Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Tentative Agreement Reached.


Recommended Posts

I would assume there would be a rule forbidding it simply because otherwise what's the point of giving teams a year bonus when re-signing their own players if that bonus can just be bought by another team as part of a trade. It's just dishonest to call that a "re-signing" if they don't intend to keep the player. That being said, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a specific rule wasn't included or if, rule or not, the NHL claimed to be "shocked" that it happens and then points to it as part of what's "broken" and needs to be fixed with another lockout next CBA.

Let's hope common sense sneaked into the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point, where a clause for a player who's received a signing bonus could not be traded for a year would be very preventative. Otherwise we could see what you're suggesting, sign someone with 90% of their salary in a signing bonus only to trade them at the deadline (or sooner in a sign and trade) and the bonus would have already been paid on July 1 by the original team. Then the new team just has the cap hit, and minimal real money cost for that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess would be to allow teams to start making moves to get under the new cap. For example, they might pick up a player to replace a player they know they have to trade before they've traded him (like a new backup goalie before we traded Luo.) It just keeps teams from having to trade a player before they have a replacement for him and gives them a little time to get a decent deal for the player they have to trade instead of creating a complete buyers market where teams get screwed on trades just to get under the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is not why teams are allowed to spend up to 70 but why they would say the cap is 60 mil for this season.

Even artificially saying it would be 64.3 like next years seems duplicitous if there is not a mechanism in the CBA that affects how teams operate for this season.

What effect on operations does the 60 mil figure cause? I can't see one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could very well be wrong on the technical side of this, but they want to set the new CBA up using the midpoint system, where the midpoint is based off of HRR and then the floor and ceiling calculated by a percentage variance up and down. They needed to set the midpoint artificially low until they have an HRR to base it off of, and so the floor is easier for the teams that don't spend as much. They've allowed teams to exceed the cap up to $70M this year obviously, and the $64M next year is also artificially set as a transition period.

I guess your question is why didn't they make the ceiling just $70M much like they did for next year at $64M, since that isn't an calculated amount above the midpoint. I should have just typed this: I don't know apart from $60M would be the calculated ceiling from a midpoint that would allow for a $44M floor. So it's really about setting the floor I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...