mll Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Provost said: I don’t see how that would be cap circumvention or tampering. We are able to give permission for his agent to talk to teams. Does it say somewhere that they couldn’t talk about “well if you were a free agent, we would be interested....” Eriksson is still under contract with the Canucks. Any discussion Barry has with another team has to be in relation to that contract which is still in effect. Agents are not allowed to talk to other teams until their players are UFAs - Markstrom or Tanev's agent are not allowed to talk to other teams yet. Same here - Eriksson is not a UFA. The discussions his agent is having with other teams were authorised by the Canucks. If he tries and conclude a new contract it would be considered acting on behalf of Vancouver to get out of that contract. That's circumvention. Edited September 22, 2020 by mll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, mll said: Eriksson is still under contract with the Canucks. Any discussion Barry has with another team has to be in relation to that contract which is still in effect. Agents are not allowed to talk to other teams until their players are UFAs - Markstrom or Tanev's agent are not allowed to talk to other teams yet. Same here - Eriksson is not a UFA. The discussions his agent is having with other teams were authorised by the Canucks. If he tries and conclude a new contract it would be considered acting on behalf of Vancouver to get out of that contract. That's circumvention. That seems like a huge stretch. Any actual sources for that interpretation? Agents ARE allowed to speak to other teams about a player under contract if they are given permission to. The limitation to only their current contract status seems to be out of thin air. During the now defunct pre free agency discussion week, they weren’t allowed to negotiate actual contracts and exact numbers but were allowed to talk about things in a more general sense... this isn’t any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petey Castiglione Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 2 hours ago, thundernuts said: https://www.traderumours.com/Loui-Eriksson-hoping-to-be-traded-by-the-Canucks-24988 Not sure if it's been mentioned here yet. According to TSN insider Pierre LeBrun, Loui Eriksson’s agent JP Barry has the green light from the Vancouver Canucks to call other teams directly and try to find his client a new home. Saw this on the Canucks reddit and from my understanding you can mutually agree to terminate the contract and sign with a different team. IIRC this is what happened with Bogosian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 58 minutes ago, Provost said: That seems like a huge stretch. Any actual sources for that interpretation? Agents ARE allowed to speak to other teams about a player under contract if they are given permission to. The limitation to only their current contract status seems to be out of thin air. During the now defunct pre free agency discussion week, they weren’t allowed to negotiate actual contracts and exact numbers but were allowed to talk about things in a more general sense... this isn’t any different. It's different because there is 2 years left - he's not an upcoming UFA. Vancouver is looking to get out of the contract and avoid the cap hit by making an arrangement with another team so that he voluntarily gets out of his current contract and they no longer have the cap hit. This falls under circumvention. They don't list all cases but anything where a team looks to get out of their obligations by concluding separate arrangements is considered circumvention. There is a segment that says arrangement made by 3rd parties trying to circumvent the cap will be considered done by the team itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNate Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 OK, so let me wrap my head around this. Little things is owed 5 million cash for the last 2 years of his deal. We terminate his deal mutually, leaving him free to find another team that may pay him 2.5 per year. If that's the case, we lose the cap hit, LE makes the same money but gets to stay in the NHL, and the other team gets a reasonable bottom 6 PK/ empty net specialist on a fair deal. Am I right? Seems like everyone wins in this situation The alternative is that LE is not on our roster and there is no AHL season. He loses here, and we get f'd by the cap. What if he is off our roster next year, there is no AHL, and we loan him to the SHL. Do we still wear the cap hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, mll said: It's different because there is 2 years left - he's not an upcoming UFA. Vancouver is looking to get out of the contract and avoid the cap hit by making an arrangement with another team so that he voluntarily gets out of his current contract and they no longer have the cap hit. This falls under circumvention. They don't list all cases but anything where a team looks to get out of their obligations by concluding separate arrangements is considered circumvention. There is a segment that says arrangement made by 3rd parties trying to circumvent the cap will be considered done by the team itself. We could go around in circles on this. Mutually agreeing to terminate a contract is not cap circumvention. If you have a discussion to offer them a job post career as a developmental coach or other role (a la Luongo) or whether you give permission to talk to other teams about opportunities there if they agree to retire, it doesn’t change that you are allowed to mutually terminate and make it suddenly cap circumvention. It is an explicitly allowed mechanism in the CBA. If a team gives permission to a player/agent to speak with other teams, they can do that. All the individual steps involved are permitted under the CBA, so doing them doesn’t become cap circumvention unless you have some sort of MOU that addresses that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundernuts Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 9 minutes ago, BCNate said: OK, so let me wrap my head around this. Little things is owed 5 million cash for the last 2 years of his deal. We terminate his deal mutually, leaving him free to find another team that may pay him 2.5 per year. If that's the case, we lose the cap hit, LE makes the same money but gets to stay in the NHL, and the other team gets a reasonable bottom 6 PK/ empty net specialist on a fair deal. Am I right? Seems like everyone wins in this situation The alternative is that LE is not on our roster and there is no AHL season. He loses