Yes, but I have ZERO intentions of moving a 1st for Richards.SuperMario wroteCOLONyou're missing the part where if Brad Richards is coming here anyway (which imo does not change with paying for his rights. he will make up his mind in the end regardless), you are losing a 1st for no reason.Shep wroteCOLONYou only EVER lose something of value if a deal gets done and the player is signed.
I agree with this but I meant that I'd rather not lose the 1st and take the risk. If the price was lower sure. But Richards is aware of the teams that would be a good fit for him. From there on out its about salary, what other amenities they will provide him with etc. I'd go as high as a 2nd but preferably a 3rd. a 1st is out of the question to me.MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONYour argument is too black and white, it assumes that Richards will eventually set his mind on one team, and that nothing will change that. If his mind is not made up on any one team, an extra week or two of negotiating could sway his opinion towards the team who traded for his rights.SuperMario wroteCOLONyou're missing the part where if Brad Richards is coming here anyway (which imo does not change with paying for his rights. he will make up his mind in the end regardless), you are losing a 1st for no reason.Shep wroteCOLONYou only EVER lose something of value if a deal gets done and the player is signed.
False...If the Leafs wanted to sign Brad Richards prior to July 1st, their cap would be in compliance with this years cap structure, and team totals. I.E. we would be adding 7.8 million to the current Leafs cap hit.facey wroteCOLONThat news story reeks of rumour and speculation to me.
Notably that we need to shed cap - clearly not accurate.
No doubting that it sure would be nice - and that he appears to be exactly what we are missing- #1 playmaking centre who can QB a powerplay.
(c) Accounting Practices for Lower and Upper Limit.
(i) Lower Limit. No Club shall, after commencement of the regular
season, be permitted to have an Averaged Club Salary that falls
below the Lower Limit for that League Year.
(ii) Upper Limit.
(A) With the exception of the Bona-Fide Long-Term
Injury/Illness Exception set forth in Section 50.10(d) below
and the Performance Bonus Cushion set forth in Section
50.5(h) below, no Club shall at any point during a League
Year be permitted to have an Averaged Club Salary that
exceeds the Upper Limit of the Payroll Range.
(B) Nevertheless, in order to ensure that Clubs may have
sufficient time and flexibility to plan their rosters during
the off-season, the Upper Limit shall be temporarily raised
by ten (10) percent to permit Clubs additional flexibility
with their Averaged Club Salaries during the period from
July 1 until and including the last day of Training Camp.
On the day following the last day of Training Camp, the
Upper Limit shall again be lowered to the level as
calculated in Section 50.5(b), and all Clubs must once
again be in compliance with the Upper Limit from the day
following the last day of Training Camp until and including
June 30.
I agree completely, and have maintained as much throughout this thread.SuperMario wroteCOLONI agree with this but I meant that I'd rather not lose the 1st and take the risk. If the price was lower sure. But Richards is aware of the teams that would be a good fit for him. From there on out its about salary, what other amenities they will provide him with etc. I'd go as high as a 2nd but preferably a 3rd. a 1st is out of the question to me.MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONYour argument is too black and white, it assumes that Richards will eventually set his mind on one team, and that nothing will change that. If his mind is not made up on any one team, an extra week or two of negotiating could sway his opinion towards the team who traded for his rights.SuperMario wroteCOLONyou're missing the part where if Brad Richards is coming here anyway (which imo does not change with paying for his rights. he will make up his mind in the end regardless), you are losing a 1st for no reason.Shep wroteCOLONYou only EVER lose something of value if a deal gets done and the player is signed.
Good point Nick.facey wroteCOLONThat news story reeks of rumour and speculation to me.
Notably that we need to shed cap - clearly not accurate.
No doubting that it sure would be nice - and that he appears to be exactly what we are missing- #1 playmaking centre who can QB a powerplay.
The 10% cushion doesn't come into play until July 1st. We'll be receiving Richards' $7,800,000 contract before then, and thus putting us 2.8mil over the cap.facey wroteCOLON10% (6M) in addition to the fact that we had space and we have well in excess of 7.8M
Looking closer at the #:
Our 2010-2011 payroll is roughly 53M, giving us roughly 5M space before the 10% cushion is added, meaning 7.8M fits.
Nevertheless, in order to ensure that Clubs may have
sufficient time and flexibility to plan their rosters during
the off-season, the Upper Limit shall be temporarily raised
by ten (10) percent to permit Clubs additional flexibility
with their Averaged Club Salaries during the period from
July 1 until and including the last day of Training Camp.
Did you factor in the one way contracts of Jeff Finger and Aaron Voros?facey wroteCOLONOur 2010-2011 payroll is roughly 53M, giving us roughly 5M space before the 10% cushion is added, meaning 7.8M fits.
The tagging rule still applies, ergo it doesn't matter that the contracts are finished at the conclusion of the 2010-11 season, you still need to tag expiring contracts onto the teams total cap.facey wroteCOLONWe have a payroll of $52,801,483 if our ELC's pay out the max potential of $6,245,000 in bonuses, and even in that situation we have $5,198,517 in space assuming Burke failed to bank ANY extra through the season -> As we've covered it (and been told) multiple times that cap space is not a static #, NHL cap is calculated day-by-day. IIRC Burke said at the deadline they could take on a 7M player, and that # increased with Kaberle being moved.
