SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Are sign-and-trades legal in the NHL

Créé par: CEO
Équipe: 2022-23 Hurricanes de la Caroline
Date de création initiale: 13 juin 2022
Publié: 13 juin 2022
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
Arizona signs Malkin to a 2x10.5 deal, with the understanding that he will be immediately traded to Carolina 50% retained qlong with Dysin Mayo for 2024 1st, Jake Gardiner's contract, and a 2023 4th round pick
Signatures de joueurs autonomes
RFAANSCAP HIT
33 666 666 $
2950 000 $
24 500 000 $
UFAANSCAP HIT
25 250 000 $
31 800 000 $
Transactions
1.
CAR
  1. Beauvillier, Anthony
Détails additionnels:
Salary shedding move by NYI
NYI
  1. Bear, Ethan [Droits de RFA]
2.
CAR
  1. Mayo, Dysin
Détails additionnels:
Evgeni Malkin 50% retained; see description
ARI
  1. Gardiner, Jake
  2. Choix de 4e ronde en 2023 (CAR)
  3. Choix de 1e ronde en 2024 (CAR)
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2022
Logo de CAR
Logo de CHI
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de ANA
Logo de CAR
Logo de CBJ
2023
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
2024
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2282 500 000 $81 266 083 $112 500 $500 000 $1 233 917 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
7 750 000 $7 750 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 7
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
8 460 250 $8 460 250 $
C
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
5 400 000 $5 400 000 $
AG, AD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
4 820 000 $4 820 000 $
C
UFA - 8
5 250 000 $5 250 000 $
C
UFA - 4
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
4 500 000 $4 500 000 $
AD
RFA - 2
Logo de Islanders de New York
4 150 000 $4 150 000 $
AD, AG
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
C, AG
NMC
UFA - 1
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
1 800 000 $1 800 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
950 000 $950 000 $
C, AG, AD
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
894 167 $894 167 $ (Bonis de performance500 000 $$500K)
AD
RFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
2 000 000 $2 000 000 $
AD
UFA - 1
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
5 300 000 $5 300 000 $
DG
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
3 666 666 $3 666 666 $
DD
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
4 500 000 $4 500 000 $
G
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
5 250 000 $5 250 000 $
DG
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
4 025 000 $4 025 000 $
DD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
2 000 000 $2 000 000 $
G
UFA - 1
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
1 800 000 $1 800 000 $
DG/DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Coyotes de l'Arizona
950 000 $950 000 $
DD
UFA - 3
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
762 500 $762 500 $
DD
UFA - 2
Logo de Hurricanes de la Caroline
925 000 $925 000 $
C
RFA - 2

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
13 juin 2022 à 10 h 45
#26
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: drambui
i remember the kovalchuk contract, but i think it was manipulating things more in a ridiculous way, because the.contract was made in a way to manipulates numbers to bring cap down with him retiring bwfore the end of the agreement. and that why im saying it very very possible they step in and say no. but why would they in the end? the kovalchuk contracts was based on lie almost, you could just make a player sign a 30 year contract and have a ridiculously low cap hit of they allowed it. there was a big slippery slope. whats the slippery slope here? (just for argument sakes.) and like i said, i still think its likely they could step in, but not convinced. what are they gonna say after, you have to wait 6 month to trade a player with retain salary after signing a new.contract ? (maybe)


They would do exactly what they did in the kovalchuk situation. Step in, block the move, and say its cap circumvention….and thats it.
13 juin 2022 à 10 h 50
#27
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2022
Messages: 3,660
Mentions "j'aime": 2,392
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
They would do exactly what they did in the kovalchuk situation. Step in, block the move, and say its cap circumvention….and thats it.


i understoond your opinion the first time dont worry, i was wondering what would be the argument for it if it wasnt clear.
13 juin 2022 à 10 h 52
#28
we miss leo k
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2018
Messages: 5,961
Mentions "j'aime": 5,094
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
It definitely would be. Theres a precedent for the league stepping in and saying, “this doesn’t break any specific rules, but its cap circumvention, so no.” Think kovalchuk. This contract would be signed purely for the reason of retention. Not a chance the league allows that.


