SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

A very interesting and completely legal cap circumvention

Créé par: alwaysnextyear
Équipe: 2020-21 Canucks de Vancouver
Date de création initiale: 4 juill. 2020
Publié: 4 juill. 2020
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
Loui Eriksson and Johnny Boychuk. Two old vets with terrible, but almost identical contracts. After their 2020 bonus' were paid, Eriksson is owed $5m and Boychuk $5.25m over the next two years. So here's the plan.

Management for both teams approach their respective player and ask if they'd consider a mutual contract termination. They could even threaten to bury the players in the AHL for two years, but that doesn't look good on the team unless the player is clearly no longer at NHL caliber. Instead of making such a threat they could allow the player's agents to come to an informal agreement with the other team's GM to sign a new contract for the remaining amount owing on their current contract. This type of permission is granted to agents frequently if a player and team are looking for a trade partner that the player would approve an extension with. It would look like this:

Eriksson and VAN mutually terminate contract -- Eriksson signs a new contract with NYI for $5m for one season.
Boychuk and NYI mutually terminate contract -- Boychuk signs a new contract with VAN for $5.25 for one season.

As far as I can tell this doesn't violate league rules as the teams aren't trying to re-sign their same player to lesser deals. The players would need to agree to play for a new team for a year, but they'd be getting the remaining salary that's owed to them currently over two years in a one year deal instead. That would have to be enticing.

For the Canucks this would accomplish a couple things;
1) Getting a depth Dman for one year
2) Freeing up cap space in 2021 when Petey and Hughes need new deals

So what do you think? Would this be allowed to stick?
Signatures de joueurs autonomes
LISTE DE RÉSERVEANSCAP HIT
1900 000 $
RFAANSCAP HIT
22 750 000 $
22 750 000 $
2900 000 $
2900 000 $
22 750 000 $
UFAANSCAP HIT
1900 000 $
45 500 000 $
CRÉÉANSCAP HIT
Boychuk, Johnny
15 250 000 $
Transactions
VAN
    Mutual contract termination agreement. See description
    Rachats de contrats
    Frais appliqués
    Enfoui
    Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
    2020
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de ANA
    2021
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    2022
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    Logo de VAN
    TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
    2381 500 000 $80 426 878 $1 700 000 $3 700 000 $1 073 122 $
    Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    3 500 000 $3 500 000 $
    AG, AD
    NMC
    UFA - 3
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    925 000 $925 000 $ (Bonis de performance2 850 000 $$3M)
    C, AG
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    5 250 000 $5 250 000 $
    C, AG, AD
    UFA - 3
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    3 750 000 $3 750 000 $
    AG
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    4 125 000 $4 125 000 $
    C
    UFA - 3
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    5 875 000 $5 875 000 $
    AD
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    3 366 666 $3 366 666 $
    AG
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    2 750 000 $2 750 000 $
    C, AD
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    2 750 000 $2 750 000 $
    AD, AG
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    3 000 000 $3 000 000 $
    AG
    M-NTC
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    3 000 000 $3 000 000 $
    C
    M-NTC
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    900 000 $900 000 $
    AD, C
    UFA - 2
    Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    916 667 $916 667 $ (Bonis de performance850 000 $$850K)
    DG
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
    DD
    NTC
    UFA - 4
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    5 500 000 $5 500 000 $
    G
    UFA - 6
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
    DG
    NMC
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    2 750 000 $2 750 000 $
    DD
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    1 050 000 $1 050 000 $
    G
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    900 000 $900 000 $
    DG
    RFA
    Boychuk, Johnny
    5 250 000 $5 250 000 $
    Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    4 375 000 $4 375 000 $
    AD, C
    M-NTC
    UFA - 1
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    900 000 $900 000 $
    AG, AD
    UFA - 2
    Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
    900 000 $900 000 $
    DG
    UFA

    Code d'intégration

    • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
    • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

    Texte intégré

    Cliquer pour surligner
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 3
    #1
    Breadman likes Bread
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juill. 2017
    Messages: 3,492
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,729
    That’s completely legal and extremely smart. Good job.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 8
    #2
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2019
    Messages: 37,919
    Mentions "j'aime": 19,294
    assuming the players are willi g to waive to the respective team this is pretty decent. Idk if it really helps NYI now though they need to shed that cap space for Barzal this year
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 11
    #3
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2020
    Messages: 4,742
    Mentions "j'aime": 3,509
    Modifié 4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 18
    This would probably be frowned upon but allowed. Doesn’t really accomplish too much for the Islanders considering they’d need that cap space for Pulock & Barzal. Only benefit would be one year instead of two so the cost to dump would be cheaper.

