i've read through the pertinent areas in the CBA before (first, it was a slow day at work and second, only like 10-15 of those 100 pages deal with standard player contracts and trades and whatnot) and while IANAL, I came away with the impression it isn't expressly forbidden by the CBA, just that no teams have exploited the loophole.

-There's no restriction on how soon you can trade a player you've signed in the offseason: the Matt Tkachuk trade is proof of that. The only team eligible to give him the 8 years when he signed was Calgary, who then immediately traded him to Florida for Huberdeau & Weegar.

-There's no restriction on how long you have to have a player's contract on your books before you're able to retain him; every third team getting a draft pick for retaining at the deadline is proof of this.

So with no restrictions on how soon you can trade a player, and no restrictions on how long you have to have a player on your books to retain, I don't think you can make a full case that the CBA would forbid Montreal from signing Klingberg and immediately flipping him out. It's a real letter vs. spirit of the law argument, and if a GM did this, I'd wager two things happen: first, the loophole is *immediately* closed so no one else can do it; and secondly, the trade would stand up regardless of any challenges made to it because it was not included in the collective bargaining process.

Again, not a lawyer, so if you know a specific clause of the CBA that outlines this type of situation, let me know, because I don't remember seeing anything specifically detailing that type of scenario.

Is there a minimum timeline there, or is it just "the player must have been signed without a cap circumvention deal already having been in place" sort of thing? I imagine the Ducks try to ship off Kling at the TDL with retention, maybe a bit sooner for picks and prospects.

The citizens of CapFriendly thank you for your service.

Here's my issue with this: saying it's "determined by the NHL" harkens back to the old Supreme Court argument of "i don't know how to define pornography but I know it when I see it".

To use Klingberg as an example: how many people automatically assume that he signed a one year deal so Anaheim could flip him, with retention, for an asset at the deadline? What about Max Domi and Andreas Athanasiou in Chicago? Or roll it back a couple years, Taylor Hall in Buffalo? While none of us was in the room, I think it's fair to say that each of those deals was signed with the implicit understanding that the player would most likely wind up being traded, with their original team retaining half the salary to get a better return back. So why wouldn't the NHL call this cap circumvention, because Domi and Klingberg are going to play 50 or so games with their last place teams before being sent to a playoff contender that wants them?

The first mistake was thinking Friedman has a clue.

that was sort of my understanding aswell! i think you could event make an argument thats its not cap circumvention at all.

Ok so I'm not going to act like I understand the CBA 100% because that is insane so let me know If I missed something but players can be signed to 1 year deals and then get traded. There is nothing against that. It was literally done last year, just not in preseason and not before a player played a game for that team yet. Which may be the thing that dictates whether or not its considered cap circumvention or not but to my knowledge, that is not what is written in the CBA so how can it be enforced? Maybe I missed something though?

Andrew Cogliano signed a 1 year deal with SJ last year and then was traded at the TDL to Colorado with retention (50%). Taylor Hall signed a 1 year deal in Buffalo and then was traded to Boston with retention later that year.

So the question is, at what point is it no longer cap circumvention then? Maybe Klingberg plays 1 game with the Habs and then is shipped off to EDM? Would that still be cap circumvention? If so, then its that the player must play at least one game first but if that's the case, that is not what is stated in the CBA. Neither is it stated a trade can't happen before the season starts either. It just says they can't do cap circumvention. (Once again, too my understanding)

Calling it a "sign and trade" is not a legal term either. Its just describing the action. Its used to describe the player signing a contract and then directly being traded right after wards but if you remove the "directly" and replace it with "later then was traded", is it still a sign and trade? If so, at what point does this hypothetical Klingberg deal become similar to the two trades I mentioned above? There has to be a specific point in time where it can no longer be cap circumvention and that is where i don't know if the CBA actually identifies that.

Because I mean if team could simply hold onto the guy for 1 game and then trade him with retention, that wouldn't be a huge hurdle to get around for teams.

Assuming you haven't missed anything (which is possible because that thing is a doozy to read properly), this was exactly my understanding also. Thanks for detailing it out for us all!

Thank you! It's crazy to me that it's not directly spelled out - the NBA has a very specific window that new FA signings cannot be traded in, so it surprises me that someone hasn't taken advantage of the lack of CBA clarity on it.

If what Friedman said is to be believed, then at least we know that GMs are exploring it as an option.... So you never know, it could happen at some point.

