News: If Shea Weber retires at the end of the 2025/26 season Nashville will suffer a $24.57M cap hit.

[The Drop]

Just for the sake of argument

 

[me2]

No, it was still 4 1sts, but adding Weber to Philly at that time probably would have meant them all being in the 16-18+ range. Useful chips, but not exactly going to replace your franchise player.

Don't forget the cash to get a replacement.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Could the Habs just abuse of that trading chip?

 

[ted2019]

And whose offer did they match, I wonder? The entire point of the cap recapture penalty is to penalize teams for signing those sorts of contracts. Nashville didn't sign that contract. Philadelphia did and they weren't afforded the choice of matching just the money aspect of it. Had they been afforded the opportunity to structure the pay differently, it likely wouldn't have been a backdiving contract that would've had this severe of a recapture penalty that they weren't aware of when they made the decision to match. The league may still penalize them for it but people are crazy if they're going to let it get to the doomsday number when it serves no purpose for them to do so.

Weber signed it and Nashville matched it. It doesn't matter on who gave him the offer. They knew the rules.

 

[Tank To Win]

That is where it get a bit tricky, the league did not like these types of contracts and made that very clear to all teams. The league could not change the rules regarding contracts until the next CBA went into effect, so while these were technically legal the league greatly frowned upon it. The penalty is essentially the league punishing those that went against its wishes after being told not to.

But, the NHL approved all these contracts and then decided to do an about face and punish the teams for those contracts that the league ultimately approved. It's no wonder why the NHL is viewed as a joke league in the US. And it will continue as long as the NHL decides to continue to make up the rules as they go along, which is exactly what they've been doing under Gary Bettman.

 

[TheTechNoir]

And with those picks they ended up with two of their current core pieces on the blueline.

2013 - Morin
2014 - Sanheim
2015 - Provorov
2016 - Rubstov



Had Nashville not matched it was definitely four 1st rounders. The AAV that sets compensation tiers the full value of the contract played out over 5 years, regardless of the length of the actual contract.

Gotcha. I was really confused, thanks. I had sworn it was 4 1sts +. When I looked back at the 2012 compensation list, I must have got it wrong. It seemed light compared to what I thought

 

[cynicalcitizen]

Weber signed it and Nashville matched it. It doesn't matter on who gave him the offer. They knew the rules.

Except that rule was enacted after the offer sheet was matched.

 

[GoldOnGold]

I don't get people saying it will start a bad trend or whatever. How many of these kinds of contracts are even left, now that Luongo has retired? Pretty soon none of this will matter.

 

[BruinsFan37]

I would think that if Nashville had known about the rule they would have let Weber go to Phily and the 24 mil cap hit would have been Philly's problem instead.

 

[kilowatt]

pretty bogus to penalize teams well after the fact

 

[LeHab]

pretty bogus to penalize teams well after the fact

Compliance buyout was there to mitigate some impact of changes under the new CBA.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Weber signed it and Nashville matched it. It doesn't matter on who gave him the offer. They knew the rules.

Except they didn't. That's the point. Nobody knew the cap recapture rules then and it's one thing to dole that penalty out to the team that negotiated the pay terms of the deal. It's another to do it to a team that is matching and not setting the terms that are being penalized. And again, it serves the interest of no one to penalize a team 24 million in cap space in the doomsday scenario.

 

[kilowatt]

Compliance buyout was there to mitigate some impact of changes under the new CBA.

Sure but a compliance buyout for an excellent player who is owed a ton of money, who you would then lose for nothing, was never a viable solution

 

[Soundwave]

NHL will make some rule in the next CBA that lets Nashville off the hook, just like they bailed NJ out of the Kovalchuk situation.

 

[Tank To Win]

NHL will make some rule in the next CBA that lets Nashville off the hook, just like they bailed NJ out of the Kovalchuk situation.

They "bailed" NJ out of the Kovalchuk situation, on a contract that they approved...just like Louongo's contract, Weber's contract and every other contract that was approved under the last CBA, but, for some reason, is now subject to cap recapture penalties.

 

[LeHab]

Sure but a compliance buyout for an excellent player who is owed a ton of money, who you would then lose for nothing, was never a viable solution

I agree the risk of recapture vs buyout was well worth taking. Ultimately majority of owners wanted the change and so it happened.

 

[Edgy]

Care to elaborate?

For me, the mere idea of getting penaltized for something which was within the rules and officially approved when you did it is riddiculous.

