hahaha gotchya
- MattStrat

Yeah. The Orpik example he gave was not a good one. While yeah, it LOOKS like some shenanigans, it's well within the rules. He compared a buyout to trade retention and it's not the same thing. WSH would be unable to buy out Orpik and then re-sign him, but Colorado bought him out, not WSH.

Also his Savard example was just dumb. It's well within the rules whether it looks shady or not.

Yeah. The Orpik example he gave was not a good one. While yeah, it LOOKS like some shenanigans, it's well within the rules. He compared a buyout to trade retention and it's not the same thing. WSH would be unable to buy out Orpik and then re-sign him, but Colorado bought him out, not WSH.

Also his Savard example was just dumb. It's well within the rules whether it looks shady or not.
- Rinosaur

Using a third party to retain cap is fine. When Team A pays Team B to take on salary, but not the players, it is pretty self evident. I'm not sure what he is confused on.

Using a third party to retain cap is fine. When Team A pays Team B to take on salary, but not the players, it is pretty self evident. I'm not sure what he is confused on.
- burgh4life87

Obviously you've never seen his other posts lol

Obviously you've never seen his other posts lol
- Rinosaur

No, usually when posts go beyond 5 lines of text I skip them

No, usually when posts go beyond 5 lines of text I skip them
- burgh4life87

LOL

My only explanation is that he would be going back to Montreal again...thats not the case in your example.

...Or is the league getting their own CBA wrong? Or is Rino wrong in that what he read about it isnt officially from the league/true?
- MattStrat

Okay, So Seattle trades him to "Detroit" and Seattle retains 3 million. Detroit then trades him to Montreal at a 7 million cap hit and gets a 5th for their trouble. Detroit then trades the Montreal compensation back to Seattle for a 6th

That's A-OK per the rules. Has the same effect, just adds more circle jerk to it

Yeah. The Orpik example he gave was not a good one. While yeah, it LOOKS like some shenanigans, it's well within the rules. He compared a buyout to trade retention and it's not the same thing. WSH would be unable to buy out Orpik and then re-sign him, but Colorado bought him out, not WSH.

Also his Savard example was just dumb. It's well within the rules whether it looks shady or not.
- Rinosaur

I'm not claiming it's the same thing, but it's obviously prearranged beforehand to get the desired result (ie: Washingtom gets their player "Orpik" on their roster for less money with a lot of wink, wink, nudge, nudge"

Same can go with Price, all they have to find is some kind of willing 3rd party

Anything that has the stench of being "prearranged" to artificially lessen a players hit for a given team falls into the circumvention category, but only sometimes is the NHL in a nutshell

If Zucker and Petterson are moved, and nothing comes back in those deals, ideally the Pens sign Danualt, Tatar and one of Hyman or Saad with the 12.4M cap they have freed up between those players and McCann. When Malkin is healthy Carter goes to wing. There would be lots of roster flexibility with the wings with the below lineup. I still think if they really want to change the identiy of the forward lines they are going to need to move a Rust or Guentzel to truly do it.

Guentzel - Crosby - Carter
Rust - Malkin - Kapanen
Tatar(3.5) - Danualt (4.5) - Hyman (4.5)
ZAR - Bluegar - Tanev

Dumo - Letang
Matheson - Marino
POJ/Riikola - Friedman/Ruhwedel

Jarry/DeSmith

One definite flaw here is running Jarry and DeSmith back.

If Zucker and Petterson are moved, and nothing comes back in those deals, ideally the Pens sign Danualt, Tatar and one of Hyman or Saad with the 12.4M cap they have freed up between those players and McCann. When Malkin is healthy Carter goes to wing. There would be lots of roster flexibility with the wings with the below lineup. I still think if they really want to change the identiy of the forward lines they are going to need to move a Rust or Guentzel to truly do it.

Guentzel - Crosby - Carter
Rust - Malkin - Kapanen
Tatar(3.5) - Danualt (4.5) - Hyman (4.5)
ZAR - Bluegar - Tanev

Dumo - Letang
Matheson - Marino
POJ/Riikola - Friedman/Ruhwedel

Jarry/DeSmith

One definite flaw here is running Jarry and DeSmith back.
- TopShelf66

I don't see Tatar at 3.5 and Danualt and Hyman will come in a lot higher than that. Hyman, and Danault by reports has already turned down 5+

If Zucker and Petterson are moved, and nothing comes back in those deals, ideally the Pens sign Danualt, Tatar and one of Hyman or Saad with the 12.4M cap they have freed up between those players and McCann. When Malkin is healthy Carter goes to wing. There would be lots of roster flexibility with the wings with the below lineup. I still think if they really want to change the identiy of the forward lines they are going to need to move a Rust or Guentzel to truly do it.

Guentzel - Crosby - Carter
Rust - Malkin - Kapanen
Tatar(3.5) - Danualt (4.5) - Hyman (4.5)
ZAR - Bluegar - Tanev

Dumo - Letang
Matheson - Marino
POJ/Riikola - Friedman/Ruhwedel

Jarry/DeSmith

One definite flaw here is running Jarry and DeSmith back.
- TopShelf66

If by change the identity of the forwards, you mean get worse, yeah that's definitely the way to do it.

You're wrong


https://twitter.com/pierr.../1416862403657142277?s=10

The rules are very clear

https://twitter.com/Blokz...tatus/1416875384117895171
- Rinosaur

The rule, as written is actually NOT that clear

They use the word "TRADE" from Club A to Club B

This wouldn't be a trade, it would be an expansion draft selection

We have already seen that NTC (No TRADE Clauses) don't apply for purposes of expansion, The NHL was very clear with the NHLPA that the player was NOT being traded, therefor teams were not failing to honour the NTC's contract during expansion, so they already have ambiguity in the form of their own rule

So, since it's not a TRADE from Team A to Team B (The point the NHL made regarding NTC in expansion) then any trade back to the original team wouldn't seem to apply in this instance

My point stands that they could just find a 3rd party team to facilitate the trade and they'd be in exactly the same spot had they just done it directly

I'm not claiming it's the same thing, but it's obviously prearranged beforehand to get the desired result (ie: Washingtom gets their player "Orpik" on their roster for less money with a lot of wink, wink, nudge, nudge"

Same can go with Price, all they have to find is some kind of willing 3rd party

Anything that has the stench of being "prearranged" to artificially lessen a players hit for a given team falls into the circumvention category, but only sometimes is the NHL in a nutshell
- TheGame316

Reading comprehension is a hell of a thing.

The rule, as written is actually NOT that clear

They use the word "TRADE" from Club A to Club B

This wouldn't be a trade, it would be an expansion draft selection

We have already seen that NTC (No TRADE Clauses) don't apply for purposes of expansion, The NHL was very clear with the NHLPA that the player was NOT being traded, therefor teams were not failing to honour the NTC's contract during expansion, so they already have ambiguity in the form of their own rule

So, since it's not a TRADE from Team A to Team B (The point the NHL made regarding NTC in expansion) then any trade back to the original team wouldn't seem to apply in this instance

My point stands that they could just find a 3rd party team to facilitate the trade and they'd be in exactly the same spot had they just done it directly
- TheGame316

JBoyd usually uses this for sammy, but I feel it appropriate...

via GIPHY

The rule, as written is actually NOT that clear

They use the word "TRADE" from Club A to Club B

This wouldn't be a trade, it would be an expansion draft selection

We have already seen that NTC (No TRADE Clauses) don't apply for purposes of expansion, The NHL was very clear with the NHLPA that the player was NOT being traded, therefor teams were not failing to honour the NTC's contract during expansion, so they already have ambiguity in the form of their own rule

So, since it's not a TRADE from Team A to Team B (The point the NHL made regarding NTC in expansion) then any trade back to the original team wouldn't seem to apply in this instance

My point stands that they could just find a 3rd party team to facilitate the trade and they'd be in exactly the same spot had they just done it directly
- TheGame316

You are focusing on the most irrelevant crap here. Trade or Expansion draft selection, you CANNOT re-acquire the exact same player in a direct transaction for a lesser cap hit. That, by it's very nature, is cap circumvention. What is so hard to understand?

Reading comprehension is a hell of a thing.
- Rinosaur

Apparently critical thinking and thinking outside the box is too

Prearranged deals to artificially lower a players cap shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances. The point of the hard cap was to have an equally competitive playing field

The "Can't play for a year with your old club at reduced cap hit" should be a thing in all cases (The Orpik situation). He could go back to the Caps as a Free Agent, but his old cap hit should apply regardless of salary

You can't trade back for a guy with reduced salary (The Hagelin Situation)

3rd party teams shouldn't be allowed to absorb cap so 2 other teams can facilitate a trade of a player that 1 team couldn't otherwise fit under their cap (The Savard Situation) Maybe a guy has to play a set number of games before he can be retained and flipped again

LTIR is fine for regular season and players who are out for the season. Playoff games should require that teams conform to the upper cap limit on gameday per the AAV of the players on the ice for any given game

The trading of LTIR contracts should probably be eliminated as well. You signed the guy to that deal, he got hurt playing for you, you have to eat the consequences. Think twice before giving guys max term that extends into their late 30s

The NHL allows some of this, even though it's a prearranged way of gaining a competitive advantage, and disallows it in other circumstances that pretty much end up being the same thing

They get smart with doing things like recapture to avoid uncompetitive advantages, then look the other way on things like LTIR

You are focusing on the most irrelevant crap here. Trade or Expansion draft selection, you CANNOT re-acquire the exact same player in a direct transaction for a lesser cap hit. That, by it's very nature, is cap circumvention. What is so hard to understand?
- burgh4life87

My point is it's ridiculous to not allow it "directly" but then it's A-OK if you involve a 3rd party, if the net result IS THE EXACT SAME THING

You are focusing on the most irrelevant crap here. Trade or Expansion draft selection, you CANNOT re-acquire the exact same player in a direct transaction for a lesser cap hit. That, by it's very nature, is cap circumvention. What is so hard to understand?
- burgh4life87

Clearly a lot for him.

