Bridge deals typically never work out well for teams and their top players

This is actually very smart

The first move is fine but marner can not be revsigned till after the TDL. The second move with zaitsev is cap circumvention. I believe the rule is tat zaitsev can not be moved back to the leafs for 1 full year with salary retained.

Why would Marner do that when he can get $11 mil now? Why throw away $5 mil?

I think the leafs will negotiate him down from 11m. There is no doubt in my mind that he has a strong will to stay in Toronto. This deal could work favourably for both sides. Although I think marner May be able to make out better I. The long haul with a 6 year deal.

Maybe zaitsev could be orpik’d... I had never thought about that option.

In theory, at least as far as the CBA is concerned, it could all work. The Zaitsev deal would be a legal circumvention of the salary cap, but I can't see why the Leafs would want him back, or why a team would be willing to eat 50% of his salary unless we tossed up a big asset as well. I don't think that'd be worth it for the Leafs, since I believe they can find a way to just trade him, without having to give up an additional asset. As for Marner, the only downfall here would be trust. He would have to trust the Leafs that they would sign him to whatever they had orally agreed to this summer. Additionally, I do not believe they could sign him to that 8-year extension until January 1, 2020. On the chance he has a miserable start to the 2019-20 season, why would the Leafs not use that against him to bring his price down? Yes, I get there needs to be loyalty and trust between team and player, but this is also a business. Signing him this offseason, I think you can get it done for Kucherov money.

That's a fair point but Toronto has the ability to make up for that in signing bonuses and he'd ultimately end up with $95M over 9 years which averages out to just over $10.5 a year. That's less than $500K that'd he'd be sacrificing per year

no its not. you cant reacquire a player with retained salary until 1 calendar year has passed from the initial trade

its not legal circumvention , its right in the CBA you cant reacquire a player with Retained salary within 1 calander year from the trade

Signing bonuses go against the cap. 500k/year for 9 years is a lot of money to give up for no reason.

Do you have that specific section? Because when Marc Methot was drafted by Vegas, there had been discussion that Vegas would retain some salary and then trade him back to Ottawa and a bunch of hockey insiders said that scenario would work. Now, maybe that is specific to the expansion draft, and in the end, Methot went to Dallas, but the scenario was discussed and it sounded to me like that was perfectly fine.

its right in the https://www.capfriendly.com/faq on this site

"Once a retained salary transcation has occured, there are various limitations, such as:
A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date."

and it probably was fine in the expansion draft bc players were transferred to Vegas not traded.

That is a different scenario. When a player is traded they can not be moved back to the other team with retention for 1 full year. Methot was not traded.

Interesting, well thanks for that clarification. I am not sure what exception was made for Vegas, but I believe they were allowed to manouevre the scenario as @WookieNights proposed with Zaitsev. I didn't think that was an exception to the rule, and as I said, in the end Methot went to Dallas and was NOT traded back to the Sens, @Jamiepo.

yeah not sure either, the whole expansion draft probably created a lot of grey areas in terms of that in the CBA. I know that the NHL wasnt happy when the Sens sent Brassard to the Knights to retain salary, then flipped him to the Pens, I imagine in the new CBA they will really crack down on that sort of stuff.

I can't see it. 95 points this year and maybe the only player besides Anderson who has carried Toronto in the Boston series. Since breaking into the NHL he ranks 22nd among EVERYONE in points and he's only 21yr old. He's looking at Matthews money.

It is technically legal circumvention of the cap. The league wouldn't be happy with it though. If you read it, it says:
Once a retained salary transcation has occured, there are various limitations, such as:
A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date.

So technically since Toronto hasn't retained salary when they sent him to Ottawa, they are allowed to reacquire him and Ottawa is allowed to retain up to 50% of his salary. I doubt Ottawa does that though since Zaitsev has quite a bit of term on his deal left. But yes, it is legal technically. Might piss the league off but they're dumb anyways

That is the rule for retained salary being traded away. This is to prevent teams from renting out a retained player. I believe the rule is very similar going the other way. I will look at it.

you are misreading the rule...why would they have a rule of that a team cant retain salary on a player trading him away just to reacquire him having the full cap hit once again.

The rule is exactly this, you cant reacquire said player with retained salary to circumvent the CBA. The way you are laying out, you arent circumvent the cap bc Leafs would be retaining salary, then getting him back, making up his full cap hit once again

Just delved into the cba... it is illegal. No player that has been on your reserve list can be traded in a retained salary transaction back to your team within 1 full calendar year.

It is not legal, I looked it up. One full calendar year.

The way you're saying it is not the wording of it and in legal terms, lawyers always argue in terms of the way it's written exactly.

The way the user has this post:
Move Zaitsev to a team who needs picks and to hit the cap floor (OTT) and have them trade him back with 50% of his salary retained. It'd technically be two separate trades.

So Toronto isn't retaining cap on Zaitsev at all and moving him to another team in the first trade, Zaitsev is immediately deemed legal to be traded to any team in the league with salary retention by Ottawa (including Toronto). Then Ottawa has chosen to flip Zaitsev back to Toronto at 50% salary retained which is legal because Toronto didn't retain salary in the original transaction. That's exactly how lawyers would fight it for its legality because the way it is worded, makes it legal circumvention. If it happened, I'm sure the league would address it but by the way the rule is written out in this section, it makes it legal.

This section also has a little bit to do with why the Orpik situation was legal circumvention. Because his contract was terminated after the trade, it's legally allowed to sign with any team at any amount of money and there's nothing the league coulda done about it except not be happy. But it's all still legal.

I'm sure the CBA was drafted that way by the league because it never crossed their mind that a situation like it would happen, but if it does you can be sure they'll address it in the next CBA talks. But the way this section has it written out, yes it is legal.

Zaitsev isn't on Toronto's reserve list nor would he be on Ottawa's once he was traded..

its against the rules man, no need to write novels about it.

The way the CBA is written, it's not against the rules.