As someone else said, the Kovalchuk thing was just too blatant for the league to *not* let it go. A 27 year old signing a 17 year deal that just so happened to have 96.5% of the salary paid in the first 11 years, with miniscule cap hits for the last 6 (one at $750K and then 5 at $550K!)? Just too egregious.

This is less so - how is this much different than a team signing a pending free agent to an 8 year deal and moving him out to a team that would give them an asset for that extra year/lower AAV the extra year would bring? It's the signing team using one of the advantages given to them by the CBA in trading one of their players for the maximum possible return. Like I said upthread, I think if the NHL tried to knock this down there would be an immediate challenge back from the teams involved - meaning the league would either have to take this to court (incredibly unlikely) or they'd have to re-open the CBA to address this - and re-opening would require consent from the NHLPA, and any good union boss would make SURE to extract a concession from the league for doing them the favor.

For those last two points alone, I feel pretty confident the league would suck it up and let it ride, and potentially address it in the next round of CBA talks. I can't see it becoming that incredibly common - you've only got a handful of cap floor teams, and there's a limit to how many retained contracts they can have at one time, so at most you're probably looking at what, 5-6 instances of this happening?
drambui et CEO a aimé ceci.
13 juin 2022 à 10 h 59
#29
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: dannibalcorpse
As someone else said, the Kovalchuk thing was just too blatant for the league to *not* let it go. A 27 year old signing a 17 year deal that just so happened to have 96.5% of the salary paid in the first 11 years, with miniscule cap hits for the last 6 (one at $750K and then 5 at $550K!)? Just too egregious.

This is less so - how is this much different than a team signing a pending free agent to an 8 year deal and moving him out to a team that would give them an asset for that extra year/lower AAV the extra year would bring? It's the signing team using one of the advantages given to them by the CBA in trading one of their players for the maximum possible return. Like I said upthread, I think if the NHL tried to knock this down there would be an immediate challenge back from the teams involved - meaning the league would either have to take this to court (incredibly unlikely) or they'd have to re-open the CBA to address this - and re-opening would require consent from the NHLPA, and any good union boss would make SURE to extract a concession from the league for doing them the favor.

For those last two points alone, I feel pretty confident the league would suck it up and let it ride, and potentially address it in the next round of CBA talks. I can't see it becoming that incredibly common - you've only got a handful of cap floor teams, and there's a limit to how many retained contracts they can have at one time, so at most you're probably looking at what, 5-6 instances of this happening?


I think signing someone and instantly trading them retained is more ridiculous than the kovalchuk deal.
13 juin 2022 à 10 h 59
#30
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: drambui
i understoond your opinion the first time dont worry, i was wondering what would be the argument for it if it wasnt clear.


They don’t have to make an argument. They didn’t with the kovalchuk situation. Just cap circumvention. Its a blanket term.
13 juin 2022 à 11 h 4
#31
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2022
Messages: 3,660
Mentions "j'aime": 2,392
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
They don’t have to make an argument. They didn’t with the kovalchuk situation. Just cap circumvention. Its a blanket term.


of course they have to make an argument and they did. what are you talking about. you cant remove someone's first rounder and not explain why you did. they changed how contract works after this incident, how can you say they did not explain their decision.
13 juin 2022 à 11 h 22
#32
we miss leo k
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2018
Messages: 5,961
Mentions "j'aime": 5,094
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
I think signing someone and instantly trading them retained is more ridiculous than the kovalchuk deal.


I mean, we can agree to disagree, but having the last 35% of that deal pay out only 3% of the total salary was mind-boggling and just asking for trouble.

