No, I wanna take it further.

If you can pay a guy $2M and have it count as $5M against the cap, that is sorta the same thing. You save $3M... or, another way to look at it, is you lower your personal cap floor by $3M.

You have to get to the cap floor somehow, and you need to have 20-22 people on the roster. You actually have to pay some players to play.
- Mashadar

In honor of pete

In honor of pete
- nords21

I make my own lines.

Then I snort them.

No, I wanna take it further.

If you can pay a guy $2M and have it count as $5M against the cap, that is sorta the same thing. You save $3M... or, another way to look at it, is you lower your personal cap floor by $3M.

You have to get to the cap floor somehow, and you need to have 20-22 people on the roster. You actually have to pay some players to play.
- Mashadar

100% correct.

Trading for a retired players contract costs you nothing.

Trading for a players front loaded contract, costs you the money for the remainder of the bloody contract.

Let's not take this any further please.
- pete26

To take this further, lol... Example:

Player X gets a 4 year contract of 24 M, cap hit of 6 M.
Payment is spread out as follows: Year 1 - 10 M, Year 2 - 10 M, Year 3 - 2 M, Year 4 - 2 M

Team X trades Player X after the 2nd year. Despite the 6M cap hit, the team only has to pay 2 M/year. Great for CASH strapped teams that need to bump their Cap to reach the floor.

That has been on the internet for years and in mainstream media for the last 12-18 months.
- Mashadar

yes before yesterday's episode it was one of the most intriguing questions and theories and to spoil it before someone got to witness how it all played out and watch the final confirmation (e5) is kinda poopty

TAKE IT FURTHER!!!!!!!

To take this further, lol... Example:

Player X gets a 4 year contract of 24 M, cap hit of 6 M.
Payment is spread out as follows: Year 1 - 10 M, Year 2 - 10 M, Year 3 - 2 M, Year 4 - 2 M

Team X trades Player X after the 2nd year. Despite the 6M cap hit, the team only has to pay 2 M/year. Great for CASH strapped teams that need to bump their Cap to reach the floor.
- Darksyde

His point was in one case you pay no money. You still have to pay some cash in the 2nd case.

TAKE IT FURTHER!!!!!!!
- twiztedmike

shut up

yes before yesterday's episode it was one of the most intriguing questions and theories and to spoil it before someone got to witness how it all played out and watch the final confirmation (e5) is kinda poopty
- twiztedmike

Well, it was not flat out said, because of (mostly) whispers, but implied with specific visual cutting. Oh, and on the front page of virtually every website today.

So really, it was not spoiled.

And don't blame me, I only called him John snow.

His point was in one case you pay no money. You still have to pay some cash in the 2nd case.
- Gramps28

If you pay no money, you have no players.

Just ask the Devils.

To take this further, lol... Example:

Player X gets a 4 year contract of 24 M, cap hit of 6 M.
Payment is spread out as follows: Year 1 - 10 M, Year 2 - 10 M, Year 3 - 2 M, Year 4 - 2 M

Team X trades Player X after the 2nd year. Despite the 6M cap hit, the team only has to pay 2 M/year. Great for CASH strapped teams that need to bump their Cap to reach the floor.
- Darksyde

I think what Pete is saying is that Arizona is paying zero dollars for a cap hit of 7.5 million. That is a better way to save money, but there are only a few of those situations around. Trading for front loaded deals is the next best option.

I think what Pete is saying is that Arizona is paying zero dollars for a cap hit of 7.5 million. That is a better way to save money, but there are only a few of those situations around. Trading for front loaded deals is the next best option.
- cburgess

Only a matter of time before they trade for Savard...

Only a matter of time before they trade for Savard...
- Mashadar

Devils have him and clowe locked up. They are untouchables

His point was in one case you pay no money. You still have to pay some cash in the 2nd case.
- Gramps28

I know, and in the next CBA, expect retired contracts to be un-tradeable. But the whole poopstorm started when I claimed a front loaded contract would be appealing to cash strapped teams. There has to be a certain amount to the remainder of the contract, lest they be charged with cap circumvention.

His point was in one case you pay no money. You still have to pay some cash in the 2nd case.
- Gramps28

Thanks Gramps.

Was it that difficult to comprehend?

