He would help us now no doubt.

But he has one of the worst contracts in the league. He has to be bought out. If for some reason he was to retire before the end of his contract, which he will (because he is not going to play the last two years for nothing) the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+.
- SameOld

ummm, yeah. Not how it works.

go after Iginla..cheaper........than Vinny......

ummm, yeah. Not how it works.
- Dirte

yeah.. more or less how it does work.

CAP ADVANTAGE RECAPTURE (Roberto Luongo Rule)
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.

ummm, yeah. Not how it works.
- Dirte

He would help us now no doubt.

But he has one of the worst contracts in the league. He has to be bought out. If for some reason he was to retire before the end of his contract, which he will (because he is not going to play the last two years for nothing) the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+.
- SameOld

you know Lecavalier can be bought out next summer too. Play him for a year, if he excels here we keep him, if he doesn't then we buy him out.

Plus we get a 3rd overall pick for spare parts, win-win.

you know Lecavalier can be bought out next summer too. Play him for a year, if he excels here we keep him, if he doesn't then we buy him out.

Plus we get a 3rd overall pick for spare parts, win-win.
- Steven_Dean

Not happening

you know Lecavalier can be bought out next summer too. Play him for a year, if he excels here we keep him, if he doesn't then we buy him out.

Plus we get a 3rd overall pick for spare parts, win-win.
- Steven_Dean[/quote]

that is why that deal would be moronic.
I was going to say other things to back that up but that speaks for itself

you know Lecavalier can be bought out next summer too. Play him for a year, if he excels here we keep him, if he doesn't then we buy him out.

Plus we get a 3rd overall pick for spare parts, win-win.
- Steven_Dean

You won't get it for spare parts.

ummm, yeah. Not how it works.
- Dirte

Haha yes it does.

yeah.. more or less how it does work.

CAP ADVANTAGE RECAPTURE (Roberto Luongo Rule)
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.
- joel878

okay. For starters, that's not the rule he's referring to. The over 35 rule is from the old CBA, and states that contracts signed after age 35 will have full cap hits applied whether the player retires or not. The contract wasn't SIGNED after 35, so under the old CBA, that rule that he's referring to doesn't even apply.

Now, the new CBA, cap advantage recapture works this way.....

He's played 4 seasons so far at $10M salary, and $7.7M cap hit. So, $40M salary and $30.8M salary. A difference of $9.2M dollars in cap savings, pre-trade. Here is an important part of the cap advantage recapture clause. Pay close attention. That $9.2M will never apply to any team he is traded to, it applies to the Tampa Bay Lightning upon early retirement, and them only.

So, let's say the Leafs trade for Vinny, and he plays 5 years, then retires at 38. To make it quick, I'll just tell you the numbers. $42.5M in salary paid, $38.5 cap hit, for a difference of $4M. That $4M would be the cap advantage recapture amount for the Leafs.

So, if he retires at that time, he has 2 years left on his contract. The $4M cap hit that the Leafs saved, gets applied over the 2 years, and it's $2M over 2 years. The Lightning get that $9.2M over 2 years, and their hit is $4.6M for 2 years.

Got it?

- poohcrumbs

you might want to reconsider your statement. Or, just consider it directed at yourself.

You won't get it for spare parts.
- BetterCallSaul

Someone had the 'spare parts' listed as grabovski and kulemin, which may not exactly be spare parts.. But is a different form of ridiculous. Is the purpose of such a deal not shedding Tampa of money? How much are they saving by taking grabovskis contract? Not enough to give away #3 in my opinion.

Maybe kulemin, gunnarsson? Hard to say.. But regardless of money, I imagine Tampa needs something of worth, or they just draft at 3, and find another way to dump vinny. Either that or trade #3 straight up for a nice package.

Haha yes it does.
- SameOld

Hahaha no it doesn't.

you know Lecavalier can be bought out next summer too. Play him for a year, if he excels here we keep him, if he doesn't then we buy him out.

Plus we get a 3rd overall pick for spare parts, win-win.
- Steven_Dean

Oh of course. Vinny would be awesome in the lineup next year.

But the problem is, hypothetically speaking if this deal was to happen, you couldn't buy out Komisarek this year. You would have to save two buyouts for next season 1) for Vinny without a doubt 2) for Grabo if he doesn't regain his 2012 form.

Hahaha no it doesn't.
- Dirte

Ok you got me, I made that up. Idiot

okay. For starters, that's not the rule he's referring to. The over 35 rule is from the old CBA, and states that contracts signed after age 35 will have full cap hits applied whether the player retires or not. The contract wasn't SIGNED after 35, so under the old CBA, that rule that he's referring to doesn't even apply.

Now, the new CBA, cap advantage recapture works this way.....

