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

[eco's bones]

I like Vlad but I don't want him back unless he comes cheap. No top prospects and no 1st or 2nd rounders.....even future ones and my guess is Ottawa is going to want what I wouldn't give making it all moot AFAIC. I really don't want to move serious prospects or picks at this deadline. That said I think Drury probably will.

 

[Kendo]

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.

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.

I'm with you on this, but there's an asterisk. It's not specifically the CONTRACT of the player, because the ruling still applies if you trade the RFA rights of a player (see TDA).

I

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

You're right with the TDA example, but missing the key factor that sets TDA apart from Senko...the initial trade. "Reacquire" seems to mean "trading for a player recently traded away." I'm about 90% sure on that.

PHI/CAR must have thought it ONLY applied to the same contract, but obviously that's not the case.

 

[cwede]

You're right with the TDA example, but missing the key factor that sets TDA apart from Senko...the initial trade. "Reacquire" seems to mean "trading for a player recently traded away." I'm about 90% sure on that.
PHI/CAR must have thought it ONLY applied to the same contract, but obviously that's not the case.

i understand everyone's logic disputing the interpretation,
but the seemingly applicable paragraph has no qualification of how the prior player may have separated from the re-acquiring team

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:
(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;
the example which follows, in CBA, confuses things, by citing an example where player was traded, but the 'rule' makes no such specification

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

i understand everyone's logic disputing the interpretation,
but the seemingly applicable paragraph has no qualification of how the prior player may have separated from the re-acquiring team

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:
(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;
the example which follows, in CBA, confuses things, by citing an example where player was traded, but the 'rule' makes no such specification

I said this earlier, but this is the problem with the rule. You can interpret it in different ways.

Does the rule state you:

- Cannot acquire the SPC of "a player who was on the club's reserve list within the past calendar year", or

- Cannot acquire "the SPC of a player" who was on the club's reserve list within the past calendar year

If it's about the SPC, they wouldn't mention "reserve list" but they would state the SPC on the team's roster. Reserve list includes players not under contract whose NHL rights belong to the team (unsigned prospects, defected players etc). So to me, that implies it's about reacquiring the player, not reacquiring the SPC.

Also "Past calendar year" would suggest any time during 2023, since 2023 is the past calendar year, and not the last 12 months.

Either way, Tarasenko was on the Rangers' reserve list in the last 12 months so that's irrelevant in this case. It is however relevant in DeAngelo's case.

I've gone back and forth on this multiple times, but both Puckpedia and Capfriendly have confirmed this article prohibits a Rangers retained salary transaction for Tarasenko, confirming what a team official has said to me.

The only way we get 100% confirmation on this, is if Drury actually tries to acquire Tarasenko and the NHL publicly shuts it down.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I'm with you on this, but there's an asterisk. It's not specifically the CONTRACT of the player, because the ruling still applies if you trade the RFA rights of a player (see TDA).


You're right with the TDA example, but missing the key factor that sets TDA apart from Senko...the initial trade. "Reacquire" seems to mean "trading for a player recently traded away." I'm about 90% sure on that.

PHI/CAR must have thought it ONLY applied to the same contract, but obviously that's not the case.

RFA is different since the rights still exist. They are still your property.

A UFA is just not remotely the same case. The contract has fully expired. There are zero ties to the team.

I said this earlier, but this is the problem with the rule. You can interpret it in different ways.

Does the rule state you:

- Cannot acquire the SPC of "a player who was on the club's reserve list within the past calendar year", or

- Cannot acquire "the SPC of a player" who was on the club's reserve list within the past calendar year

If it's about the SPC, they wouldn't mention "reserve list" but they would state the SPC on the team's roster. Reserve list includes players not under contract whose NHL rights belong to the team (unsigned prospects, defected players etc). So to me, that implies it's about reacquiring the player, not reacquiring the SPC.

Also "Past calendar year" would suggest any time during 2023, since 2023 is the past calendar year, and not the last 12 months.

Either way, Tarasenko was on the Rangers' reserve list in the last 12 months so that's irrelevant in this case. It is however relevant in DeAngelo's case.

I've gone back and forth on this multiple times, but both Puckpedia and Capfriendly have confirmed this article prohibits a Rangers retained salary transaction for Tarasenko, confirming what a team official has said to me.

The only way we get 100% confirmation on this, is if Drury actually tries to acquire Tarasenko and the NHL publicly shuts it down.

I disagree. There is one single interpretation.

I don't even think this is all that difficult. You cannot reacquire a player that is a unrestricted free agent. That's not how the word "reacquire" works. You can acquire them. They are no longer tied to your team or any other team. There contract has ended.

I can tell you right now that if the league even tried that, the NHLPA would file a grievance and they would 100% win.

I'm absolutely certain in my reading of this and I can tell you right now that the league would never, ever deny such a trade. They know they'd be dead-to-rights with the NHLPA. The intent is abundantly clear and the supporting language is clear enough.

 

[Kendo]

RFA is different since the rights still exist. They are still your property.

A UFA is just not remotely the same case. The contract has fully expired. There are zero ties to the team.



I disagree. There is one single interpretation.

I don't even think this is all that difficult. You cannot reacquire a player that is a unrestricted free agent. That's not how the word "reacquire" works. You can acquire them. They are no longer tied to your team or any other team. There contract has ended.

I can tell you right now that if the league even tried that, the NHLPA would file a grievance and they would 100% win.

I'm absolutely certain in my reading of this and I can tell you right now that the league would never, ever deny such a trade. They know they'd be dead-to-rights with the NHLPA. The intent is abundantly clear and the supporting language is clear enough.

On the first part, yeah. I was just clarifying since you said something regarding the "contract" specifically, which is why there's an asterisk for trading RFA rights.

As far as the rest, I am also on team "REACQUIRE means that you've traded them away in the first place to trigger the entire subset of rules." I'd even go a step further where not only the NHLPA, but also the vast majority of rival GM's would support this interpretation.

As to AK's source, I'd have to hear the specific way the question was asked before I accept the answer at face value. If the question is at all vague or broad, then I could see them giving an answer that doesn't directly apply to this hypothetical.

If the question was "Can the Rangers trade for Vlad with retention at the deadline," and the answer was "No, full stop," then I'd be beyond surprised. Possibly flabbergasted. Certainly flummoxed. =)

 

[Hunter Gathers]

On the first part, yeah. I was just clarifying since you said something regarding the "contract" specifically, which is why there's an asterisk for trading RFA rights.

As far as the rest, I am also on team "REACQUIRE means that you've traded them away in the first place to trigger the entire subset of rules." I'd even go a step further where not only the NHLPA, but also the vast majority of rival GM's would support this interpretation.

As to AK's source, I'd have to hear the specific way the question was asked before I accept the answer at face value. If the question is at all vague or broad, then I could see them giving an answer that doesn't directly apply to this hypothetical.

If the question was "Can the Rangers trade for Vlad with retention at the deadline," and the answer was "No, full stop," then I'd be beyond surprised. Possibly flabbergasted. Certainly flummoxed. =)

I think the big thing is it also just flat out would make no sense. Even throwing away the obvious intent out the door, the language out the door, the idea of a contract and how contracts work in general out the door. Do all of that and it just wouldn't make sense anyway.

FWIW, I am as confident on this as I was about us being owed compensation when Cherepanov passed away. There are ambiguities and there are Ambiguities. I remember at least 80% of HFBoards flat-out misunderstood how the CBA worked with that one, heh.