    To add clarification you might get kickback from the NHL because the intent of cap hit is the average actual dollars spread across multiple years. By removing the last year of each of those contracts your essentially receiving a benefit on the years prior (hence circumvention). If anyone had the balls to try it’s Lou.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 13
    #4
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy
    assuming the players are willi g to waive to the respective team this is pretty decent. Idk if it really helps NYI now though they need to shed that cap space for Barzal this year


    The alternative for the Isles would be to offer Loui $2.5m per for 2 years, which would save them $3.5m against the cap each year instead of keeping Boychuk.
    Ledge_And_Dairy a aimé ceci.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 18
    #5
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: avr. 2017
    Messages: 311
    Mentions "j'aime": 43
    This is a great idea. Good work. You solved the Benning-Overspend Cap Crunch (BOCC) problem!

    I think Tryamkin makes a bit more and more term. I think Virtanen too and Gaudette a little less in funds. The money is there. I also dont see Canucks resigning Fantenberg when bringing in Tryamkin and having Joulevi finally close or Ferland playing top line...want him to, but given the health history I think he is second line at best.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 24
    #6
    Islanders Fan
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2016
    Messages: 7,820
    Mentions "j'aime": 2,758
    I love this, if it's legal is a whole other story.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 24
    #7
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juill. 2018
    Messages: 3,921
    Mentions "j'aime": 2,064
    I think this would be considered cap circumvention or collusion. Article 26.2 specifically prohibits this.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 25
    #8
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: BStinson
    This would probably be frowned upon but allowed. Doesn’t really accomplish too much for the Islanders considering they’d need that cap space for Pulock & Barzal. Only benefit would be one year instead of two so the cost to dump would be cheaper.

    To add clarification you might get kickback from the NHL because the intent of cap hit is the average actual dollars spread across multiple years. By removing the last year of each of those contracts your essentially receiving a benefit on the years prior (hence circumvention). If anyone had the balls to try it’s Lou.


    It definitely is circumvention, but the question is if it's against the current rules. In the future the league may just eliminate teams' abilities to mutually terminate a contract with a player; that's actually where the circumvention is. Yet it's allowed to happen under the current CBA if both the player and team agree to it.
    mhockey91 a aimé ceci.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 26
    #9
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2020
    Messages: 8,634
    Mentions "j'aime": 3,931
    that’s a huge no. Players union should be all over not letting it happen. Even if players agree to it that’s a big cba issue the league and union are best no to play with.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 28
    #10
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2020
    Messages: 8,634
    Mentions "j'aime": 3,931
    If teams start pulling that kinda crap don’t blame bettman for the next lock out haha
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 29
    #11
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2020
    Messages: 4,742
    Mentions "j'aime": 3,509
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    It definitely is circumvention, but the question is if it's against the current rules. In the future the league may just eliminate teams' abilities to mutually terminate a contract with a player; that's actually where the circumvention is. Yet it's allowed to happen under the current CBA if both the player and team agree to it.

    Doesn’t matter if it’s against the rules. Look at NJ with Kovalchuk. Perfect legal to do that however it was completely against the intent.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 30
    #12
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: Canuckel_head
    This is a great idea. Good work. You solved the Benning-Overspend Cap Crunch (BOCC) problem!

    I think Tryamkin makes a bit more and more term. I think Virtanen too and Gaudette a little less in funds. The money is there. I also dont see Canucks resigning Fantenberg when bringing in Tryamkin and having Joulevi finally close or Ferland playing top line...want him to, but given the health history I think he is second line at best.


    Thanks!

    If Tryamkin wants more than that for one year I think the team should just trade his rights. Fantenberg was also just a one year depth signing that can be parked in the press box or Utica if one of the kids is ready; I was just trying to get some blueline depth.

    Ferland is a huge question mark. If he's fully healthy he's previously shown the ability to play in the top six as a gritty guy with more talented players, and I think Benning eyed him in that role with Petey when he signed him last year. But he could just as easily go on LTIR if the concussion symptoms don't go away.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 31
    #13
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juill. 2018
    Messages: 3,921
    Mentions "j'aime": 2,064
    Quoting: sedin33
    I think this would be considered cap circumvention or collusion. Article 26.2 specifically prohibits this.


