SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Multi Year Retention as a Serious Weapon see Desc

Created by: BeautifulIdiot
Team: 2023-24 Vancouver Canucks
Initial Creation Date: Feb. 9, 2023
Published: Feb. 9, 2023
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Now call me crazy

But I think this could be a fantastic Idea,

What if we were to be a 3rd party broker for UFA's who want to go to contenders, and we just retain money.

Here is how it would go down

Tarasenko would agree to terms with the Bruins
Canucks would then sign him and trade him to the Bruins's with half retention on the full 2 years, this way the Bruins's get their guy at a reduced cap hit for term and the Canucks are essentially buying Cap Space and all it costs them is the money to retain.

this deal could go for any team I just chose VT as he is a good player who will probably want to contend next year but with every team getting a little cap strapped I could see this becoming a problem.

I think that this is the Ideal way to weponize capspace
Free Agent Signings
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$8,000,000
Trades
VAN
  1. 2023 1st round pick (BOS)
  2. 2023 3rd round pick (BOS)
BOS
  1. Tarasenko, Vladimir ($4,000,000 retained)
Retained Salary Transactions
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2023
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the NYI
Logo of the BOS
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the BOS
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the NYR
Logo of the VAN
2024
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
2025
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
18$83,500,000$73,071,250$850,000$850,000$10,428,750
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,150,000$4,150,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$7,350,000$7,350,000
C, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$6,650,000$6,650,000
RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$5,500,000$5,500,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$8,000,000$8,000,000
C, LW, RW
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,950,000$4,950,000
RW, LW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RW, LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$762,500$762,500
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$825,000$825,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$883,750$883,750
C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$762,500$762,500
RW, C
RFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$7,850,000$7,850,000
LD
UFA - 4
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$6,000,000$6,000,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$5,000,000$5,000,000
G
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$2,250,000$2,250,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$762,500$762,500
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$1,350,000$1,350,000
LD
RFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$3,250,000$3,250,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,750,000$4,750,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$2,500,000$2,500,000
RD
UFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Feb. 9, 2023 at 1:43 a.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,256
Likes: 1,099
I would assume that's illegal and you go to CBA jail.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 1:47 a.m.
#2
BigMeech
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 351
is this legal?
Feb. 9, 2023 at 1:54 a.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 11,209
Likes: 10,054
If this is legal I love the idea
Feb. 9, 2023 at 2:12 a.m.
#4
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 16,292
Likes: 8,961
Quoting: mv21227
If this is legal I love the idea


Well it's not, it's cap circumvention.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 2:13 a.m.
#5
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 16,292
Likes: 8,961
Too bad it's cap circumventing and it's against the CBA policies.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 2:23 a.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 11,209
Likes: 10,054
Quoting: HockeyIsMyPassion61
Well it's not, it's cap circumvention.


Yeah I figured it was but wasn’t 100% sure

Is there a certain amount of time a FA signing has to be on the roster before salary can be retained? I’ve never looked into that before
Feb. 9, 2023 at 8:11 a.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
2024 seems like a bad year for the canucks to have to forfeit their first round pick and a huge fine to Gary.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 8:19 a.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 3,572
Quoting: mv21227
Yeah I figured it was but wasn’t 100% sure

Is there a certain amount of time a FA signing has to be on the roster before salary can be retained? I’ve never looked into that before


Believe it’s at least through the first calendar year of the deal but not positive. Doing it this way is definitely cap circumvention though.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 4:34 p.m.
#9
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: Canucks33
I would assume that's illegal and you go to CBA jail.


Quoting: Canucks123
is this legal?


Quoting: mv21227
If this is legal I love the idea


Quoting: HockeyIsMyPassion61
Well it's not, it's cap circumvention.


Quoting: DefenseFirst
2024 seems like a bad year for the canucks to have to forfeit their first round pick and a huge fine to Gary.


Quoting: vikhodush
Believe it’s at least through the first calendar year of the deal but not positive. Doing it this way is definitely cap circumvention though.


Well, I did some research, and I think it is legal.


