WHL rocks, on 08 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:
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?
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, on 08 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:
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!
Well, I wouldn't call it a cap circumvention if it's in the CBA as allowed that way. They had to foresee that as one of the scenarios, or else I'd question the ability of the people involved in the negotiations, but then you mention that as well. If that's the case though, then I'd say why did we spend so long negotiating a CBA when we could have put a basic framework in place and then allowed the NHL to decline/accept deals that go against what is good for the league.
I do have a feeling this one will take some time to figure out, however, and we'll be getting it wrong any number of times.