[Official] Luongo Retires

[shiznak]

12 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

Does Lu's retirement help or hurt the Canucks salary cap moving forward? 

 

 

12 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

Hurt because there’s a recapture penalty by his retirement which hits us for over 3 mill on our cap for 2 more seasons. If he just went on LTIR it wouldn’t affect us in any way. I feel like the league screwed us over because I thought Luongo signed his deal before this recapture rule was brought in. I feel like we shouldn’t be penalized because there was no rule when we signed Lou.

It hurt us, the day he signed that contract, when we all knew he wasn’t going to play out his contract.
 

Nonetheless, he actually did us a favour by retiring a year earlier. If he were to retire this season. We would have had a recapture penalty of 4.3M for two seasons. If he retired in his last year of his contract. That’s an 8M recaptured penalty.

[wexcar]

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe any team should be hit with a penalty for these contracts. The league approved these contracts, if it was cap circumvention then the league shouldn't have approved it. At the time it was signed it was clear to everyone what they were trying to do and it was still approved so the teams responsibility for the legality of the contract ended when the league approved it.....

[Gurn]

3 minutes ago, wexcar said:

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe any team should be hit with a penalty for these contracts. The league approved these contracts, if it was cap circumvention then the league shouldn't have approved it. At the time it was signed it was clear to everyone what they were trying to do and it was still approved so the teams responsibility for the legality of the contract ended when the league approved it.....

And then they negotiated a new collective agreement that included a penalty clause and every owner, including Aquaman agreed. 

So if you have a problem with the clause, take it up with F.A.

[qwijibo]

56 minutes ago, wexcar said:

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe any team should be hit with a penalty for these contracts. The league approved these contracts, if it was cap circumvention then the league shouldn't have approved it. At the time it was signed it was clear to everyone what they were trying to do and it was still approved so the teams responsibility for the legality of the contract ended when the league approved it.....

Thr League recognized the wording of the CBA was insufficient and left room for teams to exploit it.  They explicitly warned teams not to violate the spirit of the salary cap. That said the contracts in question were technically legal so they had to be approved.  The GM’s responsible knew there would be consequences but chose to structure the contracts to circumvent the cap.  Vancouver manufactured  close to an extra $2m of cap space a year to use when the salary cap was in the low $50m range.  That’s significant.  Would they have gone on the cup run in 2011 if they didn’t have that extra money to spend? We’ll never know. 

[MikeBossy]

I think what frustrates many of us is they penalize teams for back diving contracts yet the Leafs continue to use this loop hole:

 

https://www.tsn.ca/expect-the-toronto-maple-leafs-to-hunt-for-more-ltir-contracts-1.1475747

[mll]

1 hour ago, MikeBossy said:

I think what frustrates many of us is they penalize teams for back diving contracts yet the Leafs continue to use this loop hole:

 

https://www.tsn.ca/expect-the-toronto-maple-leafs-to-hunt-for-more-ltir-contracts-1.1475747

I doubt the Leafs are looking to add LTIR contracts.  LTIR limits a team's flexibility.  Just look at the Canucks with Ferland on LTIR.  Ever since Ferland went on LTIR the Canucks end of season cap space has been stuck at 30'474.-   They are going to have a bonus overage of some 1.7M as they haven't been able to bank cap space. 

Both Horton and Clarkson are off their books at the end of the season.  There's no reason for the Leafs to add LTIR contracts now that they are finally rid of those contracts, unless they have another player on LTIR.  

 

Last year Toronto had to add Clarkson because they already had Horton and they were adding Marner's contract.  If they hadn't added Clarkson they wouldn't have been able to build an active roster of 81.5M and would have been forced to operate at an active cap of only 76.5M.   Next season without Horton and Clarkson on their books they can operate right up to the cap like any other team and can avoid using LTIR. 

 

LTIR doesn't create cap space - rather it limits the handicap of having an injured player counting against the cap.  By using LTIR for Ferland the Canucks were allowed to build an active roster of up to 81.5M like any other team, rather than be forced to have an active roster of only 78M.  

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by mll

[MikeBossy]

On 5/19/2020 at 1:07 PM, mll said:

I doubt the Leafs are looking to add LTIR contracts.  LTIR limits a team's flexibility.  Just look at the Canucks with Ferland on LTIR.  Ever since Ferland went on LTIR the Canucks end of season cap space has been stuck at 30'474.-   They are going to have a bonus overage of some 1.7M as they haven't been able to bank cap space. 