Article 50.5 (C) (4)
(Under no circumstances may a Club)

Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

There is nothing that says that if the player is signed for one team that he cannot be dealt to another team in a deal.
This is essentially what guys like Hall and Klingberg did (are doing) but doing it over a longer period of time and with it all planned out ahead of time.
Players can be traded whenever and get salary retained (Bear traded with RS before he played a game with CAR)
Players can sign with a new year and get RS on a deal before a calendar year (Hall signed with Buff, traded to BOS)
The Canucks would still have to pay 8M in real dollars to get the pick, but they would be able to essentially help teams with with their cap space

Let me know if you find something that contradicts my findings,

Thanks,

BeautifulIdiot
Feb. 9, 2023 at 4:47 p.m.
#10
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
Well, I did some research, and I think it is legal.


Article 50.5 (C) (4)
(Under no circumstances may a Club)

Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

There is nothing that says that if the player is signed for one team that he cannot be dealt to another team in a deal.
This is essentially what guys like Hall and Klingberg did (are doing) but doing it over a longer period of time and with it all planned out ahead of time.
Players can be traded whenever and get salary retained (Bear traded with RS before he played a game with CAR)
Players can sign with a new year and get RS on a deal before a calendar year (Hall signed with Buff, traded to BOS)
The Canucks would still have to pay 8M in real dollars to get the pick, but they would be able to essentially help teams with with their cap space

Let me know if you find something that contradicts my findings,

Thanks,

BeautifulIdiot


The rule you’re forgetting is that Bettman can do what he wants. If he thinks something circumvented the cap, that’s really all that matters. Remember Kovalchuk? That contract didn’t break any specific rules. But it was deemed to be cap circumvention. That isn’t nearly as blatant as this. NJ was penalized with a $3M fine, loss of a 1st, and i think a 3rd round pick (though I think an arbitrator might have reduced it somewhat). Double it, then you’re in the ballpark for the kind of punishment this move would receive.
Canucks123 liked this.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 5:06 p.m.
#11
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
The rule you’re forgetting is that Bettman can do what he wants. If he thinks something circumvented the cap, that’s really all that matters. Remember Kovalchuk? That contract didn’t break any specific rules. But it was deemed to be cap circumvention. That isn’t nearly as blatant as this. NJ was penalized with a $3M fine, loss of a 1st, and i think a 3rd round pick (though I think an arbitrator might have reduced it somewhat). Double it, then you’re in the ballpark for the kind of punishment this move would receive.


true, but this punished the canucks still, the canucks have 8m against the cap, but Gary will be gary
Feb. 9, 2023 at 5:33 p.m.
#12
BigMeech
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 351
Quoting: DefenseFirst
The rule you’re forgetting is that Bettman can do what he wants. If he thinks something circumvented the cap, that’s really all that matters. Remember Kovalchuk? That contract didn’t break any specific rules. But it was deemed to be cap circumvention. That isn’t nearly as blatant as this. NJ was penalized with a $3M fine, loss of a 1st, and i think a 3rd round pick (though I think an arbitrator might have reduced it somewhat). Double it, then you’re in the ballpark for the kind of punishment this move would receive.


Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
true, but this punished the canucks still, the canucks have 8m against the cap, but Gary will be gary


well technically the canucks could sign him play him for a few games and then trade him
BeautifulIdiot liked this.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 5:44 p.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
true, but this punished the canucks still, the canucks have 8m against the cap, but Gary will be gary


You mean he’ll properly do his job? This is 100% cap circumvention.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 7:25 p.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 3,572
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
Well, I did some research, and I think it is legal.


Article 50.5 (C) (4)
(Under no circumstances may a Club)

Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

There is nothing that says that if the player is signed for one team that he cannot be dealt to another team in a deal.
This is essentially what guys like Hall and Klingberg did (are doing) but doing it over a longer period of time and with it all planned out ahead of time.
Players can be traded whenever and get salary retained (Bear traded with RS before he played a game with CAR)
Players can sign with a new year and get RS on a deal before a calendar year (Hall signed with Buff, traded to BOS)
The Canucks would still have to pay 8M in real dollars to get the pick, but they would be able to essentially help teams with with their cap space

Let me know if you find something that contradicts my findings,

Thanks,

BeautifulIdiot


The Bear example is a good one. I feel like there was an Orpik situation between Avs and caps a while back that they didn’t allow which was similar. Don’t remember the details fully so I could be completely wrong.
BeautifulIdiot liked this.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 11:44 p.m.
#15
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: vikhodush
The Bear example is a good one. I feel like there was an Orpik situation between Avs and caps a while back that they didn’t allow which was similar. Don’t remember the details fully so I could be completely wrong.


