Tentative Agreement Reached.

[BabychStache]

This ratification process is ridiculous.

The GM's are all going to age 10 years in one week getting rosters together. They really need to open it up for them today or tomorrow to allow for some time, flights, family moves etc etc.

Not to mention get some excitement into the press.

[elvis15]

They technically can't open training camps until the CBA is finalized, and that's not expected to happen until Saturday.

[poetica]

Anyone looking for a good chuckle should check out Down Goes Brown's list of surprises found in the new CBA deal:

A few of my favorites:

• "An improved pension plan will make more funds available to the players who retire early due to all those critical safety issues that didn't end up being addressed in the deal at all."

• "The two sides will split the cost of a tasteful memorial plaque and reflecting pool to be located at the top of the contract length hill that Bill Daly died on."

• "The last page includes a preliminary agreement about which mind-numbingly trivial issues the two sides will argue incessantly about when we do this all again in eight years."

(Note to self: Get that book already!)

[poetica]

For anyone interested....

Re: Salary retention in trades

Numerous sources now indicating (teams have been informed of the CBA details, so leaks are becoming more frequent) that teams will be able to retain up to 50% of a contract's salary in a trade and can do so for up to a maximum of three contracts per team. The total amount of cap retained through trades cannot exceed 15% of the salary cap ceiling.

[WHL rocks]

CBA rule re retaining cap and salary in trade very well explained here.

Read the following if interested in this sort of thing.

We should have a thread for just the rules and details of new CBA. I wanted to start such thread over the past couple of days but didn't because there are so many CBA threads popping up over the past couple of days.

Here’s an interesting new rule NHL general managers should be able to have a lot of fun with.

Or at the very least get out of some of their most egregious mistakes.

Teams will in the new collective agreement be able to for the first time under a salary cap keep salary on their books and trade part of a contract.

There are four golden rules that apply to retaining salary:

1. Teams can only have three contracts on the books where they’ve retained salary in a trade

2. Teams can keep only up to 15 per cent of the salary cap in a given year, meaning they would max out at $9.645-million under the $64.3-million cap that’s likely to be in place in 2013-14 and 2014-15

3. Only 50 per cent of a contract can be kept

4. A contract can only be traded in one of these deals twice

This is going to be a fairly complicated provision in the deal, and one that will make following the salary cap machinations of teams even more difficult.

Let’s use some examples here to make the rule easier to understand, with the cap-strapped Montreal Canadiens and (likely) unwanted defenceman Tomas Kaberle as the guinea pigs.

Kaberle has two seasons left on his deal, both for $4.25-million in both salary and cap hit. The Habs can then choose to keep $2.125-million of that, continue to pay half his contract, but gain the rest in cap space by sending him to another team.

Let’s say the New York Islanders take on that deal. They will be on the hook for two more years of both cap hit and salary.

If the Isles then choose to move him, they can then keep up to $1.06-million of Kaberle’s contract and another team will get him for that paltry amount.

This gets a little more complicated with a more complicated contract. Let’s say Roberto Luongo is in fact traded from Vancouver to Toronto, and one of the things the Canucks decide to do is keep $1-million of the cap hit (or 18.8 per cent).

That would then mean they’re on the hook for that amount of the remaining salary (just under $9-million) and would be stuck with a $1-million cap hit for a long, long time.

(Which is why it’s unlikely they agree to do so.)

Because only 50 per cent of the deal can be kept, however, the rule functions much like re-entry waivers did previously, and we saw how few teams were willing to eat that high of a cap hit over time.

The New York Rangers, for example, wouldn’t put Wade Redden on re-entry waivers because they didn’t want more than $3-million in dead space, and it stands to reason teams won’t be clamouring to push up against the 15 per cent limit.

On the other hand, if you’re a GM out there and you see some value in an unwanted player at a lower cap hit, perhaps you offer to take a Rene Bourque or someone of that ilk at 70 or 80 per cent of his remaining salary.