Both Horton and Clarkson are off their books at the end of the season.  There's no reason for the Leafs to add LTIR contracts now that they are finally rid of those contracts, unless they have another player on LTIR.  

 

Last year Toronto had to add Clarkson because they already had Horton and they were adding Marner's contract.  If they hadn't added Clarkson they wouldn't have been able to build an active roster of 81.5M and would have been forced to operate at an active cap of only 76.5M.   Next season without Horton and Clarkson on their books they can operate right up to the cap like any other team and can avoid using LTIR. 

 

LTIR doesn't create cap space - rather it limits the handicap of having an injured player counting against the cap.  By using LTIR for Ferland the Canucks were allowed to build an active roster of up to 81.5M like any other team, rather than be forced to have an active roster of only 78M.  

 

Not according to the TSN article

 

t’s almost time for Toronto Maple Leafs salary cap wizard Brandon Pridham to work his magic again.

Every penny will count for the Leafs, who will be feeling the cap crunch this off-season with hockey’s loss of revenue from the COVID-19 pandemic likely to keep the cap flat at $81.5 million.

Toronto’s 2020-21 roster has already begun to take shape with inexpensive additions in Russian forward Alexander Barabanov and Finnish defenceman Mikko Lehtonen. Plus rookie winger Nick Robertson could win a job up front with his scoring touch and entry-level salary.

Yes, the contracts of Tyson Barrie and Cody Ceci will come off the books. But the Leafs are also losing two critical pieces of their salary cap puzzle in Nathan Horton and David Clarkson.

A　Shakespearean tragedy could be written about those two star-crossed free-agent signings, both inked on July 5, 2013. They combined to play just 180 out of a possible 1,148 games over those total 14 contract years, with nearly 1,000 games on the injury list. Their contracts were been traded for each other, then Clarkson’s deal was later dealt to Vegas, before coming back to the Leafs in 2019 because Pridham could use it to Toronto’s advantage.

The Maple Leafs flexed their financial muscle in a weight class all of their own this season.

They spent more than $113 million in NHL salary alone, according to CapFriendly.com. No other NHL team was close to nine figures; only six others broke $90 million.

Much of that was due to the enormous signing bonuses paid out to Mitch Marner, Auston Matthews and John Tavares – the top three individual salaries in the league in 2019-20. They are also still paying 15 per cent of Phil Kessel’s salary for the next two seasons.

But the Leafs actual full-season cap hits still amounted to north of $95 million, well above the $81.5 million cap.

A big reason why the Maple Leafs were able to remain cap compliant was the long-term injury flexibility provided by Horton’s ($5.3 million) and Clarkson’s ($5.25 million) cap hits.

By inching as close to the $81.5 million cap as possible – Pridham got them within $11,000 on the eve of the season – the Leafs were then allowed to exceed the cap by an amount equal to the nearly the full combined $10.55 million cap hits of those two long-injured players.

That flexibility grew when Ilya Mikheyev and Andreas Johnsson went down with injuries and even allowed the Leafs to essentially purchase a 5th-round pick from Vegas to retain a portion of Robin Lehner’s salary ($249,000) on trade deadline day.

Now, with Horton and Clarkson mercifully sliding into the sunset, the Leafs will likely be on the hunt for replacement LTIR contracts to enjoy the same cap benefits

[mll]

21 minutes ago, MikeBossy said:

Not according to the TSN article

 

[....]

Now, with Horton and Clarkson mercifully sliding into the sunset, the Leafs will likely be on the hunt for replacement LTIR contracts to enjoy the same cap benefits

I read the article before I responded the 1st time already.  It doesn't make sense for next season now that Horton is off the books as well as Clarkson.  Last year Toronto didn't have a choice but to use LTIR as they couldn't trade the Horton contract as it wasn't insured.  If they start the season with a healthy roster there's no reason for them to add LTIR contracts.  There is no cap benefit to use LTIR when you don't have to.  It just limits flexibility and creates bonus overages.  It doesn't create more cap space.

