That was my point. Don't say that this kids cap hit is only going to be $1m, when it could be $3.7. Maybe it won't, but if you bank on it being the minimum you screw yourself the following year. Not a problem for a team $20 million below the cap, but the Canucks spend every penny available.
- 1970vintage

And when one of those kids with an ELC that has potentially $2.7M in bonus money is on your team, that "every penny available" goes up by $2.7M.

Edler by himself isn't gonna get you a top 5 pick. There's a reason why you guys are so eager to get rid of him and everyone knows it. Gillis has put you guys in a very bad position cap wise and nobody is just gonna help you out of it. Don't take this as a Edler bashing cause its not. He's a very good dman and I would love him on the Oilers. The top 5 is so good this year its gonna take a real big chip to trade up there. I would say Edler/ Kesler + 2013 1st for a Top 5 pick + 3rd rounder. The Oilers are trying desperately to move up as well. For us to move up I think it will take 7th overall + Anaheim's 2nd 2013 + a B level prospect such as Martin Gernat. I personally hope we pick right where we are. I don't want to give up any assets to move up because there will stiil be very good prospects at #7.
- Ihatebrianburke

You're making a false assumption here—nobody's eager to get rid of him.

Personally, I want the Canucks to keep him—he's my second favorite player in the NHL.

Unfortunately the Canucks desperately need a top6 forward and arguably have enough LHD depth to sacrifice Edler, who is the only top4 Canuck D without a NTC.

Also, he's really the only expendable asset other than Schneider (who won't be traded) that will get a good return.

Do you guys not really follow how it works? With a $64M cap, and a kid on an ELC with potential bonuses of $2.7M, they can spend to $66.7M. If the kid doesn’t earn any of those bonuses, they don’t count against them. It’s only if they earn those bonuses, the amount it pushes them over $64M counts against the following year. Essentially, if they don’t earn those bonuses, the team is never hit with those cap hits. Yes, technically, they include that in their cap number. And then they make the teams cap higher by that same amount. But if they don’t earn them, they never see those cap hits.
- Dirte

You are wrong. TEAMS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE $64M CAP, even if they have players on ELC with large bonus money.

The new rules are to ensure teams don't use that extra cap space on ELC to attain cap floor. So, the final cap number uses the total after the player attains all of their bonuses to guarantee the team paid enough money to actually attain the cap floor and that they didn't just write in a bunch of unattainable bonuses to circumvent the cap. You can not exceed the $64M cap.

Better check again. Bonuses on elc contracts don't count to the cap.
- Iggysbff

yeah they do

Sure, but youre implying that Edler is the big fish...and really he is an above average fish. I am sure you can agree.
- predram

how many 50 pt D man are out there...... And what do you pay Weber to do that?

I never said Tampa would consider picking up Luongo. Yzerman has made it quite clear he won't. I'm saying it's a mistake. He should have acquired Luongo instead of attempting to fill the gap with two completely unproven kids in Bishop and Lindback. How'd the addition of Lindback work for him last year?
- KB3Point0

top three pick.... but then again getting a lottery is better then the playoffs... right Edmonton????

how many 50 pt D man are out there...... And what do you pay Weber to do that?
- SMP8719

I really hope you're not trying to compare Weber to Edler. the point totals are what edler is paid for, the point totals for weber are a fraction of what you pay him for.

And when one of those kids with an ELC that has potentially $2.7M in bonus money is on your team, that "every penny available" goes up by $2.7M.
- Dirte

You still have to pay it back the following year. You don't get to spend over the cap because a kid played well.

You are wrong. TEAMS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE $64M CAP, even if they have players on ELC with large bonus money.

The new rules are to ensure teams don't use that extra cap space on ELC to attain cap floor. So, the final cap number uses the total after the player attains all of their bonuses to guarantee the team paid enough money to actually attain the cap floor and that they didn't just write in a bunch of unattainable bonuses to circumvent the cap. You can not exceed the $64M cap.
- KB3Point0

Have you really never heard of the bonus cushion?

maybe this will be of assistance to you. This is from the CBA. The old one, mind you, but they haven't released the new one yet, have they?