They could have used an amnesty buyout once they found it that contract structure is illegal now. By choosing not and then choosing to trade him, also knowing the consequences of doing so if he decides to retire early, they pretty much double down on not giving a shit.

And whose offer did they match, I wonder? The entire point of the cap recapture penalty is to penalize teams for signing those sorts of contracts. Nashville didn't sign that contract. Philadelphia did and they weren't afforded the choice of matching just the money aspect of it. Had they been afforded the opportunity to structure the pay differently, it likely wouldn't have been a backdiving contract that would've had this severe of a recapture penalty that they weren't aware of when they made the decision to match. The league may still penalize them for it but people are crazy if they're going to let it get to the doomsday number when it serves no purpose for them to do so.

No, Philly made an offer that became null and void when Nashville matched it. You accepted to take on the contract, so the ones that benefited from it were you and the ones on the hook for the penalty is and should be you. Had you declined, it would have been Philly's problem but you didn't so it isn't.

I sincerely hope that Weber retires because I've never actually witnessed the world burn before.

I like your style lol.

But there's enough wiggle room in Nashville's case to make a case for leniency or elimination of the penalty against them if it goes down that way. I don't foresee the doomsday version happening simply because they have such a case and it makes no sense to have Nashville pay a 24 mil cap penalty for a contract they didn't agree with the player on nor know of this potential penalty for it. It makes no sense for the league to penalize them for it and the players union would want that to be let go for obvious reasons.

Yes they did, they knew what the offer looked like and chose to match it. It wasn't a mystery box.
It makes perfect sense to get penalized for it because they benefited from it. That is what the cap recapture penalty is designed to do. Your cap circumvention benefits come with a risk, you knew what those risks were when you traded him. You knew what those risks were when you didn't use an amnesty buyout on him. The league can't make an exception because your mistake is absurdly costly.

Except that rule was enacted after the offer sheet was matched.

And a way out, penalty free was provided. Nashville decided not to use it.

I don't get people saying it will start a bad trend or whatever. How many of these kinds of contracts are even left, now that Luongo has retired? Pretty soon none of this will matter.

So since other teams like NJ and Vancouver have paid for their mistakes already and there are probably none left, might as well let this one slide? Why? What makes Nashville's case so special?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, Philly made an offer that became null and void when Nashville matched it. You accepted to take on the contract, so the ones that benefited from it were you and the ones on the hook for the penalty is and should be you. Had you declined, it would have been Philly's problem but you didn't so it isn't.

Yes they did, they knew what the offer looked like and chose to match it. It wasn't a mystery box.
It makes perfect sense to get penalized for it because they benefited from it. That is what the cap recapture penalty is designed to do. Your cap circumvention benefits come with a risk, you knew what those risks were when you traded him. You knew what those risks were when you didn't use an amnesty buyout on him. The league can't make an exception because your mistake is absurdly costly.

Not when the penalties weren't known at the time of the matching. If you don't see a fundamental difference between a team negotiating the terms of the contract and a team only having the choice of matching the pay structure as is or walk then you're oversimplifying the situation. And yes, the league can make an exception when the alternative is for the players to miss out on 24 million and the league business as a whole to needlessly suffer because of it when the penalty simply isn't proportional to the situation and completely letting off the hook the team that made the predatory offer to begin with. At worst, if you're going to continue with the idea that Nashville should be punished for the contract then Philly should as well because they actually made the offer and got it signed.

 

[Edgy]

Not when the penalties weren't known at the time of the matching. If you don't see a fundamental difference between a team negotiating the terms of the contract and a team only having the choice of matching the pay structure as is or walk then you're oversimplifying the situation. And yes, the league can make an exception when the alternative is for the players to miss out on 24 million and the league business as a whole to needlessly suffer because of it when the penalty simply isn't proportional to the situation and completely letting off the hook the team that made the predatory offer to begin with. At worst, if you're going to continue with the idea that Nashville should be punished for the contract then Philly should as well because they actually made the offer and got it signed.

1- No one forced you to match. Montreal couldn't attract big name UFAs and still survived. With the compensation from Philly you could have either drafted and developed your own stars or packaged Philly's or your first round picks to trade for one.
2- Nothing stopped you from using an amnesty buyout when the penalties became known.
3- You were also aware of the potential consequences when you traded him, didn't stop you then either.

Nothing leads me to believe you would have done anything differently given the chance.

You made 3 bad choices and when it's time to pay, you can't blame Philly for all your bad choices.

 

[Taylorst]

I have a feeling come the next CBA those players who have contracts with a recapture penalty

Weber
Duncan Keith

Will be fixed and allowed to buyout without any penalty.

