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

(Report) NHL Rejects Kelly's Deal With The Bruins


Recommended Posts

The NHL has rejected a four-year, $12-million contract between Chris Kelly and the Boston Bruins because of salary cap issues, according to RDS in Quebec.

However, the Bruins and general manager Peter Chiarelli expect the deal to be approved when free agency begins July 1

"We've got a commitment from Kelly for four years," Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli told reporters Wednesday. "We're not able to register that contract yet because of payroll tagging issues.

In his first full season with the Bruins last season, Kelly scored 20 goals and added 19 assists for 39 points in 82 games. He was acquired from the Ottawa Senators in February of 2011.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=398371

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a little research. I think the issue may be that we haven't yet reached the date where teams can exceed the cap, or it isn't technically the off season yet. Signing Kelly would put the Bruins over the cap, so they have to wait until July 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cap will almost certainly be going up next year. But teams have to operate under the current cap number for the time being.

Savard will definitely be on IR next year. However, they can't get cap relief for him yet.

Pretty sure Bruins and Kelly will just get this finalized when the new cap numbers are announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We’ve got a commitment from [Kelly] for four years, but we’re not able the register that contract yet. We have to wait because of payroll tagging issues,” admitted Chiarelli during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday afternoon. “That will be something we do on July 1. He has my commitment, he’s given me his commitment, and we’re ecstatic to have him for four years.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take your cap space available, remove any cap relief from injured reserve or bonus clauses, add the dollar value of all expiring contracts = Tagging room.

My guess is its a business tactic, they don't want teams committing to paying their players more the following year than the current salary cap. In other words, they don't want teams to assume the cap is going to go up the following year and plan their contracts accordingly, if the cap were to remain stable or go down, this could cause all sorts of issues and lead to the dreaded salary rollback.

Kind of a weird rule, but I guess the NHL isn't in the business of agreeing to pay their players amounts that they aren't sure they can afford. Their philosophy is probably that it is best to wait until the cap is announced. At that point, I do believe they get some leeway and can overspend until the season starts, but at that point they have a cap number they are aiming for (and one can assume, the GM would then have a plan) rather than deciding on your own cap figure and winging it (and potentially then demanding the league increase the cap so as to not ruin your team).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are trying to make this sound so easy. The problem is that outcomes are not guarenteed. When it comes to negotiation, you must have a best alternative to a negotiated settlement. In the last round, what the players were originally offered, which they rejected, was more than what they received at the end. That happens, outcomes are not guarenteed.

That being said, I would like to see agreement on the elimination of the salary cap floor. It would help all the franchises financially, and would stop the artificial inflation of player's contracts. The problem is the player's union might not accept those terms. It is not fair when the Canucks sell out their arena every night and have to pay to support markets like Carolina, Tampa, and others. Then again, the league has done a good job to grow the market, and cannot afford to lose out with another period of strife.

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...