 

Friedman in his last 31 thoughts writes:

4. I’m also not sure the Maple Leafs are too eager to flirt with LTIR once again. They knew they were starting last year without Travis Dermott and Zach Hyman. It wasn’t an easy dance for them — or Vegas — last season.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by mll

[MikeBossy]

2 hours ago, mll said:

I read the article before I responded the 1st time already.  It doesn't make sense for next season now that Horton is off the books as well as Clarkson.  Last year Toronto didn't have a choice but to use LTIR as they couldn't trade the Horton contract as it wasn't insured.  If they start the season with a healthy roster there's no reason for them to add LTIR contracts.  There is no cap benefit to use LTIR when you don't have to.  It just limits flexibility and creates bonus overages.  It doesn't create more cap space.

 

Friedman in his last 31 thoughts writes:

4. I’m also not sure the Maple Leafs are too eager to flirt with LTIR once again. They knew they were starting last year without Travis Dermott and Zach Hyman. It wasn’t an easy dance for them — or Vegas — last season.

 

Wasn't being a dick - meant to include the article the first time with the link

 

https://www.tsn.ca/ltir-a-lingering-issue-in-cba-negotiations-1.1345265

 

n Sept. 1, the National Hockey League can choose to opt out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). If the league passes on the opportunity, the players have their shot at exercising the right to opt out on Sept. 19.

Both parties have talked about labour peace and preserving the components of the current CBA that work, but it’s obvious there are a number of major issues the parties will have to work through in order to avoid a third lockout in 15 years.

The primary focus will concern the definition of hockey-related revenue. During the last round of negotiations, we saw a number of changes on that front. Those included (but aren’t limited to) an even split of hockey-related revenue (down from 57 per cent in the prior arrangement), a reduction in maximum contract length, and a cap on salary variance year-to-year through the life of a contract.

While escrow and the definition of hockey-related revenue (including how hockey-related revenue is split among constituents) will consume most of the dialogue during these talks, CBA negotiations offer opportunities to correct or mitigate loophole effects introduced from prior agreements.

I noted two of those above. Minimizing contract length and capping salary variance had wide-ranging effects, but one of the primary objectives of both was to ensure that all contracts between players and teams were signed in good faith. (Remember Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year deal? Kovalchuk would still have eight years left with New Jersey if the league hadn’t vetoed it.)

This round of negotiations will likely address a number of new issues. The most prominent will concern signing bonuses. Signing bonuses were introduced as a carrot of sorts to players, but front offices and players have quickly realized their utility.

Players love signing bonuses for a variety of reasons – they make contracts much more difficult to buy out, they tend to be paid out in lump sums on given calendar dates over the course of the year, are required to be paid out in the event the league shuts its doors (unlike straight salary), and have more favourable tax implications.

As players search for more signing-bonus money, more of a divide cuts through the big-market (cash-rich) and small-market (cash-poor) teams. It’s a real issue, and one we will surely hear about as negotiations ramp up.

The signing bonus issue has been talked about in the public domain for quite some time now, but there has been far less discussion about how long-term injured reserve (LTIR) has also had a circumventing effect on the league’s intentions with the CBA.

The point of the LTIR clause (Article 50.10-50.10) was to offer relief in the event a player on a club became unfit to play for at least 24 calendar days and 10 NHL regular season games. The spirit of the clause is to offer teams a degree of temporary relief when an unexpected injury occurs.

But as more and more teams catch on to the gaps in the current CBA, we see more strategic player acquisition. Consider the Toronto Maple Leafs and Ottawa Senators for a moment.

The Leafs are a serious contender and are pressed against the salary cap this summer. That led to some initial confusion when the team traded for David Clarkson’s $5.2-million contract on July 23 – the same Clarkson who hasn’t played a game since the 2015-16 season. Clarkson’s contract is a paper one only, and has been for some time. But acquiring the large contract actually gave Toronto more space and flexibility. Leafs Nation’s brief explainer is worth noting here:

“Depending on your projection of the opening day roster prior to the trade, the Leafs had roughly $9.5m to sign Mitch Marner. The problem was that if Marner wasn’t signed by Oct. 2, the Leafs would have no way to manoeuvre any closer to the cap than ~$3.5m, meaning they could not properly utilize LTIR and get full relief for Horton. This undercut the Leafs’ leverage, as they had to get a deal done by the end of training camp.”