Unless I'm missing somewhere that we spent a ton of cap. Also worth noting is that Brad's contract is ENTIRELY paid out.
I'm not referencing ability to clear waivers...I'm stating that these contracts now count against the teams cap, where before they didn't.facey wroteCOLONyou continue to not under-stand one way contracts?
One or two was is in reference to the players pay - does not reference ability to clear waivers or cap hit.
Assuming my interpretation of this is correct, and assuming the inclusion of Finger and Voros against the cap (prior to July 1st), than the Leafs are over the cap, and unable to tag the required 7.8 million dollars towards Brad Richards contract.(v) Acquiring SPCs After the Commencement of a Season, Via
Trade or Waivers.
(A) In order for a Club to acquire a one-year SPC after the
commencement of a season (i.e., that is expiring at the
conclusion of the then-current League Year), the Club must
have Payroll Room equal to or in excess of the remaining
Player Salary and Bonuses to be earned by the Player under
the SPC.
Illustration: Assume the Upper Limit is $40 million and a Club has an
Averaged Club Salary of $39 million (and Payroll Room of $1
million). At the halfway point of the season, the Club may acquire a
one-year SPC with a face value of $2 million (i.e., the Player Salary
and Bonuses to be earned by the Player from the date such SPC is
acquired through the end of that season would be $1 million, which
fits within the Club's Payroll Room).
(B) In order for a Club to acquire a multi-year SPC after the
commencement of a season (i.e., that expires at the
conclusion of a future League Year), the Club must have
Payroll Room equal to or in excess of the Averaged
Amount of the Player Salary and Bonuses for the remainder
of such season. If, however, the Averaged Amount of the
SPC exceeds the Club's Payroll Room for the then-current
League Year, the Club may still acquire such SPC,
provided that it has Tagged Payroll Room. The Tagging
Rule referred to in paragraph (e)(iv)(C) above will
thereafter apply.
Illustration: Assume the Upper Limit is $40 million and a Club has an
Averaged Club Salary of $39 million (and Payroll Room of $1
million). The Club may acquire an SPC under which the Player will
earn $1 million or less during the last half of that League Year. If,
however, the SPC is a multi-year SPC, with an Averaged Amount of
$2 million, which is in excess of the Club's Payroll Room (i.e., $1
million), then the Club may still acquire such SPC, provided it has $2
million of Tagged Payroll Room (i.e., the $1 million in remaining
Payroll Room and $1 million of SPCs in their last year, all of which
are "tagged").
According to Mirtle (via HS on broads), "The tagging rule still applies in this case because all one-way contracts are back on the books. "facey wroteCOLONWell, come July 1st you need to have space for PROJECTED salary cap-->> wherein the teams net averaged-salaries need to be within 10% of the cap, this excludes ELC bonuses.
So for Brad:
Contract value of $39,000,000 over 5 years. His averaged salary & cap hit is $7,800,000, this is spread over the 186 days of the regular season. So, each active day of Brad Richards uses roughly $42'000 of a team's seasonal salary cap. I believe this has been entirely paid out, and his rights now carry no cap space. My understanding of the cap ends around here, but I do no believe the leafs have to account for any cap hit from him if they acquired his rights... to sign him they'd need to have the projected space next year, so if it's a sign and trade we'd need the space, but I believe we have in the range of $21,210,000 next year, already accounting for $1,850,000 in bonuses and a cap of $59,400,000 (low projection I believe).
Tagging is in reference to next years cap, which Brad does not have; 1-way contracts that have cleared waivers (and are in the AHL) do not count versus the NHL teams cap, that is only true for the 35+ deals.
The reason there is confusion is because the CBA does not explicitly state the rules pertaining to the acquisition of expiring contracts at the conclusion of the season, it only refers to expiring contracts attained during the midpoint of a season, and the acquisition of multi-year contracts during the midpoint of a season. Leaving room for interpretation one way or the other.facey wroteCOLONThat's straight out of the CBA, and is exactly where I got my understanding of the cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the examples are for acquiring a SPC @ seasons end with no remaining term on the deal.
However I do believe understanding of Brad's contract implications on the Leafs can be pulled out from the above:
@ the deadline Burke had banked +3.5M in space allowing for the acquisition of a +7M player (who would now require 3.5M in space), each day more space is acquired... Following that logic through to end of the season....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dunno why Mirtle would think that....
As I cannot think of any reason for Voros or Finger to be on the cap, actually there is information that we know stating they are not on the Leafs cap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JayBo is the example that comes to mind; The flames traded for Jay's rights when his contract carried a cap of 4.875M in a year where the Flames had very little.
The Flyers traded for the rights to Dan Hamhuis last off-season, which would have put them over the cap too. However, the opposite is also true of: Kimmo Timmonen and Scott Hartnell.facey wroteCOLONJayBo is the example that comes to mind; The flames traded for Jay's rights when his contract carried a cap of 4.875M in a year where the Flames had very little.
