
Just read where Fat has included LA, SJ & ANA on his 15 team acceptable trade list. How about Fat to the Sharts for Burns, then the B's trade Hamilton to the Yotes for the 3rd overall and take Crouse? Lucic + for burns makes too much sense for sweeneys taste As long as i have Dr CC as my cap manager, i'd take on the job. Its easy, peasy from behind this computer screen!
|
|
|
Post by DrCC on Jun 30, 2015 16:39:40 GMT
Re: Hossa proposal.
Burying him in the AHL would not be very helpful, it would only net the $515,000 (or whatever the exact number is, I forget) in savings.
For retirement, I miss CapGeek. From what I recall though, it is pretty straight forward. The day he retires, subtract how much in cap he cost from how much he was actually paid on a team-by-team basis. For Chicago, that would mean $28 million in penalties over however many years remain, no matter how many of those years there are. Ouch. (I wonder if the League would give them some sort of special treatment if Hossa plays for another team and retires with 1 year left? Let them spread it over 5?)
For Boston, if he retired after 2 seasons, they'd pay a penalty of about $1 million spread over the remaining 4 seasons. If he plays even one more season, the total paid in cap in Boston would exceed the total paid in cash, and there would be no penalty for Boston (and as far as I recall, it can't be a negative penalty). This is consistent with what LeBrun puts in his article. I think that if the Blackhawks are sure Hossa will retire before the end of his contract, it is in their future interests to keep him until his salary dives for a year or two, or retain a good chunk of his salary (which doesn't help with their current cap situation). The latter doesn't seem to be explicity mentioned in the CBA, but I would expect to simply add in on the penalty calculation, so that any years played on the other team where his cap hit exceeds his salary would reduce the penalty they face, just at a rate proportional to how much of his salary Chicago retained.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jul 2, 2015 19:01:48 GMT
Re: Hossa proposal. Burying him in the AHL would not be very helpful, it would only net the $515,000 (or whatever the exact number is, I forget) in savings. For retirement, I miss CapGeek. From what I recall though, it is pretty straight forward. The day he retires, subtract how much in cap he cost from how much he was actually paid on a team-by-team basis. For Chicago, that would mean $28 million in penalties over however many years remain, no matter how many of those years there are. Ouch. (I wonder if the League would give them some sort of special treatment if Hossa plays for another team and retires with 1 year left? Let them spread it over 5?) For Boston, if he retired after 2 seasons, they'd pay a penalty of about $1 million spread over the remaining 4 seasons. If he plays even one more season, the total paid in cap in Boston would exceed the total paid in cash, and there would be no penalty for Boston (and as far as I recall, it can't be a negative penalty). This is consistent with what LeBrun puts in his article. I think that if the Blackhawks are sure Hossa will retire before the end of his contract, it is in their future interests to keep him until his salary dives for a year or two, or retain a good chunk of his salary (which doesn't help with their current cap situation). The latter doesn't seem to be explicity mentioned in the CBA, but I would expect to simply add in on the penalty calculation, so that any years played on the other team where his cap hit exceeds his salary would reduce the penalty they face, just at a rate proportional to how much of his salary Chicago retained. I agree with the majority of this. Henry won't, because he doesn't believe the CBA is correct on this one. However if they demoted him the Bruins would save the entirety of his cap hit, seeing as how his multi year deal was signed prior to his 35th birthday
|
|
|
Post by DrCC on Jul 2, 2015 19:04:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 19:50:11 GMT
Re: Hossa proposal. Burying him in the AHL would not be very helpful, it would only net the $515,000 (or whatever the exact number is, I forget) in savings. For retirement, I miss CapGeek. From what I recall though, it is pretty straight forward. The day he retires, subtract how much in cap he cost from how much he was actually paid on a team-by-team basis. For Chicago, that would mean $28 million in penalties over however many years remain, no matter how many of those years there are. Ouch. (I wonder if the League would give them some sort of special treatment if Hossa plays for another team and retires with 1 year left? Let them spread it over 5?) For Boston, if he retired after 2 seasons, they'd pay a penalty of about $1 million spread over the remaining 4 seasons. If he plays even one more season, the total paid in cap in Boston would exceed the total paid in cash, and there would be no penalty for Boston (and as far as I recall, it can't be a negative penalty). This is consistent with what LeBrun puts in his article. I think that if the Blackhawks are sure Hossa will retire before the end of his contract, it is in their future interests to keep him until his salary dives for a year or two, or retain a good chunk of his salary (which doesn't help with their current cap situation). The latter doesn't seem to be explicity mentioned in the CBA, but I would expect to simply add in on the penalty calculation, so that any years played on the other team where his cap hit exceeds his salary would reduce the penalty they face, just at a rate proportional to how much of his salary Chicago retained. I agree with the majority of this. Henry won't, because he doesn't believe the CBA is correct on this one. However if they demoted him the Bruins would save the entirety of his cap hit, seeing as how his multi year deal was signed prior to his 35th birthday Wow, let it go man.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jul 2, 2015 20:16:29 GMT
I was just messing with you relax
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jul 2, 2015 20:18:42 GMT
According to that you're absolutely right. Must be one of the lesser talked about parts of the new CBA differing from the old
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Jul 6, 2015 18:25:17 GMT
Back to the purpose of this thread.
Krejci & Kelly to Carolina for Eric Staal.
I'd do it, when both at their best, I give the nod to Staal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 20:15:00 GMT
Back to the purpose of this thread. Krejci & Kelly to Carolina for Eric Staal. I'd do it, when both at their best, I give the nod to Staal. Only if Staal would sign a new contract.........he becomes a UFA after this upcoming season. The Bruins would have nothing to show for trading Krejci after the 2016th season if Staal wanted to test free agency.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 6, 2015 22:24:12 GMT
Staal is not what he once was. I've only seen flashes.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jul 6, 2015 22:48:13 GMT
Semin got 6 gls playing with Staal, Staal's fault? Semins fault? I'd prefer DK and Pasta, over any other combo involving any of these players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 13:08:16 GMT
DK is not what he once was as well........flashes seems to be a good word to use when describing what he's brought to the Bruins lately.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jul 7, 2015 13:50:18 GMT
DK is not what he once was as well........flashes seems to be a good word to use when describing what he's brought to the Bruins lately. I agree, he didn't seem to be last season, but injuries, plus a RW named Griffith and then a revolving door there, might have had something to do with it. The previous yr to last, with Fat & Iggy as a steady group, DK was fine. I am hoping, other than health, that CJ sets DK's line from camp and sticks with it, or at least i should say he finds 2 wingers that mesh well with him. The old DK will return.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 17:58:38 GMT
DK is not what he once was as well........flashes seems to be a good word to use when describing what he's brought to the Bruins lately. I agree, he didn't seem to be last season, but injuries, plus a RW named Griffith and then a revolving door there, might have had something to do with it. The previous yr to last, with Fat & Iggy as a steady group, DK was fine. I am hoping, other than health, that CJ sets DK's line from camp and sticks with it, or at least i should say he finds 2 wingers that mesh well with him. The old DK will return. Well then if excuses can be made for DK.........then the same can be made for Staal in Carolina e.g. injuries and linemates. His game has slowed from years prior but he is still a desirable player to have on a team.
|
|