This could be a fascinating new wrinkle in that way, as we’ve often seen players become untradeable due to their contracts and GMs like Brian Burke have pushed to allow more creativity in deals.

Whether it dramatically ups the number of trades being made remains to be seen, but that’s the hope from NHL executives right now.

[elvis15]

For anyone interested....

Re: Salary retention in trades

Source: http://www.coppernbl...nd-were-baaaack

(This page has the most detailed look at the new CBA I've found.)

[WHL rocks]

Reading both those explanations, they might indicate different things. My understanding is closest to poetica's post, while WHL's post doesn't indicate as clearly about when salary versus cap can be retained.

[poetica]

Hopefully we'll find out more details soon. I'll be particularly interested to know if teams who keep part of the cap hit are required to keep paying that portion of the salary, or if richer teams will be able to pick up a good player with a decent salary but lowered cap hit while poor teams are able to retain the cap hit from a player they don't actually pay. That, of course, would be an obvious cap circumvention that one would hope they would have anticipated and sought to avoid, but given the fact that they were "surprised" by the cap circumventing contracts under the last CBA even though the NBA had already been experiencing the exact same problem doesn't fill me with confidence.

Either way, I feel for the people at Cap Geek!

[poetica]

Really? I've been very interested in this rule and have read pretty much every post on HF Boards to get more details on it. As well as searched Google multiple times. The 4 point explanation I posted above is the best I could find.

What does the following tell you about "when salary vs cap can be retained?

[-Vintage Canuck-]

@annschmaltz: Schneider not worried if Luongo is at training camp. "There's worse things than having a world class goalie pushing you to be your best."

[WHL rocks]

I don't think Elvis meant his comments to be taken personally but was simply talking about the fact that it's hard to get any concrete details right now.

Regardless, can you share the source for your quote please? I'd be interested in reading the rest of the article.

[elvis15]

Really? I've been very interested in this rule and have read pretty much every post on HF Boards to get more details on it. As well as searched Google multiple times. The 4 point explanation I posted above is the best I could find.

What does the following tell you about "when salary vs cap can be retained?

[elvis15]

I don't think I took it personal.

I asked elvis the question because I want to know what I'm missing. I've been searching for more info on CBA details relentlessly over the past couple of days. I even suggested dedicating a thread to CBA details. I am very interested in understanding this particular rule, this is the reason for my question. Not OMG elvis likes someone else's link better than mine.

Edit: Here's the link http://www.theglobea...article7033878/

[WHL rocks]

^^ What do you guys think about a sign and trade deal like they do in NBA. That could circumvent the CBA in a way.

[poetica]

Edit: Here's the link http://www.theglobea...article7033878/

[WHL rocks]

Not to say that the intent of both articles wasn't the same, just that the wording from one was clearer for me (I was specifically comparing points 2 and 3 from yours to her post). The part that is unclear in one but not in the other is when cap is retained versus when salary is as they try and specifically use those words to be completely obvious.

Saying "only 50% of a contract can be kept" isn't as clear for me where saying "salary" is easy to determine as what a player actually makes in a given year.

[poetica]

^^ What do you guys think about a sign and trade deal like they do in NBA. That could circumvent the CBA in a way.

[poetica]

The highlighted part is the only one you should refer to in Poetica's link as the non highlighted part which you find easier to understand is incorrect according to the writer.

[WHL rocks]

Thank you.

[WHL rocks]

Without knowing any specifics of NBA deals, "sign and trade" certainly sounds like what I was wondering about as one possible way teams would be able to circumvent the cap IF teams retain cap hit but not salary. I think that's the big question right now because that changes everything. If teams retain part of the cap hit only, it would seem to have no purpose other than cap circumvention. If, however, teams retain part of the salary that they must pay and take the partial cap hit for, it would seem to only be useful for teams looking to move a player with a big contract to poor teams. Basically, it would be a type of voluntary welfare.