That was yea a little odd, but sign and trades are legal but rare, so I dont see why retention could not be a thing
Feb. 9, 2023 at 11:45 p.m.
#16
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
You mean he’ll properly do his job? This is 100% cap circumvention.


On who's part though? it isnt in the CBA that teams cant do this, like I showed, Carolina did this with bear technically
Feb. 9, 2023 at 11:47 p.m.
#17
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
On who's part though? it isnt in the CBA that teams cant do this, like I showed, Carolina did this with bear technically


And like i showed, there is precedent for Bettman being able to interpret cap circumvention however he pleases.
Feb. 9, 2023 at 11:49 p.m.
#18
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
And like i showed, there is precedent for Bettman being able to interpret cap circumvention however he pleases.


Yes I get Gary can be gary, but who would he punish? would it be the canucks for being the middle man getting picks and retaining on salary or is it the Bruins who would be receiving the cap benefit. I dont see how this is more Circumvention than the LTIR sagas that have gone on
Feb. 10, 2023 at 8:41 a.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
Yes I get Gary can be gary, but who would he punish? would it be the canucks for being the middle man getting picks and retaining on salary or is it the Bruins who would be receiving the cap benefit. I dont see how this is more Circumvention than the LTIR sagas that have gone on


Probably both, but definitely the team retaining gets the worse of it.

You really don’t see how it’s different? First, try thinking of how hard it is to prove that a player was ready to play prior to them being taken off LTIR. Then think of how easy it is to prove this is an action intended only for cap circumvention.
Feb. 10, 2023 at 11:56 a.m.
#20
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
Probably both, but definitely the team retaining gets the worse of it.

You really don’t see how it’s different? First, try thinking of how hard it is to prove that a player was ready to play prior to them being taken off LTIR. Then think of how easy it is to prove this is an action intended only for cap circumvention.


But both teams are being effected by this, One team has 8m in dead cap over 2 years and the other one has to give up picks for a UFA, I think that they are both getting negatives and positives, it would be one thing if the cap was not effecting a team at all, but the cap is staying within the league, and is under the umbrella of HRR. I think cap circumvention would be paying under the table or finding a way to get more cap without it negatively effecting your team, but because there are adverse effects I think that this might be a valid trade.
Feb. 10, 2023 at 11:57 a.m.
#21
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
But both teams are being effected by this, One team has 8m in dead cap over 2 years and the other one has to give up picks for a UFA, I think that they are both getting negatives and positives, it would be one thing if the cap was not effecting a team at all, but the cap is staying within the league, and is under the umbrella of HRR. I think cap circumvention would be paying under the table or finding a way to get more cap without it negatively effecting your team, but because there are adverse effects I think that this might be a valid trade.


Then why was kovalchuks deal deemed cap circumvention. Same thing there.
Feb. 10, 2023 at 12:13 p.m.
#22
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
Then why was kovalchuks deal deemed cap circumvention. Same thing there.


Because the deal was so front loaded it was expected that the player would walk away from it at the end, Luongo signed the same deal and the canucks were hit with a recapture penalty, I believe it was the NHLPA that stepped in and stopped it
Feb. 10, 2023 at 12:14 p.m.
#23
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
Because the deal was so front loaded it was expected that the player would walk away from it at the end, Luongo signed the same deal and the canucks were hit with a recapture penalty, I believe it was the NHLPA that stepped in and stopped it


Like 100 guys signed the same kind of contract. New Jersey just took it a step too far.

What you’re doing here is taking it a step too far. I think you’re confusing cap circumvention with cheating HRR.
BeautifulIdiot liked this.
Feb. 10, 2023 at 3:27 p.m.
#24
Thread Starter
This team kills me
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2021
Posts: 3,252
Likes: 1,511
Quoting: DefenseFirst
Like 100 guys signed the same kind of contract. New Jersey just took it a step too far.

What you’re doing here is taking it a step too far. I think you’re confusing cap circumvention with cheating HRR.


Interesting, thats a good point that it might be a little too far, but I think I'll try to get a responce from some professionals. I really appreciate the pushback, made me think about the concept
Feb. 10, 2023 at 3:38 p.m.
#25
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 1,528
Quoting: BeautifulIdiot
Interesting, thats a good point that it might be a little too far, but I think I'll try to get a responce from some professionals. I really appreciate the pushback, made me think about the concept


Unless the professional is Gary Bettman, you’re not going to get an answer.
BeautifulIdiot liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll