Player Discussion Does CBA disallow re-acquiring Tarasenko w retention?

[cwede]

today on Twitter, extended thread re whether
CBA would disallow NYR reacquire Tarasenko w retention,
[ for same reasons last summer Canes could not reacquire TonyD, from Flyers, with retention, against extension he'd signed with Flyers

CBA nerds - does below indeed indicate Tara COULD be re-acquired with retention?
Is the key difference that Canes had traded TonyD to Flyers, while Tara joined Ott as UFA?

it does seem to me, that (3) and (4) below explicitly relate to reacquiring a traded player,
that (3) is a player traded away with retention, while (4) is re re-acquiring a player with retention against current contract

the fact that Tony was under new contract signed w Flyers, rather than traded one,
did not make trade allowable, note wording "an SPC"
FROM PARA 4: "...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..."

thanks for any informed responses

Source: Flyers-Canes trade held up by CBA quirk

The Flyers' attempt to trade defenseman Tony DeAngelo back to the Hurricanes and retain some of his salary is being held up by a CBA clause, a source told ESPN.

www.espn.com

50.5 50.5 Team Payroll Range System; Lower Limit and Upper Limit; Payroll Room; Lower Limit and Upper Limit Accounting.
(e) "Payroll Room."
(iii) Prohibition on Transfers of Payroll Room
(C) Under no circumstances may a Club:

(3) Reacquire within one (1) calendar year from the date of that Retained Salary Transaction an SPC the Averaged Amount and Player Salary and Bonuses of which that Club agreed to retain as part of a Retained Salary Transaction;
Illustration: If Club A Trades a Player to Club B and retains 30% of the Averaged Amount of such Player's SPC in a Retained Salary Transaction, Club A cannot reacquire such Player's SPC within one (1) calendar year from the date of the Trade. However, if such Player's Retained Salary SPC expires or is otherwise terminated prior to one
(1) calendar year from the date of the Trade such that it no longer exists, Club A may reacquire the Player since the
Retained Salary SPC no longer exists.

or

(4) 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.

Click to read more...

 

[Tob]

He walked as a UFA

 

[cwede]

He walked as a UFA

i know, i agree, but some posters at twitter seem so certain (no surprise there)

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I have gone back and forth on this the last 24 hours and was finally able to get confirmation from a team official.

The rule essentially means that a team cannot acquire a player with retained salary, if that player was on the team's reserve list at any point in the past calendar year (2023).

Whether the players is on the same SPC or not, is irrelevant. The restriction is about re-acquiring the player, NOT re-acquiring the SPC.

As such, Vladimir Tarasenko and Patrick Kane cannot be acquired by the Rangers if the deal includes salary retention. The same is true for Tyler Motte, Niko Mikkola, Ryan Carpenter, Ryan Reaves etc. No player who was on the Rangers reserve list last year, can be acquired in a trade involving salary retention as stated in article 50.5(e)(iii)(C)(4) on page 273 of the CBA.

With that said, I have to add that the CBA is in many ways very ambiguous in its wording and that leads to a lot of confusion, and even to situations like DeAngelo last year where a trade was rejected by the NHL for breaching this same rule. "Past calendar year" in this case means the calendar year prior to the current one. So it covers all of 2023, the same way in the rejected DeAngelo trade the "past calendar year" covered all of 2022 as the trade proposal was done in 2023.

 

[17futurecap]

Good

 

[GG96]

Good x2

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Good x3

 

[Clark Kellogg]

I’m in:
Good x 4

 

[Machinehead]

Good x5

 

[Kendo]

The entire argument hinges on their definition of the word "reacquire."

In sub-rule (3), reacquire explicitly refers to trading the player in the first place (and with retention), whereas we let Vladdy walk in UFA. That part's moot.

In sub-rule (4), the illustration has Club A trading the SPC of the player, but in the actual description it uses the wording "was on that Club's Reserve List." This cover's trading a player's rights instead of their contract, which upholds the TDA trade ruling.

But I'm not so sure that "reacquire" in the description of (4) applies to UFA movement. In the illustration, the term "SPC" could be substituted with the word "Rights," and still satisfy the above wording. It could be argued, however, that the word "Trade" cannot be replaced with "fails to sign."

I trust that AK has sources, but I don't think the matter is fully settled.

 

[Kendo]

I'm not saying "We 100% can." But I'm saying "if we can," then that's 100% the reasoning why we're allowed.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I trust that AK has sources, but I don't think the matter is fully settled.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned that at the end. The CBA is ambiguous on purpose and the NHL can essentially interpret it the way they want.