here, and we get f'd by the cap. What if he is off our roster next year, there is no AHL, and we loan him to the SHL. Do we still wear the cap hit? Could happen, but unlikely Eriksson walks away from 2.5 million per season without any assurances, and it seems like it would go against cap rules to get these assurances before terminating the contract. Also, doubtful he'll get 2.5 million, but I hope he takes the risk! Not sure about the SHL, but I would guess that the cap hit would still apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundernuts Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 22 minutes ago, mll said: It's different because there is 2 years left - he's not an upcoming UFA. Vancouver is looking to get out of the contract and avoid the cap hit by making an arrangement with another team so that he voluntarily gets out of his current contract and they no longer have the cap hit. This falls under circumvention. They don't list all cases but anything where a team looks to get out of their obligations by concluding separate arrangements is considered circumvention. There is a segment that says arrangement made by 3rd parties trying to circumvent the cap will be considered done by the team itself. I agree that they couldn't openly negotiate a new contract until the current one is terminated - seems like clear tampering. What I'm wondering is if there will be some teams that say something along the lines of "yeah, I don't mind the 2.5 per season, but we can't take on that cap hit." That gives Barry an idea of the interest without negotiating a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNate Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 12 minutes ago, thundernuts said: Could happen, but unlikely Eriksson walks away from 2.5 million per season without any assurances, and it seems like it would go against cap rules to get these assurances before terminating the contract. Also, doubtful he'll get 2.5 million, but I hope he takes the risk! Not sure about the SHL, but I would guess that the cap hit would still apply. Even at 1.5, would you rather be in the NHL after making a ton over your career, or not be. Likewise, I hope he takes the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 20 minutes ago, Provost said: We could go around in circles on this. Mutually agreeing to terminate a contract is not cap circumvention. If you have a discussion to offer them a job post career as a developmental coach or other role (a la Luongo) or whether you give permission to talk to other teams about opportunities there if they agree to retire, it doesn’t change that you are allowed to mutually terminate and make it suddenly cap circumvention. It is an explicitly allowed mechanism in the CBA. If a team gives permission to a player/agent to speak with other teams, they can do that. All the individual steps involved are permitted under the CBA, so doing them doesn’t become cap circumvention unless you have some sort of MOU that addresses that. Agreeing ahead of time of future compensation is not permitted. That's what they would be doing. Eriksson would terminate his contract knowing he has another one available. Terminating without having an arrangement in place is possible but it wouldn't be the case here. If that was possible there certainly would have been far more contract terminations especially once the salary drops. We don't understand the rule the same way. So lets see what happens. Barry has received permission to talk to other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 16 minutes ago, mll said: Agreeing ahead of time of future compensation is not permitted. That's what they would be doing. Eriksson would terminate his contract knowing he has another one available. Terminating without having an arrangement in place is possible but it wouldn't be the case here. If that was possible there certainly would have been far more contract terminations especially once the salary drops. We don't understand the rule the same way. So lets see what happens. Barry has received permission to talk to other teams. I think in any event it's a gray area. So it would be risky to do it in this case where it's obvious that the team wants to get rid of the contract for cap purposes. Maybe not a huge risk, I mean it's not like we could get retroactive cap punishment or anything... Oh, wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, J-P said: I think in any event it's a gray area. So it would be risky to do it in this case where it's obvious that the team wants to get rid of the contract for cap purposes. Maybe not a huge risk, I mean it's not like we could get retroactive cap punishment or anything... Oh, wait a minute... Agree. I remember Luongo calling his deal stupid but he couldn't get out of it later in his career. I would think that the Canucks would be penalized more cap hit because they paid him more over preceding years. There's a $6M cap hit per year x 2 years but they only have to pay him $5M more, so they should have had greater cap hits over the past few years if the contract ended today. It may not matter.....will hockey be played in bubbles for 6 months? I can't see the players wanting to live like these playoffs this season. Edited September 22, 2020 by NHL97OneTimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 On 9/17/2020 at 5:44 PM, qwijibo said: Would you walk away from $5m? I would if another team is willing to pay me $3M per year for the next 2 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuck1991 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Petey Castiglione said: Saw this on the Canucks reddit and from my understanding you can mutually agree to terminate the contract and sign with a different team. IIRC this is what happened with Bogosian he doesnt want to walk away from contract money thou. Biggest mistake ever made by a sports franchise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 8 hours ago, Nuck1991 said: he doesnt want to walk away from contract money thou. Biggest mistake ever made by a sports franchise Not even the biggest mistake from that year's free agency. Tone down the hyperbole. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, aGENT said: Not even the biggest mistake from that year's free agency. Tone down the hyperbole. no, lets see how far we can ride the hyperbole. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Pete M said: I would if another team is willing to pay me $3M per year for the next 2 years... Maybe 2 million over 2/3 years. I figured he’d want more than 1 year but I doubt he gets more than 2M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now