He's played 4 seasons so far at $10M salary, and $7.7M cap hit. So, $40M salary and $30.8M salary. A difference of $9.2M dollars in cap savings, pre-trade. Here is an important part of the cap advantage recapture clause. Pay close attention. That $9.2M will never apply to any team he is traded to, it applies to the Tampa Bay Lightning upon early retirement, and them only.

So, let's say the Leafs trade for Vinny, and he plays 5 years, then retires at 38. To make it quick, I'll just tell you the numbers. $42.5M in salary paid, $38.5 cap hit, for a difference of $4M. That $4M would be the cap advantage recapture amount for the Leafs.

So, if he retires at that time, he has 2 years left on his contract. The $4M cap hit that the Leafs saved, gets applied over the 2 years, and it's $2M over 2 years. The Lightning get that $9.2M over 2 years, and their hit is $4.6M for 2 years.

Got it?
- Dirte

What inspired you to get out of bed today and be such a cynical (frank)ing douchebag?

If the leafs are in a cup run at that point, 2 mil could count big. But hey, sounds like you've got it all figured out..

Hahaha no it doesn't.
- Dirte

Did you not read the guys post talking about the Roberto Luongo rule? That's the one I'm referring to

Ok you got me, I made that up. Idiot
- SameOld

oh you made it up? I just assumed you didn't know what you're talking about. Either way, same end result.

Did you not read the guys post talking about the Roberto Luongo rule? That's the one I'm referring to
- SameOld

Did you not just read the post that I explained the Roberto Luongo rule, and how it would apply to Vinny?

And who are you trying to kid, that you were (incorrectly) referring to the old over 35 contract rule from the OLD CBA, when you said " the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+". Which, by the way, is gone now. And wouldn't have applied anyway, even if they kept that rule.

What inspired you to get out of bed today and be such a cynical (frank)ing douchebag?

If the leafs are in a cup run at that point, 2 mil could count big. But hey, sounds like you've got it all figured out..
- joel878

are you kidding me? I correct a guy about the rules, and say he was wrong, you idiots jump in and try calling me names, when in fact I know exactly what I'm talking about, and now it's me being a "cynical douchebag". Why don't you just backtrack, apologize for trying to act like a condescending Richard when in fact you were wrong, and move on with life?

Did you not just read the post that I explained the Roberto Luongo rule, and how it would apply to Vinny?

And who are you trying to kid, that you were (incorrectly) referring to the old over 35 contract rule from the OLD CBA, when you said " the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+". Which, by the way, is gone now. And wouldn't have applied anyway, even if they kept that rule.
- Dirte

Haha "The 35-plus rule remains unchanged in the new CBA."

And hey you're right about one thing, I was confused on which ruling applied but the point remains the same.

I'm not entirely sure why you think you are so smart but you're clearly not. With a cap hit of 7,237,273 over the next 7 years. If he were to retire at 38 with only 42.5 paid but the leafs that would be 8.4 over two year. 4.2

Tell me more though

Why You Guys HEFF to Be So Mad. It just a Hockey Game!

Did you not just read the post that I explained the Roberto Luongo rule, and how it would apply to Vinny?

And who are you trying to kid, that you were (incorrectly) referring to the old over 35 contract rule from the OLD CBA, when you said " the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+". Which, by the way, is gone now. And wouldn't have applied anyway, even if they kept that rule.
- Dirte

You really know the new CBA in and out eh.

Haha "The 35-plus rule remains unchanged in the new CBA."

And hey you're right about one thing, I was confused on which ruling applied but the point remains the same.

I'm not entirely sure why you think you are so smart but you're clearly not. With a cap hit of 7,237,273 over the next 7 years. If he were to retire at 38 with only 42.5 paid but the leafs that would be 8.4 over two year. 4.2

Tell me more though
- SameOld

okay, I'll tell you you're math is bad. Over the next 5 years, $42.5M in salary is due. At 7.7 cap hit, 5 * 7.7 = $38.5M. that's a $4M difference, not 8.4.

I didn't call you any names until you started with the 'read slowly' and 'do you understand bullpoop, princess. I said that's more or less how it works, and posted the rule, which I was under the impression his post had little to do with the 35+ rule, and everything to do with the posted rule. You take that personally? Ironic, considering the douchebag tone your post reaked of when you responded to him in the first place. Are you kidding me? You respond to someone like a twat, I post a rule.. And you come unglued in a 3000 word post explaining how you're king like a cynical wiener.

So yes, cynical douchebag applies here. Get off your pedestal, or (frank) off.
- joel878

I can totally see how his statement " the team with him would get a substantial cap penalty because he would be 35+" gave you the impression he wasn't talking about the 35+ rule. Totally.