With that said, I have to add that the CBA is in many ways very ambiguous in its wording and that leads to a lot of confusion, and even to situations like DeAngelo last year where a trade was rejected by the NHL for breaching this same rule. "Past calendar year" in this case means the calendar year prior to the current one. So it covers all of 2023, the same way in the rejected DeAngelo trade the "past calendar year" covered all of 2022 as the trade proposal was done in 2023.

At the end of the day, a lot of these articles, and especially the subsections, are there more as a legal tool rather than black-and-white rules.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Good x 6

 

[haohmaru]

Goodrow xGTFO

 

[Kendo]

Yeah, that's why I mentioned that at the end. The CBA is ambiguous on purpose and the NHL can essentially interpret it the way they want.



At the end of the day, a lot of these articles, and especially the subsections, are there more as a legal tool rather than black-and-white rules.

It's not that it's "ambiguous" on purpose, but it certainly is "convoluted," or "obtuse," in the way it's written. Like, calls on the ice are a little ambiguous on purpose since they have "ref's discretion," or "intent to blow the game, I mean whistle." They can defer the refs and have enough denial of culpability to stand by it even if it's proven incorrect later. When it's a review, it gets that extra scrutiny so it *likely* won't be proven incorrect later.

Now go a step further with contract law or its equivalent. Any ruling simply cannot be proven incorrect later. So it requires complicated wording. But then the more wordy it gets, the more people can play with the words in an argument. So, overly complicated is more accurate than ambiguous.

The point of being a legal tool is to be as literal as possible. Black and White. When people try to argue a very grey case, it requires smooshing it into a black or white box. The CBA is supposed to be as black and white as possible, and it can be judged by how well it catches greys. The TDA trade should have been voided because it wouldn't have worked without retention. Correctly flagged.

I think other teams would even stick up for us to say "the founding fathers never intended this clause to apply to players that walked to UFA." I'm leaning towards "not a flag."

 

[egelband]

At the end of the day, a lot of these articles, and especially the subsections, are there more as a legal tool rather than black-and-white rules.

Yep. If they want to block it, they can. If they don’t, they won’t. As @Kendo intimates , it’s possible and I can’t imagine anyone would have an issue with the rangers acquiring Tarasenko. Whether that’s a good move or not, that’s a different story.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I have gone back and forth on this the last 24 hours and was finally able to get confirmation from a team official.

The rule essentially means that a team cannot acquire a player with retained salary, if that player was on the team's reserve list at any point in the past calendar year (2023).

Whether the players is on the same SPC or not, is irrelevant. The restriction is about re-acquiring the player, NOT re-acquiring the SPC.

As such, Vladimir Tarasenko and Patrick Kane cannot be acquired by the Rangers if the deal includes salary retention. The same is true for Tyler Motte, Niko Mikkola, Ryan Carpenter, Ryan Reaves etc. No player who was on the Rangers reserve list last year, can be acquired in a trade involving salary retention as stated in article 50.5(e)(iii)(C)(4) on page 273 of the CBA.



View attachment 813732


With that said, I have to add that the CBA is in many ways very ambiguous in its wording and that leads to a lot of confusion, and even to situations like DeAngelo last year where a trade was rejected by the NHL for breaching this same rule. "Past calendar year" in this case means the calendar year prior to the current one. So it covers all of 2023, the same way in the rejected DeAngelo trade the "past calendar year" covered all of 2022 as the trade proposal was done in 2023.

This makes no sense whatsoever and is, in my view, a very faulty way of reading the CBA.

Ask your source if they can contact their legal department since their non-legal reading is . . . odd.

The intent of this is to prevent teams from playing around with contracts via trade. Not when a player's contract literally expires and they walk. I can't even see where that type of reading would come from as it logically is senseless.

We wouldn't be re-acquiring Tarasenko since his contract expired and was an unrestricted free agent. We would be acquiring him if we traded for him. His contract fully expired.

It's not that it's "ambiguous" on purpose, but it certainly is "convoluted," or "obtuse," in the way it's written. Like, calls on the ice are a little ambiguous on purpose since they have "ref's discretion," or "intent to blow the game, I mean whistle." They can defer the refs and have enough denial of culpability to stand by it even if it's proven incorrect later. When it's a review, it gets that extra scrutiny so it *likely* won't be proven incorrect later.

Now go a step further with contract law or its equivalent. Any ruling simply cannot be proven incorrect later. So it requires complicated wording. But then the more wordy it gets, the more people can play with the words in an argument. So, overly complicated is more accurate than ambiguous.