The thing I don't see is how Bettman can just wave this away as circumvention without facing some sort of blowback from the teams involved. Is this really that different than the Coyotes trading for Bryan Little's contract, fully knowing that the likelihood of him recovering from his injuries during the remaining 2 years on his deal is pretty much zero? It's still them taking on the cap hit of a player who will not put on a Coyotes sweater in order to get an asset out of another team for doing so; and if it's not expressly forbidden in the CBA I don't see how it can be just undone under Article 26.

Other leagues have provisions that would prevent this - both the MLB & NBA have periods where newly-signed players can *not* be traded after signing their new deals (typically about 2 and a half months into the regular season). Sign-and-trades in the NBA have been around since before the current CBA was agreed on, so the league acting like this concept would be beyond the pale would be silly and would be very unlikely to hold up in an arbitration or court setting. If a team decides taking on $10M over 2 years is worth 1st and a 4th at the deadline, why wouldn't they have the same right to do so at any time during that player's contract if it's not expressly spelled out in the CBA?

And again, there are not that many opportunities for *this* type of sign and trade to happen - teams can only be retaining on 3 deals at once, and they can only retain on half the deal. There are only a few teams in the league I'd consider "floor teams" that would have any interest in doing this type of deal, so you're realistically looking at a maximum of 4-5 happening in an offseason.
13 juin 2022 à 12 h 14
#33
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2019
Messages: 1,797
Mentions "j'aime": 564
Quoting: dannibalcorpse
I mean, we can agree to disagree, but having the last 35% of that deal pay out only 3% of the total salary was mind-boggling and just asking for trouble.

The thing I don't see is how Bettman can just wave this away as circumvention without facing some sort of blowback from the teams involved. Is this really that different than the Coyotes trading for Bryan Little's contract, fully knowing that the likelihood of him recovering from his injuries during the remaining 2 years on his deal is pretty much zero? It's still them taking on the cap hit of a player who will not put on a Coyotes sweater in order to get an asset out of another team for doing so; and if it's not expressly forbidden in the CBA I don't see how it can be just undone under Article 26.

Other leagues have provisions that would prevent this - both the MLB & NBA have periods where newly-signed players can *not* be traded after signing their new deals (typically about 2 and a half months into the regular season). Sign-and-trades in the NBA have been around since before the current CBA was agreed on, so the league acting like this concept would be beyond the pale would be silly and would be very unlikely to hold up in an arbitration or court setting. If a team decides taking on $10M over 2 years is worth 1st and a 4th at the deadline, why wouldn't they have the same right to do so at any time during that player's contract if it's not expressly spelled out in the CBA?

And again, there are not that many opportunities for *this* type of sign and trade to happen - teams can only be retaining on 3 deals at once, and they can only retain on half the deal. There are only a few teams in the league I'd consider "floor teams" that would have any interest in doing this type of deal, so you're realistically looking at a maximum of 4-5 happening in an offseason.


To come back to this after I had to teach a class, I wonder what the union would say about this move? I've only been considering it from an NHL and competitiveness standpoint, but I can't imagine the union would be happy to see large percentages of the cap eaten up, on purpose, with no players. They want as many guys in the NHL making NHL salaries as possible, and this is preventing that from happening. I wonder if they would get a challenge from both sides on this, since Arizona can eat up cap space with retention and not be forced to pay players a salary they should have. Maybe they wouldn't be so pleased either.
13 juin 2022 à 19 h 53
#34
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: dannibalcorpse
As someone else said, the Kovalchuk thing was just too blatant for the league to *not* let it go. A 27 year old signing a 17 year deal that just so happened to have 96.5% of the salary paid in the first 11 years, with miniscule cap hits for the last 6 (one at $750K and then 5 at $550K!)? Just too egregious.

This is less so - how is this much different than a team signing a pending free agent to an 8 year deal and moving him out to a team that would give them an asset for that extra year/lower AAV the extra year would bring? It's the signing team using one of the advantages given to them by the CBA in trading one of their players for the maximum possible return. Like I said upthread, I think if the NHL tried to knock this down there would be an immediate challenge back from the teams involved - meaning the league would either have to take this to court (incredibly unlikely) or they'd have to re-open the CBA to address this - and re-opening would require consent from the NHLPA, and any good union boss would make SURE to extract a concession from the league for doing them the favor.

