EK is a luxury to have with our defense. 0 need to pay that level of assets for a luxury.

I agree... that is a massive overpayment for a guy

Low quality assets too. Quantity over quality trade that SJ doesn’t even consider.

That value going to Chicago is probably fair for 4x$2m of cap hit and $4.5m of actual dollars. The real issue is tying up another retention slot for 4 years. I think it's 50/50 that Hawks would do this.

It would be a shame to have to trade a guy called Massimo Rizzo for Tony D

Actual dollars are 6.6....retention applies to signing bonuses

In terms of the cap hit number only, yes. Team that signed the contract keeps the full signing bonus obligation. Retention only applies to cap hit and actual salary.

Do you have some place that sites that? I searched this afternoon and the only thing I found on the topic was an article from a few years ago in thehockeywriters.com that had an article about retention with the following "‘Salary’ refers to remaining base player salary and bonuses, including signing bonuses."

I don't remember where I saw it originally but that's discussed on here all the time. I'm sure if you download the full CBA from the link on this site you'll find it there. Go to the menu, open the CBA link, there's a link in the text to download the full CBA.

Retention applies to ANY and ALL remaining salary. So, if it is July 1st or later, or whatever their signing bonus due date is, and has already been paid by the team trading a player away, then yes the receiving team won't be responsible for the signing bonus. But they would be responsible the non-retained percentage of signing bonuses owed for the duration of the contract. So, yes, CHI would be responsible for a percentage of EK's signing bonus.

So, to be more accurate, this transaction has CHI retaining about 35% of EK's remaining salary and cap hit, which would make them responsible for a $2M x 4 year cap hit and a total of $6.8M in actual salary paid over those 4 years.