bunomatic Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Looking at what the KHL was offering Bobrovsky, I would think theres a team in the KHL that is gonna give Kovi a deal that will make it worth his while to leave that much money I'm hearing he can make as much as 20 mil a year in the khl. Also, once he files his retirement papers lou said the contract is null and void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 So it's worth my time to spend a little bit perusing a Devils forum? Outstanding. Yes, definitely. Start with HF, then work your way around. Almost better than my favorite internet novela "The Night the Bruins Lost the Cup." Also, I can't stop laughing when I read TSN's headline "JERSEY SHOCKER." The Devils definitely took (at least) one in the stink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 This whole thing is downright dirty. The NHL has just offered up a very simple out for every single contract. The second he signs with SKA, NHL contracts officially mean nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Any chance the Devils were considering buying him out? If so, they just saved a pretty big cap hit for the next 78 years, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 This is not a completely bad thing for the Devils in the long run. If he had retired in say 8 years (age 38 and his salary drops to $1M), the Devils would have had a cap penalty of about $6M per year for 5 years. The contact was a ticking time bomb the moment Recapture was added to the new CBA. This whole thing is downright dirty. The NHL has just offered up a very simple out for every single contract. The second he signs with SKA, NHL contracts officially mean nothing. Cap recapture still applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 This whole thing is downright dirty. The NHL has just offered up a very simple out for every single contract. The second he signs with SKA, NHL contracts officially mean nothing. Yep. He better have a really good reason to retire, even if we never find out what it is. If he doesn't, then he is an idiot and he should never be allowed to ever play in the NHL again. If he does, the only way he should ever be allowed back is if resumes his contract with the Devils. What a waste. He's only thirty freakin' years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Yep. He better have a really good reason to retire, even if we never find out what it is. If he doesn't, then he is an idiot and he should never be allowed to ever play in the NHL again. If he does, the only way he should ever be allowed back is if resumes his contract with the Devils. What a waste. He's only thirty freakin' years old. Sounds like the KHL was never much of an idea in his head, until the lockout happened, and he played there. Thanks again, to all the geniuses who thought the lockout was a great idea for the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 This whole thing is downright dirty. The NHL has just offered up a very simple out for every single contract. The second he signs with SKA, NHL contracts officially mean nothing. That "loophole" has ALWAYS been there. Mutual agreements by the team/player to voluntarily retire have always voided contracts. Stars usually don't use it, though. Has nothing to do with him signing overseas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anyone care to share with the class a comprehensive explanation of "recapture"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Anyone care to share with the class a comprehensive explanation of "recapture"? Let's see if I can explain it in parts: It only applies to deals that are signed by players under the age of 35 AND are seven years or more in length. It also only applies to deals that have certain years in which a players salary number is different than his cap hit. The years in which the player's salary exceeds the cap hit are added to a "pool." This pool only has to be paid off by the team if the player retires or leaves the team before the final years of the deal. This pool will be spread over the remaining years of a player's deal after he leaves the team. (If there is/are season(s) in which the cap hit exceeds the salary then that can reduce the "pool." IF these seasons pass with the player still on the team). Example: A player signs a 7 year, $49 mill deal. The breakdown goes as follows: Year one: $9 mill salary, $7 mill cap hit. ($2 mill difference) Year two: $9 mill salary, $7 mill cap hit. ($2 mill difference ADDED to the $2 mill difference from year one; $4 mill total) Year three: $8 mill salary, $7 mill cap hit. ($1 mill difference ADDED to the $4 mill difference from first two years; $5 mill total) Years four/five: $7 mill salary, $7 mill cap hit (no difference so no money added to the pool) Years six/seven: $4.5 mill salary, $7 mill cap hit. If this player retires after year three, then the team will be charged with $5 mill against the cap spread out over four years (the remaining length of the player's contract). If you want an example from Buffalo's end, we have a PRIME candidate in Christian Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff, in his two seasons here has already built up a "cap advantage" (that's what they call the difference that's seen between the salary and the cap hit) for us of $10 mill. If we trade him right now then we have a cap hit just over $1 mill for the next eight years because of this. His cap advantage will build up NEVER be higher because his salary is always at or under his $4 mill cap hit for the remainder of the contract. BUT his cap advantage won't start going down until 2017 when his salary dips below his cap hit. If he retires/is cut/traded in the offseason prior to the 2017 season, then we are on the hook for $10 mill over four years. Edited July 12, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) I see, thanks, well done. So, this applies if there is a trade...why? I had another question, too... Oh! Is the league collecting money here (hence the "pool" nomenclature) or does this figure only count against the team's cap? Edited July 12, 2013 by sizzlemeister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 NHL 94!!! http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/the-most-exciting-part-of-nhl-14-will-be-nhl-94-anniversary-mode/ I love how the opening of the video shows LaLaLa facing off against Hartford, then transforms into Hodgson, with Vanek and Ott on the wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) I see, thanks, well done. So, this applies