Accounting for Performance Bonuses. No SPC may contain
Performance Bonuses except in accordance with Section 50.2(b)(i)(C) above. For
purposes of a Club's Upper Limit and Lower Limit, as well as the Players' Share, the
following rules shall apply with respect to those Performance Bonuses that are permitted:
(i) For the purposes of calculating a Club's Averaged Club Salary, the
Averaged Amount of Performance Bonuses (to the extent
permitted in accordance with Section 50.2(b)(i)(c) above) shall be
included as fully earned in the League Year in which they may be
earned. However, the unaveraged cash value of such Performance
Bonuses shall be calculated in a Player's SPC for purposes of the
100 Percent Rule, as set forth in Section 50.7 below. The cash
amount of any Performance Bonuses contained in an SPC that
becomes impossible to earn in a given League Year shall, at that
time, be deducted from the Club's Averaged Club Salary. Any
Payroll Room that may result will only be for the remainder of that
League Year and will not affect the Averaged Amount of a Player's
multi-year SPC or the inclusion of any Performance Bonuses in the
Averaged Amount of the future League Years of such SPC.
(ii) A Club shall be permitted to have an Averaged Club Salary in
excess of the Upper Limit resulting from Performance Bonuses
solely to the extent that such excess results from the inclusion in
Averaged Club Salary of: (i) Exhibit 5 Individual "A"
Performance Bonuses and "B" Performance Bonuses paid by the
Club that may be earned by Players in the Entry Level System and
(ii) Performance Bonuses that may be earned by Players pursuant
At the conclusion of each League Year, the amount of
Performance Bonuses actually earned, including, without
limitation, and for purposes of clarity, (i) Exhibit 5 Individual "A"
Performance Bonuses and "B" Performance Bonuses paid by the
Club that may be earned by Players in the Entry Level System and
(ii) Performance Bonuses that may be earned by Players pursuant
to Section 50.2(b)(i)(C) above, shall be determined and shall be
charged against the Club's Upper Limit and Averaged Club Salary
for such League Year. To the extent a Club's Averaged Club
Salary exceeds its Upper Limit as a result of: (i) Exhibit 5
Individual "A" Performance Bonuses and "B" Performance
Bonuses paid by the Club that may be earned by Players in the
Entry Level System and (ii) Performance Bonuses that may be
earned by Players pursuant to Section 50.2(b)(i)(C) above, then the
Club's Upper Limit for the next League Year shall be reduced by
an amount equal to such excess.

You still have to pay it back the following year. You don't get to spend over the cap because a kid played well.
- 1970vintage

Only if the paid bonuses end up putting you over the $64M.

He's 19 which means he's years away from being an impactful player in the NHL. 3-5 years anyways. Also, I am a big proponent of having a veteran goalie mentor a young goalie for a year or two once they do make the NHL.

Luongo would still be a great fit for Tampa, or at least he would have been before they decided to gamble on Bishop and Lindback. I think the odds are VERY low that he ends up there (below 5%). Yzerman's going to regret it.
- KB3Point0

I actually agree with you here. Luongo would have been an excellent fit for Tampa, but I don't think their ownership could afford to take on that contract. I'm still unsure why Yzerman opted to go with Bishop as well instead of spending less in trade and grabbing an older vet to mentor Lindback once he saw him struggle as a starter. I guess one of them is bound to pan out.

Luongo would be an extremely valuable trade chip with a much shorter contract, Bernier makes me unsure as he's always been behind a very defensive team and never under the pressure of a starter. Mike Smith as a ufa also makes me unsure because Bryz looked good in Phoenix and has been horrible in Philly.

An older vet that's been in a number of situations and produced gives you some security knowing if you acquire him he's unlikely to change or suddenly..suck.

Luongo's only issue is the contract, which unfortunately is like finding out that super hot chick from behind has road rash for a face. You can't really get past that.

That was for the 2nd AND 3rd overall picks, it would be much less complicated to move up for a single pick. And what did they give up in total? McCabe, the next year's first round pick and two 3rd round picks to get an extra first round and move up in the draft.
- 1970vintage

I believe they already had the 3rd overall? So they made those 3 trades to get the second.

I really hope you're not trying to compare Weber to Edler. the point totals are what edler is paid for, the point totals for weber are a fraction of what you pay him for.
- Isles_since_6

I agree with this.

However, what people don't seem to understand is that a d-man with Edler's ability come at a premium. Lets not even talk about Weber, he's a generational talent.....

But defensemen of Edler's ilk do command a top-5 pick at least at certain periods of the year. The draft may not be one of those times as it has been said that teams with those picks are in the drivers seat.

I am sure that if he is traded from Vancouver, we will be looking to fill the void for sometime and may regret such a trade. But we do need offense and someone to take the pressure off the Sedins hence Edler may be able for the right price......which may very well be a top 5 pick.

Perspective is everything.....

I actually agree with you here. Luongo would have been an excellent fit for Tampa, but I don't think their ownership could afford to take on that contract. I'm still unsure why Yzerman opted to go with Bishop as well instead of spending less in trade and grabbing an older vet to mentor Lindback once he saw him struggle as a starter. I guess one of them is bound to pan out.

Luongo would be an extremely valuable trade chip with a much shorter contract, Bernier makes me unsure as he's always been behind a very defensive team and never under the pressure of a starter. Mike Smith as a ufa also makes me unsure because Bryz looked good in Phoenix and has been horrible in Philly.

An older vet that's been in a number of situations and produced gives you some security knowing if you acquire him he's unlikely to change or suddenly..suck.

