You used an example from 2016 that is no longer relevant because it is exactly what happened and now they must use the LTIR to keep the team intact.

Example #2. The Leafs currently have $4,591,467 in cap room next year having spent 76.908M (true statement). They have 16 under contract (true statement). They sign 6 players at league minimum 750k (which is 4.5M total). Now they have 22 players under contract at 81.409M and 91.467k left in cap space. However the offseason rules allow the team to exceed the cap by 10%. That means 81.5+ (81.5*10%)= 89.65M to spend. The Leafs use this offseason cap to acquire Zetterberg's contract (6.083M) bringing their total cap dollars to 87.492M and having 23 players on the roster. The Leafs put Z on LTIR and now gain 5.992M =(87.492-81.5M) to spend on that 23rd player replacement....thereby allowing them to go over the salary cap by 5.992M.

Could the Leafs spend 5.992M on that 23rd player with only 91.467k left in salary cap without Z's LTIR contract. NO, they would be over the regular season cap. Acquiring the LTIR contract allowed the Leafs to spend 5.992M more than other teams without the LTIR contract.

Therefore the LTIR contract is an asset that will cost the Leafs something. Just like Frank Seravalli and I believe.

Use numbers prove me wrong in the above example of how the Leafs gain 5.992M in free cap space (performance bonus overages aside--which don't hit until next year's cap when you can again find more LTIR contracts).

Tough to see who wins between the Rangers front office and Lundqvist's NMC to turn this trade down 1st lol.

Of all the teams you're trying to "weaponize cap space" with you didn't pick one with a legitimate cap crunch (Tampa/Isles).

In the Az/NYR trades, they would just retain salary and probably not send a pick at all because both players have positive on-ice value.

If you're going to get a 1st as incentive, you're going to be looking at guys like Loui Eriksson, Andrew Ladd, Boychuk, Lucic, Parise, Seabrook, etc.

Adjust according.

no team should willingly go into LTIR.

Your naming guys with full NTC or NMC's....during a normal cap increasing year you would be right...but like you said COVID flat cap year with so many teams under a crunch...picks have to be adjusted accordingly. There are basically 4 teams that can handle those contracts. Just like during a normal year not many players will go to arbitration--that is not going to be the case this year. Teams will have a week and a half to get under after an award or walk away from the player this year. That's a huge issue for a GM to have to contend with.

The top teams in trouble: Tampa, St. Louis, Chicago, Toronto, and Arizona. And I chose 2 of them to target. The Isles aren't in the trouble you think next year as they have 10M and 4-5 players to sign. Did you look at Arizona's cap space next year? And they are trying to retain Hall. Then look at their NMC/NTC's that is why Stephan. Now look from Detroit's perspective: they don't want long-term contracts bogging down their cap, but are more than willing to take on short term deals in exchange for assets.

Tell me how the Rangers keep Lundqvist's contract and re-sign all their RFA's and UFA's with relevant numbers...one guy said I am okay losing Fast--but he would be one of 3 gone if something isn't done with Lundqvist's contract--if I am wrong show me numbers. There are 4 teams that can eat that contract and only 3 of them would consider a goalie (Det, Ottawa, and Col). Love to hear how...

no team should willingly go into LTIR.[/quote]

too late that's how they built their team and I seriously want to know what of my example is wrong about getting 5.992M in free cap space by picking up Z's contract in that example.

too late that's how they built their team and I seriously want to know what of my example is wrong about getting 5.992M in free cap space by picking up Z's contract in that example.[/quote]

If clarkson and Horton contracts were gone the leafs would be under the cap LTIR contracts have no impact on cap room.

If clarkson and Horton contracts were gone the leafs would be under the cap LTIR contracts have no impact on cap room.[/quote]

Yup. /thread

Yup. /thread[/quote]


Example #2. The Leafs currently have $4,591,467 in cap room next year having spent 76.908M (true statement). They have 16 under contract (true statement). They sign 6 players at league minimum 750k (which is 4.5M total). Now they have 22 players under contract at 81.409M and 91.467k left in cap space. However the offseason rules allow the team to exceed the cap by 10%. That means 81.5+ (81.5*10%)= 89.65M to spend. The Leafs use this offseason cap to acquire Zetterberg's contract (6.083M) bringing their total cap dollars to 87.492M and having 23 players on the roster. The Leafs put Z on LTIR and now gain 5.992M =(87.492-81.5M) to spend on that 23rd player replacement....thereby allowing them to go over the salary cap by 5.992M.

Could the Leafs spend 5.992M on that 23rd player with only 91.467k left in salary cap without Z's LTIR contract. NO, they would be over the regular season cap. Acquiring the LTIR contract allowed the Leafs to spend 5.992M more than other teams without the LTIR contract.

Therefore the LTIR contract is an asset that will cost the Leafs something. Just like Frank Seravalli and I believe.

Use numbers prove me wrong in the above example of how the Leafs gain 5.992M in free cap space (performance bonus overages aside--which don't hit until next year's cap when you can again find more LTIR contracts).

LTIR is free cap space when correctly applied. That's why the Leafs are doing it--and they aren't the only ones. The downside is tagging issues and performance bonuses can make re-signing players a problem. Just because a quote got put out of order to the answer doesn't make you right.

Numbers....prove my example wrong that adding Z's contract during the offseason 10% wiggle room period when the team is near the cap doesn't allow for a 5.992M player to be added when they would only have a few thousand in cap space left without that LTIR contract.

There is a reason only you are arguing after a concrete example went up...everyone else read and saw their error. And you welcome to reply, but that doesn't change the numbers.