It’s worth mentioning that the only way Toronto was able to disentangle themselves from Clarkson’s contract in the first place was to take on Nathan Horton’s deal from Columbus. At the time of that trade, Toronto never had any belief that Horton would ever play for the team. The trade was entirely about acquiring a paper asset that would allow the team to exceed the salary cap by millions because of an injury that happened to Horton in April of 2014 – nearly a full year prior to the trade’s completion.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Senators, a team barreling towards the lowest degree of financial commitment available. After acquiring Ryan Callahan from the Tampa Bay Lightning earlier this week – the same Callahan who has all but confirmed his retirement from the league due to injury – the Senators have a whopping $15.3-million in LTIR. Depending on where RFA Colin White comes in, that LTIR number will be about half of what they are spending on their entire forward group and 20 per cent more than their entire defensive group to open the 2019-20 season.

Though their motivations couldn’t be more different, both teams are stretching the limit of what the CBA is meant to allow for relief. To briefly summarize how discrepant this is, look at our opening night forecast of salary and cap obligations for the Ontario clubs:

For a league that prides itself in carrying 31 competitive NHL franchises with very restrictive salary cap rules relative to their North American counterparts, I think it’s fair to say that none of Gary Bettman, Bill Daly or Donald Fehr had this in mind.

Heading into the 2019-20 season, there is already about $50-million in LTIR money hanging around the league, with three teams (the aforementioned Toronto and Ottawa, as well as Detroit) carrying more than $10-million in injured money on the active roster. That number will increase as we inch closer to training camp.

Relative to the amount of money tied up in signing bonuses, LTIR seems immaterial. But it still seems bad faith in the context of what the CBA was really trying to accomplish, particularly when we see players with no chance of returning to hockey being traded.

Unless the parties get in front of this issue, we will continue to see cap trickery on this front.

 

This was why I was posting about this - if this is a way to circumvent the cap why isn't it penalized like Luongo's contract was?

Edited May 21, 2020 by MikeBossy

[mll]

1 hour ago, MikeBossy said:

Wasn't being a dick - meant to include the article the first time with the link

 

https://www.tsn.ca/ltir-a-lingering-issue-in-cba-negotiations-1.1345265

 

 

 

Didn't think you were.

 

This 2nd article confirms that it makes no sense for the Leafs to add LTIR contracts now that they can avoid LTIR.  They added Clarkson simply to be able to build an active roster of close to 81.5M like any other team. 

 

Now that both Horton and Clarkson are off the books - they can operate normally and avoid the nuisance of LTIR.  

 

Injured players count against the salary cap but LTIR allows teams to exceed the salary cap up to their salaries. IE it's a mechanism to allow to try and eliminate their cap hit from counting against the active roster (as they are inactive).  Teams have to do some roster manoeuvring to get the full relief. Their cap hit is not simply removed.  Without Clarkson the Leafs wouldn't have been able to build an active roster of 81.5M but only of circa 78M per that 2nd article (see extract below).   

 

The portion that exceeds 81.5M is only LTIR money - it's not active players.  Active players are still under the 81.5M cap.

 

From that article:

“Depending on your projection of the opening day roster prior to the trade, the Leafs had roughly $9.5m to sign Mitch Marner. The problem was that if Marner wasn’t signed by Oct. 2, the Leafs would have no way to manoeuvre any closer to the cap than ~$3.5m, meaning they could not properly utilize LTIR and get full relief for Horton. This undercut the Leafs’ leverage, as they had to get a deal done by the end of training camp.”

-----

 

GMs would apparently like for the league to reconsider the LTIR mechanism.  They suggest to simply remove the cap hit of LTIR players.  It would simplify the whole process and not penalise teams who have LTIR players from operating up to the salary cap.  

 

It would have made the Leafs life so much easier and they wouldn't have had to add Clarkson to be able to reach 81.5M in active players.  

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by mll

[Lancaster]

On 5/20/2020 at 2:37 PM, MikeBossy said:

Now, with Horton and Clarkson mercifully sliding into the sunset, the Leafs will likely be on the hunt for replacement LTIR contracts to enjoy the same cap benefits

Sounds like GMJB should go all Tanya Harding on Loui Eriksson... then trade him to the Leafs, lol.  

[Squamfan]

On 5/19/2020 at 10:33 AM, wexcar said:

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe any team should be hit with a penalty for these contracts. The league approved these contracts, if it was cap circumvention then the league shouldn't have approved it. At the time it was signed it was clear to everyone what they were trying to do and it was still approved so the teams responsibility for the legality of the contract ended when the league approved it.....

the fact that the contract was signed 2009 and rule changes for recapture happened in 2013 and the canucks still get the penalty is BS

[Squamfan]

On 5/22/2020 at 10:13 AM, Lancaster said:

Sounds like GMJB should go all Tanya Harding on Loui Eriksson... then trade him to the Leafs, lol.  

lol and give up a first round draft pick

[Squamfan]

On 5/19/2020 at 10:37 AM, gurn said:

And then they negotiated a new collective agreement that included a penalty clause and every owner, including Aquaman agreed. 