if there is a trade...why? I had another question, too... Oh! Is the league collecting money here (hence the "pool" nomenclature) or does this figure only count against the team's cap? The figure only counts against the cap. The team doesn't have to pay it since they technically already paid it. It's just the cap hit that counts. The way it works via trade is that you have to pay the cap advantage built up in the years PRIOR to the trade over the remaining years of that players current deal. HOWEVER, if the player STILL has years where his salary is higher than his cap hit but he leaves THAT team before his contract is up then that team will have to pay that cap benefit. That's why Vancouver wants teams to give them cash in Luongo deals to offset that. Edited July 12, 2013 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Long story short, they paid him more in real cash than they did in cap dollars. That balance must be restored, spread over the timeframe of the original contract. And after all of this, I'm brought back to the original question from last offseason of why they didn't choose to forfeit that 29th overall draft pick. Now they're very likely to be losing a lottery pick. Then again, some of the talking heads idiotically think the league may now cancel out that punishment. I actually wouldn't put it past them now that they've let a guy "retire" so he could go and play in another league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Long story short, they paid him more in real cash than they did in cap dollars. That balance must be restored, spread over the timeframe of the original contract. And after all of this, I'm brought back to the original question from last offseason of why they didn't choose to forfeit that 29th overall draft pick. Now they're very likely to be losing a lottery pick. Then again, some of the talking heads idiotically think the league may now cancel out that punishment. I actually wouldn't put it past them now that they've let a guy "retire" so he could go and play in another league. Yea I think it would be terrible if they let them have a pick back now. It would be like charging a guy with a felony because he puts a guy in the hospital but the guy makes a full recovery so you just drop the charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 So much Kovy irony - but the best is they've already burned their #1 pick in the 2014 draft because of the cap circumvention penalty getting Kovy - and I would make NJ odds on for a lottery pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 The best one I've heard so far is that he is retiring because he hurt his back carrying the Devils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Long story short, they paid him more in real cash than they did in cap dollars. That balance must be restored, spread over the timeframe of the original contract. And after all of this, I'm brought back to the original question from last offseason of why they didn't choose to forfeit that 29th overall draft pick. Now they're very likely to be losing a lottery pick. Then again, some of the talking heads idiotically think the league may now cancel out that punishment. I actually wouldn't put it past them now that they've let a guy "retire" so he could go and play in another league. Yea I think it would be terrible if they let them have a pick back now. It would be like charging a guy with a felony because he puts a guy in the hospital but the guy makes a full recovery so you just drop the charges. So much Kovy irony - but the best is they've already burned their #1 pick in the 2014 draft because of the cap circumvention penalty getting Kovy - and I would make NJ odds on for a lottery pick. I just see them getting off the hook somehow. If it were the Bruins, I'd be certain that they'd not only get off the hook, but probably also receive a compensatory lottery pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 So much Kovy irony - but the best is they've already burned their #1 pick in the 2014 draft because of the cap circumvention penalty getting Kovy - and I would make NJ odds on for a lottery pick. If they do wind up outside of the playoffs, they should include NJ in the lottery anyway. I'd love to see the extra little sting set in when their ball is picked and they realize they just lost the first overall pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 If they do wind up outside of the playoffs, they should include NJ in the lottery anyway. I'd love to see the extra little sting set in when their ball is picked and they realize they just lost the first overall pick. They would have to wouldn't they? To keep the % the same for each pick. I'd guess if NJD ball comes up they keep the order the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 @FAN590 BREAKING: The Bruins have signed Patrice Bergeron to an 8-year contract extension. #NHL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 @FAN590 BREAKING: The Bruins have signed Patrice Bergeron to an 8-year contract extension. #NHL Only $6.5MM per. Either Bergeron took a significant hometown discount, or he should fire his agent. In a world where David Clarkson and Ryane Clowe get ~$5MM each with a shrinking cap, Bergeron could easily fetch over 7 on the open market next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Only $6.5MM per. Either Bergeron took a significant hometown discount, or he should fire his agent. In a world where David Clarkson and Ryane Clowe get ~$5MM each with a shrinking cap, Bergeron could easily fetch over 7 on the open market next year. I was surprised he got less than Rask. I'm thinking it was a hometown discount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I was surprised he got less than Rask. I'm thinking it was a hometown discount. That but I found it interesting Chris Nichols included this Chris Nichols @Nichols_NHLPool 15m #Bruins make Patrice Bergeron's eight-year extension official this morning. $6.5 million cap hit per year, plus free medical coverage. I always assumed all NHL players got free med coverage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) That but I found it interesting Chris Nichols included this Chris Nichols @Nichols_NHLPool 15m #Bruins make Patrice Bergeron's eight-year extension official this morning. $6.5 million cap hit per year, plus free medical coverage. I always assumed all NHL players got free med coverage It's a joke. He has a lot of injuries from the Finals. Edited July 12, 2013 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.