Luongo's only issue is the contract, which unfortunately is like finding out that super hot chick from behind has road rash for a face. You can't really get past that.
- Isles_since_6

Or Kids.

Or Herpes.

Or Both.

I really hope you're not trying to compare Weber to Edler. the point totals are what edler is paid for, the point totals for weber are a fraction of what you pay him for.
- Isles_since_6

I would never dream of that.... I mean it is 5 mill to what 9 mill........

How did he do this year hahaha

How about if Colorado takes Jones

Kesler edler Schneider 1st to Florida for 2nd overall and Nik bjistad and up shall

Draft mackinnon

Sedin sedin burr
Booth mackinnon Higgins
Hansen bjustad Jensen
Kassian lappy upshall

We deinately got younger

Only if the paid bonuses end up putting you over the $64M.
- Dirte

Yes, but we've already established that Vancouver would already be AT the cap, so the bonus would push them over.

Sheesh, why are you arguing about this?

Most of the big bonus money is difficult to attain, winning the Hart, etc. We can assume that this Russian kid, if playing in Vancouver in a top six role would achieve the schedule A bonuses, bringing his salary to $925k + $850k plus signing bonus, which can be up to 10% of his maximum salary, which I think is in the $3.7m neighbourhood, so add another $300k. Let's say $2m cap hit at the end of the day.

I believe they already had the 3rd overall? So they made those 3 trades to get the second.
- SMP8719

Even so, McCabe and three draft picks for the 2nd overall is the price we are talking about. This basically shows that getting into the top 5 will cost more than Edler alone.

Only if the paid bonuses end up putting you over the $64M.
- Dirte

OK, you're right, but it's limited to $4.8M. No team is going to spend the whole $4.8M either (unless you have a lot of players on ELC). It might give you an extra $1 - $2M in cap leeway. Have to work under the assumption that the player can attain most of available bonuses otherwise you do end up putting yourself in an even worse position the following year.

Even so, McCabe and three draft picks for the 2nd overall is the price we are talking about. This basically shows that getting into the top 5 will cost more than Edler alone.
- 1970vintage

That really depends on how good you think McCabe was at the time.

If I recall, he was a UFA in a season or two. I would say 6 years of Edler is worth more than two years of McCabe and a couple mid round picks

Yes, but we've already established that Vancouver would already be AT the cap, so the bonus would push them over.

Sheesh, why are you arguing about this?

Most of the big bonus money is difficult to attain, winning the Hart, etc. We can assume that this Russian kid, if playing in Vancouver in a top six role would achieve the schedule A bonuses, bringing his salary to $925k + $850k plus signing bonus, which can be up to 10% of his maximum salary, which I think is in the $3.7m neighbourhood, so add another $300k. Let's say $2m cap hit at the end of the day.
- 1970vintage

I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to clarify. There seems to be some misunderstanding of how it works by some in this thread.

Your second paragraph here is precisely why I think it's relevant. Some are saying the cap hit counts against the team. But, since you're allowed to go over by the amount of the bonuses, they come off the salary when they're not earned, and they're very difficult to earn very much of them, it isn't much different than having a cap hit of $1.0M to $1.5M. In the end, when they don't earn them, that's what the team gets hit with.

To be fair, he wasn't there, he got auto-picked the player with the highest ppg average left in the draft with no concern of which team they were on.
- 1970vintage

then i guess he should have been there.
I'm still allowed to make fun of him.

yeah they do
- SMP8719

I'm not sure how you guys can't figure this out.

Technically they count against the cap but with the bonus cushion you can go over the cap by the amount of the bonus. But they then don't count if they are not attained. And they are very difficult to attain. Its pretty easy to see it on capgeek.

http://www.capgeek.com/oilers/

OK, you're right, but it's limited to $4.8M. No team is going to spend the whole $4.8M either (unless you have a lot of players on ELC). It might give you an extra $1 - $2M in cap leeway. Have to work under the assumption that the player can attain most of available bonuses otherwise you do end up putting yourself in an even worse position the following year.
- KB3Point0

Have you seen the criteria for earning those bonuses? The league heavily controls what performance bonuses you can put in an ELC. It's incredibly difficult to earn very much of them. They basically have to be on a cup winning team, win the Conn Smythe, Hart trophy, lead the league in scoring, win the Calder, etc, to earn max bonuses. There are some that are a little easier, but it's not easy. I'd be curious to know what OV and Sid earned.

Just found this....

http://offsidesportsblog....hanging-salary-floor.html

RNH, the top rookie last year, earned (at most) just over $2M. I think when you're playing one of these kids, you can count on that being pretty much a max.

yep

- McCabe and a 2000 1st for the 4 pick (Wow Edler is looking better eh boys)
- The 4 pick and two 3rd rd picks for 1
- No. 1 for 2 and a pick
- IanEsplen

That was 11 to 4 not 20 something to 4