My point is it's ridiculous to not allow it "directly" but then it's A-OK if you involve a 3rd party, if the net result IS THE EXACT SAME THING
- TheGame316

Your point earlier was the NHL makes it up as it goes along and they don't. The rules are clear whether you agree with them or not.

Clearly a lot for him.
- Rinosaur

See Above

Rationalize why Seattle retaining 3 million and trading Price back to MTL for a 1st and a prospect is NOT OK

but

Seattle retaining 3 million and trading him to DETROIT for a 6th, and then Detroit Trading him to Montreal for a 1st and a Prospect and then Detroit trading the 1st and the prospect and the 6th back to Seattle for a 4th is OK

The only difference is Detroit nets a 4th for being the middle man

Price's cap hit on MTL is 7 million
Seattle has a 3 million dead money charge
Seattle gets Montreals 1st and a prospect

All the same if the deal had just been done directly

None of it should be allowed, or all of it should be allowed

See Above

Rationalize why Seattle retaining 3 million and trading Price back to MTL for a 1st and a prospect is NOT OK

but

Seattle retaining 3 million and trading him to DETROIT for a 6th, and then Detroit Trading him to Montreal for a 1st and a Prospect and then Detroit trading the 1st and the prospect and the 6th back to Seattle for a 4th is OK

The only difference is Detroit nets a 4th for being the middle man

Price's cap hit on MTL is 7 million
Seattle has a 3 million dead money charge
Seattle gets Montreals 1st and a prospect

All the same if the deal had just been done directly

None of it should be allowed, or all of it should be allowed
- TheGame316

Again, nobody is arguing whether the rules should be changed. You argued the rules are not clear and the NHL makes it up as they go along which is not true. The rules are clear.

Your point earlier was the NHL makes it up as it goes along and they don't. The rules are clear whether you agree with them or not.
- Rinosaur

The "making it up as they go" wasn't specific to that rule

It was they they allow some kinds of circumvention, but had "rules" against other kinds of circumvention, only because they hadn't thought about the other kinds until it starts to bite them in the a$$

When it's all circumvention

The "making it up as they go" wasn't specific to that rule

It was they they allow some kinds of circumvention, but had "rules" against other kinds of circumvention, only because they hadn't thought about the other kinds until it starts to bite them in the a$$

When it's all circumvention
- TheGame316

Again, you're wrong. The rules are clear.

Again, nobody is arguing whether the rules should be changed. You argued the rules are not clear and the NHL makes it up as they go along which is not true. The rules are clear.
- Rinosaur

This is why I say that you can't seem to think outside the box

The NHL has a set of rules and they think they are good

Then New Jersey tries to sign Kovy to a contract (That's within the rules at the time) and the NHL says "Nope, aint doing that, thats CIRCUMVENTION. When it wasn't against the rules - So, they made up a rule and now it's the law

Teams sign players to perfectly legal backdiving contracts (Per the Rules), the NHL recognizes this is a form of CIRCUMVENTION and eliminates it by making up a recapture penatly on contracts that were signed legally at the time before recaputure existed. (LUONGO) So they made up a rule and now it's the law

My point is, the NHL will arbitrarily make up rules when they want despite how the rules are written. It's usually because something has happened and they just hadn't thought of it yet. I would love it if the Scenerio with Detroit was attempted to be unfolded. I would love to see how the NHL would respond to it. They may allow it, or they may reject it in some form, and make up some other kind of stipulation like they did in the other 2 examples

This is why I say that you can't seem to think outside the box

The NHL has a set of rules and they think they are good

Then New Jersey tries to sign Kovy to a contract (That's within the rules at the time) and the NHL says "Nope, aint doing that, thats CIRCUMVENTION. When it wasn't against the rules - So, they made up a rule and now it's the law

Teams sign players to perfectly legal backdiving contracts (Per the Rules), the NHL recognizes this is a form of CIRCUMVENTION and eliminates it by making up a recapture penatly on contracts that were signed legally at the time before recaputure existed. (LUONGO) So they made up a rule and now it's the law

My point is, the NHL will arbitrarily make up rules when they want despite how the rules are written. It's usually because something has happened and they just hadn't thought of it yet. I would love it if the Scenerio with Detroit was attempted to be unfolded. I would love to see how the NHL would respond to it. They may allow it, or they may reject it in some form, and make up some other kind of stipulation like they did in the other 2 examples
- TheGame316

Trading a guy to a team for them to retain money on then trade him back to the same team isn't thinking outside the box. None of this paragraph means a damn thing when the original argument is so clearly and obviously cap circumvention. Just give it up.

Again, you're wrong. The rules are clear.
- Rinosaur

When 2 things accomplish the same thing but 1 is classified as "circumvention" but the other isn't classified is just a BS technicality. And it's usually because they just didn't think of it yet

What's the point of not allowing a direct trade? To prevent circumvention, this I agree with. They seem to have thought ahead because they don't want this to happen

But then to allow the same net result, just because the teams went about it a different way is ridiculous. It's a clear hole in their rule book. Would they stop it? Hard to say. They aren't above MAKING UP STUFF AS THEY GO, if it's something they don't like per the Kovy contract and the long term recapture contracts