    26.2 Undisclosed Terms and Revenues.
    A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club
    Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or
    indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity,
    or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed
    agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings,
    representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind
    involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the
    Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the
    Player's SPC.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 32
    #14
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: BStinson
    Doesn’t matter if it’s against the rules. Look at NJ with Kovalchuk. Perfect legal to do that however it was completely against the intent.


    But Kovy's contract with NJD was terminated because he "retired". The Devils got to wipe his cap hit off the books.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 35
    #15
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2020
    Messages: 4,742
    Mentions "j'aime": 3,509
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    But Kovy's contract with NJD was terminated because he "retired". The Devils got to wipe his cap hit off the books.

    Sorry I should’ve explained more. I’m talking more about the 17 year contract being legal but violating the intent of cap hence the punishment for the loop hole.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 40
    #16
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: sedin33
    26.2 Undisclosed Terms and Revenues.
    A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club
    Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or
    indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity,
    or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed
    agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings,
    representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind
    involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the
    Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the
    Player's SPC.


    Interesting wording. The phrase that sticks out to me is "undisclosed agreements". What if everything is disclosed to the league? Like I mentioned in the description, teams are allowed to grant a player and agent permission to "talk" to other teams if they're looking for a trade partner that the player would find a good fit. If nothing is being hidden from the league then there are no rules being broken under this article.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 42
    #17
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juill. 2018
    Messages: 3,921
    Mentions "j'aime": 2,064
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    Interesting wording. The phrase that sticks out to me is "undisclosed agreements". What if everything is disclosed to the league? Like I mentioned in the description, teams are allowed to grant a player and agent permission to "talk" to other teams if they're looking for a trade partner that the player would find a good fit. If nothing is being hidden from the league then there are no rules being broken under this article.


    If Bettman allowed this, he would be opening one big loophole. I don't see anyway the league allows it
    BStinson a aimé ceci.
    4 juill. 2020 à 15 h 52
    #18
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: BStinson
    Sorry I should’ve explained more. I’m talking more about the 17 year contract being legal but violating the intent of cap hence the punishment for the loop hole.


    Right, and I think that was a completely ****ty situation. The league ended up punishing teams for 'creative' contracts that were actually legal under the wording of the existing CBA they were signed under. IMO the league had egg on their face for not foreseeing that situation and making sure teams weren't able to do that in the first place. Then when they re-negotiated the CBA they still allowed provisions for having more salary be paid out up front (although less than before), and massive signing bonus'. I don't know why they didn't just simplify it and make it so the cap hit on any given contract is the exact same as the players' earnings for that year, with no salary variation from year to year.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 4
    #19
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    Right, and I think that was a completely ****ty situation. The league ended up punishing teams for 'creative' contracts that were actually legal under the wording of the existing CBA they were signed under. IMO the league had egg on their face for not foreseeing that situation and making sure teams weren't able to do that in the first place. Then when they re-negotiated the CBA they still allowed provisions for having more salary be paid out up front (although less than before), and massive signing bonus'. I don't know why they didn't just simplify it and make it so the cap hit on any given contract is the exact same as the players' earnings for that year, with no salary variation from year to year.


    Contracts should either have no salary variation and a consistent cap hit throughout the length of the term (ie. $6 AAV x 6 years = the player actually earns $6M in each of the 6 years)
    or
    Contacts should allow some level of salary variation over the contract term, but it's reflected in the cap hit for that year (ie. Eriksson's cap hit would vary year-to-year based on his actual earnings; 8-8-7-5-4-4)

    With either structure there's no way to circumvent the cap.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 12
    #20
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 15,921
    Mentions "j'aime": 6,980
    I mean theoretically yes its legal, issue is, would Boychuck and Eriksson leave all that money on the table? even if the teams threatened to burry them in the AHL they'll still receive most of their salary
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 14
    #21
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: mhockey91
    I mean theoretically yes its legal, issue is, would Boychuck and Eriksson leave all that money on the table? even if the teams threatened to burry them in the AHL they'll still receive most of their salary


    They wouldn't be leaving any money on the table, they'd actually be earning what's owed to them a year sooner. That's their incentive to do it.
    mhockey91 a aimé ceci.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 18
    #22
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 15,921
    Mentions "j'aime": 6,980
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    They wouldn't be leaving any money on the table, they'd actually be earning what's owed to them a year sooner. That's their incentive to do it.


    oh I see because of the signing bonus... well sir, you've just came up with an idea to legally circumvent the cap. wow, impressed. I haven't read the CBA but from my understanding this looks completely legal.
    alwaysnextyear a aimé ceci.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 20
    #23
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2015
    Messages: 19,538
    Mentions "j'aime": 6,693
    I posted on Joshelkin's post but I'll post here to. Its technically legal from what I can tell. The only issue is NHL involvement. Can they do anything? Would they do anything? I have no clue.