So if you have a problem with the clause, take it up with F.A.

every other owner weaseled there way out of it

[Gurn]

6 hours ago, Squamfan said:

every other owner weaseled there way out of it

No they didn't.

 

L.A. is still dealing with the Richards contract and NJ had to cope with Kovalchuk.

[Squamfan]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

No they didn't.

 

L.A. is still dealing with the Richards contract and NJ had to cope with Kovalchuk.

you have it wrong. remember when richards got arrested for pills at the border. the contract was terminated, and richards played after that.

Devils got there penalty reduced becasue they had a gm who knew what he was doing

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

you have it wrong. remember when richards got arrested for pills at the border. the contract was terminated, and richards played after that.

Devils got there penalty reduced becasue they had a gm who knew what he was doing

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/report-kings-will-be-paying-mike-richards-settlement-until-2031-32

 

"Mike Richards’ contract termination settlement with the Los Angeles Kings will see him paid $3.12 million this season and he will remain on the Kings’ books until 2031-32. Richards, 30, had his contract terminated in June following an incident at the U.S.-Canada border.

When the Mike Richards settlement finally comes off of the Los Angeles Kings’ books, Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel will be 35-year-old seasoned veterans.

According to Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, the Kings will be paying Richards out until the end of the 2031-32 season. During that final season, Richards’ settlement will be at its lowest point with a payout of $400,000.

As Richards’ contract was terminated so early in a long-term deal, the Kings will still be responsible for a cap recapture penalty of $1.57 million over the next five seasons, with an additional $1.55 million to be paid out in 2015-16.

The Kings’ salary cap will be hit with the $3.12-million figure this season, meaning the club now has less than $2.1 million in available cap space. Once the initial recapture penalty is gone, however, things will get easier for Los Angeles. From 2020-21 until the end of the payout in 2031-32, the Kings will pay Richards $7.7 million — an average of roughly $641,700 per year. That would be the equivalent of a bottom-roster player or AHL calibre talent. By 2031-32 it could very well be below the established league-minimum salary.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/10563058/nhl-modifies-ilya-kovalchuk-penalty-new-jersey-devils

NEWARK, N.J. -- The NHL reduced its penalty against the New Jersey Devils on Thursday for signing Ilya Kovalchuk in 2010.

The Devils will keep the first-round draft pick they were scheduled to forfeit this year, and the league will reduce the $3 million fine assessed against the team for circumventing the NHL-NHLPA collective bargaining agreement

 

The Devils recently applied to the league for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the club's view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions.

The NHL did not spell out what changed, but Kovalchuk retired after last season and returned to Russia to play there.

Devils president and general manager Lou Lamoriello said the franchise's new ownership asked the league to reconsider the penalty, and a hearing was held this year.

"We're pleased," said Lamoriello, who said several factors other than Kovalchuk's retirement went into the league's decision, without elaborating.

Devils goaltender Martin Brodeur felt the original NHL penalty was harsh.

"I thought it was a bad judgment by them when they penalized with a first-round pick and all the money," Brodeur said. "I thought they hit our organization pretty hard at the time. It will be nice for the future to count on an extra No. 1 pick."

The league said the Devils will be entitled to the 30th selection overall -- the last pick in the first round -- in the 2014 draft. They will not be permitted to trade or transfer its right to that pick.

Kovalchuk, who had been acquired by the Devils in February 2010, became a free agent at the end of that season. New Jersey signed him to a 17-year, $102 million deal but the league ruled what would have been the longest contract in NHL circumvented the salary cap and rejected it.

Arbitrator Richard Bloch heard the union's appeal and nullified the deal. The Devils eventually signed the Russian to a 15-year, $100 million contract deal. However, the NHL ruled the original contact tried to get around the salary cap and penalized the three-time Stanley Cup champions.

The Devils had already forfeited a third-round draft pick in 2011. The team also had a first-round draft pick taken from them in the ruling handed down by an independent arbiter, but they had the right to defer until 2014. The Devils kept deferring the loss of the first-round pick, which they were due to lose in June.

The NHL said it would not comment further on the decision."

 

Kovalchuk counts as $250,000 against NJ cap till 2024-25.