The NHL is struggling right now with a bad image .

I'm sure Nashville and Chicago fans along with any other team who might be affected would raise hell if the nhl keeps this ridiculous rule in place .

 

[Pinkfloyd]

1- No one forced you to match. Montreal couldn't attract big name UFAs and still survived. With the compensation from Philly you could have either drafted and developed your own stars or packaged Philly's or your first round picks to trade for one.
2- Nothing stopped you from using an amnesty buyout when the penalties became known.
3- You were also aware of the potential consequences when you traded him, didn't stop you then either.

Nothing leads me to believe you would have done anything differently given the chance.

You made 3 bad choices and when it's time to pay, you can't blame Philly for all your bad choices.

Comparing Montreal to Nashville then just warrants an eye-roll. The second point yeah nothing stopped them from using the buyout after year one of a 14 year contract. That's a ridiculous point to make.

And yeah they can blame Philly because it was their offer sheet that bullied the Preds into that. I'm not even a Preds fan but they're not the only one responsible for that contract is the point and there is no point in penalizing them to the extent of 24 million cap dollars when that only penalizes everyone involved.

 

[MtoD]

I think that’s largely semantics. The moment the offer sheet was presented and accepted by Weber it became the de facto terms (less movement clauses, I believe) of a contract with either Philly or Nashville. That it technically became a full fledged “contract” when Nashville matched doesn’t remove Philly from the equation. By any reasonable measure it’s their contract.

Philly started this train and dictated terms 100% — for Nashville, Montreal, and any other team Weber might ever play for.

It's not semantics. It's contract law.

Philly gained no cap benefit from Weber and are not liable for the cap recapture clause.

This isn't a judge each situation separately kind of thing.. the CBA very cleanly talks about all of these matters. Semantics are irrelevant, the CBA is the only thing that matters.

 

[MtoD]

The point here is that Nashville is not responsible for how the deal is structured beyond the fact that they 'approved' it by matching.

They signed the contract. How are you not responsible for signing a contract?

They were responsible for paying Weber per the terms of that deal. They were responsible for a whole host of other things that go along with the deal. They are responsible for the terms of the deal leading to a cap benefit that now needs to be recaptured.

There's no getting around this, no matter how bad you feel for Nashville. The CBA is crystal clear, there is not an exception for Nashville's scenario. The NHL can't just make one, no matter how much they want to, without NHLPA approval since it's in the CBA. I don't doubt the NHLPA would like the cap recapture clause to go away but the owners put it in there for a damn good reason and I doubt it goes anywhere.

End of the day, the reason the cap recapture clause exists is because these back-diving deals created scenarios where a player was paid out more in salary than they contributed to the salary cap. Thus, the owners were paying players more than their share of revenue. Owners don't like that and are going to recapture that cap.

 

[Number8]

It's not semantics. It's contract law.

Philly gained no cap benefit from Weber and are not liable for the cap recapture clause.

This isn't a judge each situation separately kind of thing.. the CBA very cleanly talks about all of these matters. Semantics are irrelevant, the CBA is the only thing that matters.

I may have lost the thread. I agree fully that in no instance would or should Philly pay any recapture penalty. From contract law and CBA perspective there is no argument that could be made that says otherwise.

I was responding (I think) to people who say in a more general sense that Philly has nothing at all to do with this mess. They have everything to do with this mess — just not, again I agree with you, any contractual or league requirement to have anything to do with any possible recapture penalties.

But that aside, make no mistake, Philly made the bed that others are lying in.

 

[Edgy]

Comparing Montreal to Nashville then just warrants an eye-roll. The second point yeah nothing stopped them from using the buyout after year one of a 14 year contract. That's a ridiculous point to make.

And yeah they can blame Philly because it was their offer sheet that bullied the Preds into that. I'm not even a Preds fan but they're not the only one responsible for that contract is the point and there is no point in penalizing them to the extent of 24 million cap dollars when that only penalizes everyone involved.

Roll your eyes all you like, the point still stands. They could have taken the picks, packaged them and traded for a star to replace Weber almost immediately.

So now the point becomes he was on his second year of his cap circumventing contract, so it doesn't make sense to amnesty buy him out now. Might as well just keep taking advantage of it. What kind of logic is that? In for a penny, in for a pound? Knowing the risks and still sticking to your guns is called being obstinate.

The Preds could have screwed over Philly twice over by taking the picks and letting them be on the hook for the cap recapture. They were not bullied, they played hardball with Weber before Philly made him an offer and even then still had the option not to match.