The point of being a legal tool is to be as literal as possible. Black and White. When people try to argue a very grey case, it requires smooshing it into a black or white box. The CBA is supposed to be as black and white as possible, and it can be judged by how well it catches greys. The TDA trade should have been voided because it wouldn't have worked without retention. Correctly flagged.

I think other teams would even stick up for us to say "the founding fathers never intended this clause to apply to players that walked to UFA." I'm leaning towards "not a flag."

I fully believe whomever AK contacted is NOT an attorney and is NOT reading the clause with a legal mind. Just not at all how the clause is meant to operate. The ambiguities are there, yes, but it's painfully obvious that this doesn't apply to someone who's contract has expired. You can't do retention, etc. on an expired contract.

Now that he's been signed as a UFA, that resets.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

At the end of the day, a lot of these articles, and especially the subsections, are there more as a legal tool rather than black-and-white rules.

That's precisely why your source's reading of the CBA articles is wrong. This IS a legal article and I'm not sure why they think that the expiration of a contract would not come into play. Had Tarasenko been re-signed by us and traded away, that would be re-acquiring the player.

Either way, it's abundantly clear to me that the Rangers can trade for Tarasenko and have his team retain. He walked as a UFA. That's all that matters.

 

[cwede]

That's precisely why your source's reading of the CBA articles is wrong. This IS a legal article and I'm not sure why they think that the expiration of a contract would not come into play. Had Tarasenko been re-signed by us and traded away, that would be re-acquiring the player.

Either way, it's abundantly clear to me that the Rangers can trade for Tarasenko and have his team retain. He walked as a UFA. That's all that matters.

Not sure thats true, if you re-read the paragraph 4
While the illustration cites reacquiring a guy you traded, but the wording only says cant reacquire a guy with retention you'd had within a year.

Not confident, just current reading of it

Perhaps idea is it would be circumvention to let Tara go UFA and plot w Ott to preararrange that they sign Tara, to then tradd him back w retention for desirable asset

 

[haohmaru]

This makes no sense whatsoever and is, in my view, a very faulty way of reading the CBA.

Ask your source if they can contact their legal department since their non-legal reading is . . . odd.

The intent of this is to prevent teams from playing around with contracts via trade. Not when a player's contract literally expires and they walk. I can't even see where that type of reading would come from as it logically is senseless.

We wouldn't be re-acquiring Tarasenko since his contract expired and was an unrestricted free agent. We would be acquiring him if we traded for him. His contract fully expired.



I fully believe whomever AK contacted is NOT an attorney and is NOT reading the clause with a legal mind. Just not at all how the clause is meant to operate. The ambiguities are there, yes, but it's painfully obvious that this doesn't apply to someone who's contract has expired. You can't do retention, etc. on an expired contract.

Now that he's been signed as a UFA, that resets.

I’m on board with ^ this take

 

[GENESISPuck94]

Ewww

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Not sure thats true, if you re-read the paragraph 4
While the illustration cites reacquiring a guy you traded, but the wording only says cant reacquire a guy with retention you'd had within a year.

Not confident, just current reading of it

Perhaps idea is it would be circumvention to let Tara go UFA and plot w Ott to preararrange that they sign Tara, to then tradd him back w retention for desirable asset

Reacquiring is not getting someone that was OUT of contract that another team signed. That's not how that word works.

I am 100% confident in my reading of that, FWIW.

I’m on board with ^ this take

I don't see how it could be anything else. How can you "reacquire" someone that had their contract run out? It's a brand new contract with all former ties severed.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I was actually just thinking about this.

I'm 100% correct (not changing anything above at all). The reacquiring language is really referring to reacquiring the contract of the player. That's what you, as a team, actually acquire in a trade, anyway. You are trading the contract of the player to another team.

So, yes. I think even a non-legal reading of this makes sense when you view it that way.

 

[huerter]

on purpose?

 

[cwede]

I

Reacquiring is not getting someone that was OUT of contract that another team signed. That's not how that word works.

I am 100% confident in my reading of that, FWIW.

I don't see how it could be anything else. How can you "reacquire" someone that had their contract run out? It's a brand new contract with all former ties severed.

Agree with your thinking however it seems to read otherwise,
and that is supported by the TonyD scenario, where he was on a newly signed deal but could not be acquired, WITH retention, by team he was within prior year

The restriction seems there to disallow collusion to circumvent Cap, ie NYR plots w Ott to send them as asset if they would sign Tara then trade w retention

Not surprising to me NHL management concocted excessive restriction, that's their style