I just have this feeling that Nash will not work under Torts...Is it just me that feels that way.
- Philly1980

yes

Nobody on that list floats my boat. Which player on the Flyers interest you?
- MJL

Beggers cant be choosy

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-details

Lebrun explains the ramifications of the "Luongo Rule"

THE LUONGO RULE
This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals." However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.

In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.

To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.

To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.

And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.


So if Mike Richards retires before his deal is up, the Flyers and Kings would BOTH incur cap penalties. The other wrinkle for the Flyers is that the cap penalty incurred is based on the cap relief each team got from the contract. Jeff Carter never played for the Flyers under his 11 year deal. Nor did JvR under his 6 year deal. So, in theory, if Carter hung it up before the deal expires, the Flyers may be off the hook completely.

HT to Kevin Christmann at Flyers Faithful for his homework and his blog on the subject

http://flyersfaithful.com...-deals-wont-haunt-flyers/
- Jsaquella

That's what I was looking at last night and wondering about. Carter never played for the Flyers under his new deal. So I wonder what would happen with that.

i fear the ramifications of teams contesting the legality of changing the terms of a previously allowed contract... which were all signed off on by the nhl ...
- Don'tForgetTocchet

It's written into every contract that the contract is subject to the terms of the CBA.

That's what I was looking at last night and wondering about. Carter never played for the Flyers under his new deal. So I wonder what would happen with that.
- MJL

Hopefully the actual wording will end up giving the Flyers a break. It seems that they already caught one on JvR because his deal was only 6 years long.

Nope. It's brand new.

It's part retribution for teams that found the loopholes in the old CBA and exploited them like porn producers exploit young girls and part warning to those same GMs not to go "Loophole Spelunking" in the new CBA
- Jsaquella

Forget about the cba for an hour or two, i wanna hear more about being a porn producer

Forget about the cba for an hour or two, i wanna hear more about being a porn producer
- JoeRussomanno

Man, I'm trying to get LoopHole Spelunking into a thing.

I think bc the flyers didn't front load Richards contract it would only be 150k they would have to eat.....and bc Carter's and JVR's contract didn't start until they were with their new teams .....the flyers are safe and prongers contract will be ok bc of LTIR .....that was on philly phaitful or something like that.....I like that you can trade cap space or at least trade players and eat some of the cap space....up to 50%
- huks99

I don't think the Flyers would have to eat anything with Richards deal. They actually paid out more in Cap hit versus salary, for the years that Richards was a Flyers during his current deal.

Man, I'm trying to get LoopHole Spelunking into a thing.
- Jsaquella

Does it involve porn actresses/young girls?

Does it involve porn actresses/young girls?
- JoeRussomanno

It could

That's what I was looking at last night and wondering about. Carter never played for the Flyers under his new deal. So I wonder what would happen with that.
- MJL

There might be more to this rule that we don't know about yet.

Hypothetically, if Nashville traded Weber after 6 yrs and he retired with 1 year left, the Preds would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.

There might be more to this rule that we don't know about yet.

Hypothetically, if Nashville traded Weber after 6 yrs and he retired with 1 year left, the Preds would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.
- bradleyc4

It's very possible things like that could happen...although this CBA will be long expired by the time Weber's deal ends

where is Bill?

There might be more to this rule that we don't know about yet.

Hypothetically, if Nashville traded Weber after 6 yrs and he retired with 1 year left, the Preds would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.
- bradleyc4

I don't think you're understanding how the rule works. If Weber retired with one year left, the Preds would be left with a one year Cap hit of $6,857,143. All the rest of the cap savngs the Preds got early in the deal would be payed back already with the exception of the total I gave.

I don't think you're understanding how the rule works. If Weber retired with one year left, the Preds would be left with a one year Cap hit of $6,857,143. All the rest of the cap savngs the Preds got early in the deal would be payed back already with the exception of the total I gave.
- MJL

So the savings received in years 7-13 are subtracted from what was gained in years 1-6 (in this scenario)?

But if they traded him after year 6, the Preds should only account for the cap savings they received for when he was on the team.

So the savings received in years 7-13 are subtracted from what was gained in years 1-6 (in this scenario)?

But if they traded him after year 6, the Preds should only account for the cap savings they received for when he was on the team.
- bradleyc4

Yes, you got it. Remember what the NHL is against is players retiring and the Cap savings are never repaid. Which is what could potentially happen with the front loaded deals where there are major cap savings in the beginning. And the cap savings that are supposed to be repaid on the back end of the deal, never are, because the players will retire early. And the NHL contends that the player never intended to play that long.

Yes, you got it. Remember what the NHL is against is players retiring and the Cap savings are never repaid. Which is what could potentially happen with the front loaded deals where there are major cap savings in the beginning. And the cap savings that are supposed to be repaid on the back end of the deal, never are, because the players will retire early. And the NHL contends that the player never intended to play that long.
- MJL

I don't think your calculations are correct. If he's traded after year 6 by the Preds, they don't benefit from any of the repaid cap savings. That all goes to the new team.

They would have a $32 million cap hit if traded right after year 6 and retired a year early.

I don't think your calculations are correct. If he's traded after year 6 by the Preds, they don't benefit from any of the repaid cap savings. That all goes to the new team.

They would have a $32 million cap hit if traded right after year 6 and retired a year early.
- bradleyc4

I have a different understanding of the rule works. I think we need more info and more clarification, which I'm sure will be discussed and written about in the future.