    Its a great idea that in theory should work but I could see the NHL being a bit annoyed with this. To what extent they act on that is unknown. My gut tells me they'd probably let it happen this one time but then send memo's out to the rest of the league that they should expect a thorough investigation if something would happen again like this. Not to mention amend the CBA to put a rule in place where a player who mutually terminates his contract, can only resign a new contract at X% of his old one...

    Just a side note, you can't sign a contract with a new team until your old one is taken care of. I know it would be met with extremely harsh criticism but if they wanted to, the GM's could both back out of their verbal agreements as soon as the termination is done stating some BS injury report that surfaced and the players would be left hanging with literally nothing they could do other than crap on the team in the media etc. This is what the NHL is worried of. Its bad publicity.

    If it meant getting 2 years of 6M off the cap and being able to resign their young guns and keep the teams core intact, GM's may have incentive to do it. As much as reputations are important, this is a business and teams will do whatever it takes to win. Money is tight, there are only so many jobs available in the NHL that players memories will slowly forget and the GM's will be scott free.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 23
    #24
    Démarrer sujet
    alwaysnextyear
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: juin 2015
    Messages: 5,494
    Mentions "j'aime": 1,549
    Quoting: F50marco
    I posted on Joshelkin's post but I'll post here to. Its technically legal from what I can tell. The only issue is NHL involvement. Can they do anything? Would they do anything? I have no clue.

    Its a great idea that in theory should work but I could see the NHL being a bit annoyed with this. To what extent they act on that is unknown. My gut tells me they'd probably let it happen this one time but then send memo's out to the rest of the league that they should expect a thorough investigation if something would happen again like this. Not to mention amend the CBA to put a rule in place where a player who mutually terminates his contract, can only resign a new contract at X% of his old one...

    Just a side note, you can't sign a contract with a new team until your old one is taken care of. I know it would be met with extremely harsh criticism but if they wanted to, the GM's could both back out of their verbal agreements as soon as the termination is done stating some BS injury report that surfaced and the players would be left hanging with literally nothing they could do other than crap on the team in the media etc. This is what the NHL is worried of. Its bad publicity.

    If it meant getting 2 years of 6M off the cap and being able to resign their young guns and keep the teams core intact, GM's may have incentive to do it. As much as reputations are important, this is a business and teams will do whatever it takes to win. Money is tight, there are only so many jobs available in the NHL that players memories will slowly forget and the GM's will be scott free.


    Well thought out as usual Marco. I think this situation would definitely be reviewed by the league and amendments would be put in the next CBA to prevent it. But as I also mentioned in other comments, this could all be avoided if they just make a player's cap hit the exact same as their earnings each year. Then there's no way to circumvent.
    4 juill. 2020 à 16 h 58
    #25
    Avatar de l'utilisateur
    Rejoint: mai 2015
    Messages: 19,538
    Mentions "j'aime": 6,693
    Quoting: alwaysnextyear
    Well thought out as usual Marco. I think this situation would definitely be reviewed by the league and amendments would be put in the next CBA to prevent it. But as I also mentioned in other comments, this could all be avoided if they just make a player's cap hit the exact same as their earnings each year. Then there's no way to circumvent.


    Agreed on that last point. I don't understand the reluctance by the league to literally give the teams the choice year over year?

    Imagine the GM's being able to structure the cap to the way they need it? They wouldn't be cheating. They could make the cap higher in years where they have extra cap to burn and use that future cap flexibility when they need it. Its not like they couldn't transfer that same amount of debt in cap and salary to the teams they would potentially trade with. Thy already do this with LTIR so whats the big fuss?

    Even if its not exactly like I mentioned, I think there is better way of doing it that makes things not so harsh for cap strapped teams that doesn't break the nature of what the CBA stands for while giving teams more flexibility to work with the parameters of the cap.
    alwaysnextyear a aimé ceci.
     
    Répondre
    To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
    Question:
    Options:
    Ajouter une option
    Soumettre le sondage