I know, and in the next CBA, expect retired contracts to be un-tradeable. But the whole poopstorm started when I claimed a front loaded contract would be appealing to cash strapped teams. There has to be a certain amount to the remainder of the contract, lest they be charged with cap circumvention.
- Darksyde

Untradable or the contractact just gets eliminated when the player retires. It's rediculous that teams are trading for players who aren't playing in the league anymore.

Untradable or the contractact just gets eliminated when the player retires. It's rediculous that teams are trading for players who aren't playing in the league anymore.
- cburgess

Teams should be forced to eat their own mistakes.

No one should be benefitting from them, let alone 2 teams, one to get rid of the cap hit and one to purposely pay less in salary.

I think what Pete is saying is that Arizona is paying zero dollars for a cap hit of 7.5 million. That is a better way to save money, but there are only a few of those situations around. Trading for front loaded deals is the next best option.
- cburgess

You think that's what I'm saying??

THATS EXACTLY WHAT IM SAYING!!

Jesus Christ.

Holy.

Come one.

Good Lord.

Untradable or the contractact just gets eliminated when the player retires. It's rediculous that teams are trading for players who aren't playing in the league anymore.
- cburgess

I dont feel disheartened about the concept of it. Arizona in this instance have a lot of young players that need more ice time and the team needs to reach the cap floor. They could have signed someone like Vrbata for 7 million a year in order to reach the floor but then the young guys get less time and they have a useless vet on the roster for a ton of money.

The only thing that makes me look at this funny is that Arizona is not owner run and this stinks of the league trying to revive Detroit at the cost of Arizona, which I would consider disheartening if I were on the team.

i saw habs fan want Vanek back in montreal ? you guys are blind or what ? oh ley scalamoley ! dont know what that mean but signing of vanek sound as same to me... No heart at all, dont care about points on the board, when a player not working every game, specially in playoffs, look like he wasnt care about the city and fans, what do you need more then a bell centre full of people cheering ? i'll take 1 shaw every 5 vanek... go Ahead Arizona, TOR or NJ sign Vanek we dont want him, and MB either lol they never try to sign him back after the poor playoffs he give us... Bon débarras !

You think that's what I'm saying??

THATS EXACTLY WHAT IM SAYING!!

Jesus Christ.

Holy.

Come one.

Good Lord.
- pete26

Keep up guys and you'll give Pete a heart attack.

As a side note, I understood what you were saying, I was just saying it was not realistic to have a roster full of players you pay nothing for. Nor possible. But it is possible to have a roster of miserable players with miserable contracts, that you are not paying full price on, because the contracts are front loaded.

Teams should be forced to eat their own mistakes.

No one should be benefitting from them, let alone 2 teams, one to get rid of the cap hit and one to purposely pay less in salary.
- Mashadar

Depends on the situation. It's not Detroits fault that Datsyuk wants to go back to Russia.

But if they sign the guy till he's 45 and he retires at 40 like most players, then yes, the team should be on the hook for that.

I dont feel disheartened about the concept of it. Arizona in this instance have a lot of young players that need more ice time and the team needs to reach the cap floor. They could have signed someone like Vrbata for 7 million a year in order to reach the floor but then the young guys get less time and they have a useless vet on the roster for a ton of money.

The only thing that makes me look at this funny is that Arizona is not owner run and this stinks of the league trying to revive Detroit at the cost of Arizona, which I would consider disheartening if I were on the team.
- nords21

That is the point of a cap floor though.

You either decide the kids you have are good enough to give a long-term big time deal too now (at what will be a discount down the line) or you pick up one or 2 big contracts on their last year and see what happens.

i saw habs fan want Vanek back in montreal ? you guys are blind or what ? oh ley scalamoley ! dont know what that mean but signing of vanek sound as same to me... No heart at all, dont care about points on the board, when a player not working every game, specially in playoffs, look like he wasnt care about the city and fans, what do you need more then a bell centre full of people cheering ? i'll take 1 shaw every 5 vanek... go Ahead Arizona, TOR or NJ sign Vanek we dont want him, and MB either lol they never try to sign him back after the poor playoffs he give us... Bon débarras !
- Zo0by

Holy smokes.

No, something that needs to stay warmish.

Google search, if you need to know.
- Mashadar

I prefer not to I enjoy the surprises