Also it was not the NJ gm that got the first round pick back it was 

" the franchise's new ownership asked the league to reconsider the penalty, and a hearing was held this year."

[Squamfan]

45 minutes ago, gurn said:

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/report-kings-will-be-paying-mike-richards-settlement-until-2031-32

 

"Mike Richards’ contract termination settlement with the Los Angeles Kings will see him paid $3.12 million this season and he will remain on the Kings’ books until 2031-32. Richards, 30, had his contract terminated in June following an incident at the U.S.-Canada border.

When the Mike Richards settlement finally comes off of the Los Angeles Kings’ books, Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel will be 35-year-old seasoned veterans.

According to Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, the Kings will be paying Richards out until the end of the 2031-32 season. During that final season, Richards’ settlement will be at its lowest point with a payout of $400,000.

As Richards’ contract was terminated so early in a long-term deal, the Kings will still be responsible for a cap recapture penalty of $1.57 million over the next five seasons, with an additional $1.55 million to be paid out in 2015-16.

The Kings’ salary cap will be hit with the $3.12-million figure this season, meaning the club now has less than $2.1 million in available cap space. Once the initial recapture penalty is gone, however, things will get easier for Los Angeles. From 2020-21 until the end of the payout in 2031-32, the Kings will pay Richards $7.7 million — an average of roughly $641,700 per year. That would be the equivalent of a bottom-roster player or AHL calibre talent. By 2031-32 it could very well be below the established league-minimum salary.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/10563058/nhl-modifies-ilya-kovalchuk-penalty-new-jersey-devils

NEWARK, N.J. -- The NHL reduced its penalty against the New Jersey Devils on Thursday for signing Ilya Kovalchuk in 2010.

The Devils will keep the first-round draft pick they were scheduled to forfeit this year, and the league will reduce the $3 million fine assessed against the team for circumventing the NHL-NHLPA collective bargaining agreement

 

The Devils recently applied to the league for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the club's view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions.

The NHL did not spell out what changed, but Kovalchuk retired after last season and returned to Russia to play there.

Devils president and general manager Lou Lamoriello said the franchise's new ownership asked the league to reconsider the penalty, and a hearing was held this year.

"We're pleased," said Lamoriello, who said several factors other than Kovalchuk's retirement went into the league's decision, without elaborating.

Devils goaltender Martin Brodeur felt the original NHL penalty was harsh.

"I thought it was a bad judgment by them when they penalized with a first-round pick and all the money," Brodeur said. "I thought they hit our organization pretty hard at the time. It will be nice for the future to count on an extra No. 1 pick."

The league said the Devils will be entitled to the 30th selection overall -- the last pick in the first round -- in the 2014 draft. They will not be permitted to trade or transfer its right to that pick.

Kovalchuk, who had been acquired by the Devils in February 2010, became a free agent at the end of that season. New Jersey signed him to a 17-year, $102 million deal but the league ruled what would have been the longest contract in NHL circumvented the salary cap and rejected it.

Arbitrator Richard Bloch heard the union's appeal and nullified the deal. The Devils eventually signed the Russian to a 15-year, $100 million contract deal. However, the NHL ruled the original contact tried to get around the salary cap and penalized the three-time Stanley Cup champions.

The Devils had already forfeited a third-round draft pick in 2011. The team also had a first-round draft pick taken from them in the ruling handed down by an independent arbiter, but they had the right to defer until 2014. The Devils kept deferring the loss of the first-round pick, which they were due to lose in June.

The NHL said it would not comment further on the decision."

 

Kovalchuk counts as $250,000 against NJ cap till 2024-25.

Also it was not the NJ gm that got the first round pick back it was 

" the franchise's new ownership asked the league to reconsider the penalty, and a hearing was held this year."

Pocket change compared to canucks

[mll]

2 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

Pocket change compared to canucks

because they retired earlier - the cap benefit was not as significant and there were more years to spread the amount over.  

[qwijibo]

9 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

Pocket change compared to canucks

You need to understand how the recapture penalty works.  It’s not a randomly assigned amount.  It’s the amount the team benefitted from the contract divided by the years remaining.  Kovalchuk and Richards both only played a couple years under the back diving contracts so the cap benefit wasn’t that much. Then it was divided by a lot more years.  Luongo posted most of his contract so the amount the Canucks benefitted was divided by only a few years.  The same formula applied to all three contracts.