Then we can all enjoy the chaos that will follow from when it actually happens, and the folks clamoring that it should be cap circumvention.


I really don't see this kind of scenario being that different from including a 3rd team at the trade deadline to retain past the 50% retention limit. It smells and tastes like cap circumvention, but it isn't.

I know! I mean most big name free agents do not sign 1 year deals anyway but I can only assume the reasoning is the cost would be pretty expensive for the team acquiring the player afterwards. Would EDM pay a 1st rounder to get Klingberg for 1 whole year @ 50% retained? Would essentially paying 4M bucks of dead cap and using a retention slot be worth anything less to the Habs? I'm not sure. they could easily keep Klingberg till the TDL and then trade him for the same return.

I think GM's know about this already but it seldom is worth doing for both teams. If the return for MTL is a 2nd rounder, are 2nd rounders worth 4M in cap and salary? i don't think so. So its has to be worth it and most teams can't justify paying the high price needed to getting it done.

The thing is, the league purposely added wording to the effect that they have final say on what is and is not cap circumvention. Signing a player to a contact designed to circumvent the cap (get that player at a lower cap hit) is covered in these paragraphs

Circumventions.

(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements,
promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or
understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without
limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take
any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or
Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the
provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the
financial and other reporting obligations of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range,
Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
(i) Any act by a Club Actor that, if committed by the Club would constitute a
Circumvention, shall be imputed to the Club and shall be deemed to be a
Circumvention by the Club.
(b) No Player or Player Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of
intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including
160
ARTICLE 26 26.3-26.3
without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail
to take any action whatsoever, if the Player knows or reasonably should have known (measured
by the objective standard of the "reasonable Player under the circumstances") that either (i) or (ii)
is intended to and has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement
or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without
limitation, provisions with respect to the Team Payroll Range, the Entry Level System and/or
Free Agency.
(c) Such knowledge or knowledge imputed under Section 26.3(c)(i) of a Player
applies to all references to Players set forth in Sections 26.1, 26.3 and 26.5, i.e., a Player has not
engaged in a Circumvention unless the Player knew or reasonably should have known that the
conduct at issue was intended to have and did have the effect of defeating or Circumventing the
provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this
Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the Team Payroll Range, the
Entry Level System, and/or Free Agency

Here is the Key paragraph

if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the
provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range,
Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.

This states that if there is intent (remember the league gets to define what intent is) to circumvent the cap (in this case getting a player at a lower cap hit by means of an agreement with a rival team to sign said player to a higher hit then flip him with retention), knowing full well that that player is worth the higher hit and only negotiating with one team (in other words not having the player available to all clubs) makes this circumvention. it is a way to purposely defeat the salary cap.

Edit** now IF the signing team made said player available to all teams not just the Oilers in this case, that would likely not be considered circumvention.

That would be incredibly difficult to prove against.

Exactly, this makes no sense.

Ooof there is a lot to unpack there and LOTS of grey area in my opinion which is why the question remains: At what point is a player on a 1 year contract traded, not considered cap circumvention anymore? I think intent is impossible to prove. What GM would divulge this information to the league and how could they prove intent?

Obviously if a player is traded 5 mins after signing a contract, there is a pretty conclusive proof of intent but after 5 days? Month? At the TDL? Where is that line and if there is one, the trading teams could easily disprove intent by offering the player to all teams like you said.

Also for the part of the NHL intervening, there have been plenty of ways where the teams and GM's are circumventing the cap in plain view, yet the NHL has not done anything. Players on LTIR being moved is the most obvious one. There are teams who will be spending under/over the cap floor due to this loophole yet the NHL never does anything about this.

i guess the thing i really wonder is how does trading for a player half retained that just signed with another team even circumvent the cap? why would that be called circumvention?

Regardless of what we think, the NHL can deem things cap circumvention if they want to but they do have to somewhat prove their work, which is the catch. Two guys talking on the phone about collusion, unless the league wire taps the phones, is impossible to prove. So the act has to be so obvious that the NHL can just step in. otherwise they'd need to modify the CBA and get the players to sign off on it like as soon as possible and then render their verdict.

I think what really is the question is when does a trade of a player recently signed go from cap circumvention to not cap circumvention? There is a point where it ceases to be cap circumvention any longer and that a team could totally make a back door deal to trade a player at the TDL when its less "obvious".

It really is a grey matter where every scenario is different.

Not really, NHL doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to deem it cap circumvention in their eyes

Not at all how that works.