For those last two points alone, I feel pretty confident the league would suck it up and let it ride, and potentially address it in the next round of CBA talks. I can't see it becoming that incredibly common - you've only got a handful of cap floor teams, and there's a limit to how many retained contracts they can have at one time, so at most you're probably looking at what, 5-6 instances of this happening?


This is basically what I was thinking
dannibalcorpse a aimé ceci.
13 juin 2022 à 19 h 54
#35
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: newballcoach
The NHLPA would **** a brick if they did that. Definitely cap circumvention (in this case, the floor) and they would lose their minds. Not a good scene.



I suppose what's "legal" and what's going to be allowed is a fair question. I don't think the NHL is going to encourage this to happen, and I would think they would void the contract. There could definitely be a fight about it, but short of Arizona and Carolina threatening legal action, that's probably what would happen. It's clearly cap circumvention and not in the spirit of the rules. I think they've lived with a third team retaining salary on deadline trades, but I don't see them opening up this slippery slope. The next step would be trading a player to another team, having them retain salary and then trading him back. That's not a box they want to open IMO.


Yeah, lol, the 10 million 2 way deal was the byproduct of my head not sleeping but attending stats class
13 juin 2022 à 19 h 58
#36
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
They don’t have to make an argument. They didn’t with the kovalchuk situation. Just cap circumvention. Its a blanket term.


I see what you are saying, but the view is subjective. What counts as circumvention and where the line of intervention needed is an opinion. I would imagine it would stir controversy and media might get mad, but if it's not against the rules, its tough to justify. Kovalchuk's contract demonstrated the lack of rules on contract length. I would imagine that if this did get shut down, they'd make an update to the CBA. Then, I claim credit
13 juin 2022 à 19 h 59
#37
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: Caniac2000
Bear is a 25 year old RD, thank you very much


As a canes fan what would you be willing to add?
13 juin 2022 à 20 h 5
#38
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: CEO
I see what you are saying, but the view is subjective. What counts as circumvention and where the line of intervention needed is an opinion. I would imagine it would stir controversy and media might get mad, but if it's not against the rules, its tough to justify. Kovalchuk's contract demonstrated the lack of rules on contract length. I would imagine that if this did get shut down, they'd make an update to the CBA. Then, I claim credit


Kovalchuk’s contract wasn’t against the rules. They stopped it. It’s a no brainer. 100% blocked by the league.
CEO a aimé ceci.
13 juin 2022 à 22 h 12
#39
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
Kovalchuk’s contract wasn’t against the rules. They stopped it. It’s a no brainer. 100% blocked by the league.


I agree. This seems, to some at least, myself included, less of a no-brainer
13 juin 2022 à 22 h 31
#40
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: CEO
I agree. This seems, to some at least, myself included, less of a no-brainer


Why?
14 juin 2022 à 0 h 29
#41
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
Why?


as noted by dannibalcorpse, its not radically different from other commonly accepted legal moves, such as double retention. Although I respect the opinion that it would be blocked. A fun thought though
14 juin 2022 à 0 h 35
#42
Banni
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2021
Messages: 14,017
Mentions "j'aime": 4,585
Quoting: CEO
as noted by dannibalcorpse, its not radically different from other commonly accepted legal moves, such as double retention. Although I respect the opinion that it would be blocked. A fun thought though


Likewise, kovalchuks contract wasn’t radically different than the other fronts loaded deals. It just took a step in the direction of clear cap circumvention. This does the same.
CEO a aimé ceci.
14 juin 2022 à 9 h 58
#43
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2020
Messages: 1,525
Mentions "j'aime": 668
Quoting: CMcAvoy73
Likewise, kovalchuks contract wasn’t radically different than the other fronts loaded deals. It just took a step in the direction of clear cap circumvention. This does the same.


Fair enough
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage