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

[bobholly39]

I still have honest to god never understood why contracts are so complicated the NHL level. To me it's ridiculously simple.

You pay player A 7M$ this year? Great - his cap hit is 7M$.
You pay player B 12M$ this year? Great - his cap hit is 12M$.

Why there's ever any discrepancies between salary paid and cap hit i still don't understand

 

[Syckle78]

Why do people keep blaming the league? Thisbid entirely on Lou and the nucks. Lou could of easily gone on ltir like all the players before him with recapture penalties and the nucks could of not ran him out of town increasing the risk of this happening.


Wrong thread. Lol

 

[heilongjetsfan]

As much as I want all of the idiot teams who signed these contracts to get what they deserve, and not avoid the consequences after they already got the benefits, this one would seem pretty stupid to enforce since Nashville was forced into having this contract in the first place.

Blatantly false, and you know it. Any team can throw up their hands and say "too rich for my blood." Happens all the time with UFAs. Nashville, unlike a team trying to retain a coveted UFA would have recieved compensation for their loss.

 

[MtoD]

Don't oversimplify it, you lose nuance.

Imagine a situation where, in complete view of an officer, an individual walks up to you, puts a gun to you and demands that you break the nearest store window or else he'll shoot you in the arm and give you $500. You look to the officer for help and see, incredulously, that he looks at you both, gives a gentle nod and walks away. Should you now be held accountable for doing what you must to survive that situation?

If the league really cares about cap circumvention enough to penalize, then they need to own up to the fact that they stamped all of these deals.

yes?

not being held accountable for breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't break the law

Don't overcomplicate it, you lose nuance. Predators gained a cap benefit. If Weber retires, it will be time to pay up. It's that simple.

 

[MtoD]

I still have honest to god never understood why contracts are so complicated the NHL level. To me it's ridiculously simple.

You pay player A 7M$ this year? Great - his cap hit is 7M$.
You pay player B 12M$ this year? Great - his cap hit is 12M$.

Why there's ever any discrepancies between salary paid and cap hit i still don't understand

This only works if the salary is flat across the entire contract. Otherwise, you're opening up a host of shenanigans with alternating salaries in contracts to fit talent into a team (i.e. player A makes most of his salary in year 1, player B in year 2, player C in year 3).

 

[Dekes For Days]

Blatantly false, and you know it. Any team can throw up their hands and say "too rich for my blood." Happens all the time with UFAs. Nashville, unlike a team trying to retain a coveted UFA would have recieved compensation for their loss.

Except it's not UFA at all, and it had nothing to do with being too rich for them. You would be actively losing an asset that your team owns and is valued higher than the compensation, and more importantly, that your team wants to and can afford to keep, which was not the intent of offer sheets.
Offer sheet matching is there for a reason. To say that Nashville is not allowed to use the matching mechanism to keep a player they want to keep because Philly signed a predatory offer sheet outside the intended rules, makes no sense.

You could argue that they still got the benefit from the contract so should still get the consequences, but pretending it's like all of the other retirement contracts and pretending it was signed for the same reasons is false.

Philly decided that the contract was going to be retirement and outside the rules. Once they did that, another retirement contract was going to exist no matter what. Nashville merely decided they wanted to keep their player. NHL's problem was with the GMs who chose to go this route.

 

[bobholly39]

This only works if the salary is flat across the entire contract. Otherwise, you're opening up a host of shenanigans with alternating salaries in contracts to fit talent into a team (i.e. player A makes most of his salary in year 1, player B in year 2, player C in year 3).

What's wrong with that? It's better then the alternate we're seeing imo.

If someone wants to sign Panarin - and if they envision to have a LOT of cap space in next 3 years - but then years 4-7 it'll be very tight (lots of young guys to resign) - why couldn't they do a 7x11M, but instead of paying 11M each year, they pay 15M each of the first 3 years, and then 8 the last 4 years. I don't see anything wrong with that. his cap hit would be 15M the first 3 years, and 8 the last 4 years, as would his salary.

Same thing should have happened with Weber. His Salary = his Cap hit.

So long as they follow the salary cap (~81.5M$) and the max single year salary (think it's approx ~15M$) - i see no issues there.

 

[Juicy Pop]

yes?

not being held accountable for breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't break the law

Don't overcomplicate it, you lose nuance. Predators gained a cap benefit. If Weber retires, it will be time to pay up. It's that simple.

Wait, that's entirely my point.

I'm not saying that the league should let Nashville get off completely free, but they should at least step in to prevent a deathblow from falling down on a franchise now that they've taken such a hard stance on these sorts of contracts.

 

[MtoD]

Wait, that's entirely my point.

I'm not saying that the league should let Nashville get off completely free, but they should at least step in to prevent a deathblow from falling down on a franchise now that they've taken such a hard stance on these sorts of contracts.

But they won't.. because they didn't when they put the clause into the CBA.

You also don't seem to get what your point is if you think that's your point. I'm saying in your analogy, you will absolutely be held accountable for breaking the law. Take a few minutes, collect your thoughts and try again.. but you could also just give up considering the CBA is crystal clear on how Weber's contract will be treated.

 

[Juicy Pop]

But they won't.. because they didn't when they put the clause into the CBA.

You also don't seem to get what your point is if you think that's your point. I'm saying in your analogy, you will absolutely be held accountable for breaking the law. Take a few minutes, collect your thoughts and try again.. but you could also just give up considering the CBA is crystal clear on how Weber's contract will be treated.

And accountability is a matter of shades.

...

So the league will simply watch as a foothold franchise weathers a blow that will certainly have serious negative financial implications? If you really believe that then I guess we're wrapped up here.

 

[flymuth]

I understand how Philly can be blamed for this (slightly), but Weber didn't have to visit with the Flyers (and he did by his own choice) and didn't have to sign the offer sheet (which he did by his own choice) if he wanted to stay in Nashville. If he doesn't sign the offer sheet in the first place, Nashville wouldn't have to match it.

Let me know if my knowledge of an offer sheet is incorrect.

I also believe that Nashville should be exonerated from being penalized for a cap hit on a player they no longer employ.

 

[Talain]

But the league created that rule. So you either have to change it for everyone or no one. Nashville understood the implications when they signed him. I hope if he does retire, that Nashville is forced to honor it.

As others have said, he’ll be LTIR so it’s really a moot point.

How would they have understood implications that didn't exist at the time the deal was signed? The league went and gave the green light on the deal, which by the way was negotiated by Philly; Nashville could only choose to agree to those exact terms or not, altering the payout structure in any way was not allowed. It was only AFTER the deal was signed that the league later dropped the cap recapture bomb on them. When if the league had actually done the right thing then and blocked the offer sheet signed with Philly on the basis that it was an attempt to circumvent the cap, Nashville would never have been put in that situation in the first place.

A more reasonable approach - and this should be offered to Vancouver and New Jersey as well - is to allow unused cap space from previous years to be applied to the cap recapture penalty. Consider that Nashville didn't even spend to the cap in the years that they had Weber. Philly would have been the ones circumventing the cap if Nashville hadn't matched and Philly spent to the cap with Weber earning way more than his cap hit. The difference between Weber's salary and cap hit was probably something that Nashville neither needed nor wanted, but was forced upon them if they didn't want to lose their superstar.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

Now I could see the league giving Nashville a break on this one because it wasn't their intent to sign Weber to that contract. That was Philly's fault. lol

Yeah, there's no way this wouldn't go to some kind of arbitration with Nashville winning.
Nobody can possibly make the case that Nashville did this to circumvent the salary cap.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

Except it's not UFA at all, and it had nothing to do with being too rich for them. You would be actively losing an asset that your team owns and is valued higher than the compensation, and more importantly, that your team wants to and can afford to keep, which was not the intent of offer sheets.
Offer sheet matching is there for a reason. To say that Nashville is not allowed to use the matching mechanism to keep a player they want to keep because Philly signed a predatory offer sheet outside the intended rules, makes no sense.

You could argue that they still got the benefit from the contract so should still get the consequences, but pretending it's like all of the other retirement contracts and pretending it was signed for the same reasons is false.

Philly decided that the contract was going to be retirement and outside the rules. Once they did that, another retirement contract was going to exist no matter what. Nashville merely decided they wanted to keep their player. NHL's problem was with the GMs who chose to go this route.

Bold 1: I didn't say that. I compared Weber's offer from Philadelphia to a pending UFA asking for more money from his team than they can afford or think he's worth.
Bold 2: At least with the above, I see where your confusion comes from. Here, I don't have a clue where this is coming from. Not allowed?
Bold 3: Poile is the GM who chose to go this route. The contract and all of the ramifications of it was in his hands. He didn't write it, but he sure as heck knew what it meant when he signed it. He could have just called Weber a taxi and then challenged Holmgren to a barn fight.

If you max out a credit card that you can't afford to pay off, you can kick it down the road for a while, but sooner or later you gotta pay up.

 

[Debrincat93]

philly didnt force them to do that signing.
They sent him an offer, and Nashville countered/accepted it. No one forced them to. they could have walked. they chose not to.
poile has made some big blunders and eventually it will catch up to them, and, no cup to show for it.

 

[MtoD]

And accountability is a matter of shades.

...

So the league will simply watch as a foothold franchise weathers a blow that will certainly have serious negative financial implications? If you really believe that then I guess we're wrapped up here.

Yes.

Unless you think the NHL owners will dissolve the CBA, go into a labor dispute and cost each of themselves millions of dollars so that they can let Nashville get off easy for already having cost them millions of dollars. Sounds pretty wrapped up if you think that's the case.

That's the only other option unless you want to ignore contract law and continue to live in your own fantasy world.

 

[MtoD]

Yeah, there's no way this wouldn't go to some kind of arbitration with Nashville winning.
Nobody can possibly make the case that Nashville did this to circumvent the salary cap.

And how exactly are they going to go into some sort of arbitration?

Most of you just don't get it. There's a collectively bargained agreement governing how these issues will be dealt with. The CBA clearly lays out what will happen here. There is no route to go into arbitration about this.. and there needs to be go go into some kind of arbitration. Nashville can try to challenge in a court of law but there's 0% chance they win, courts don't touch collectively bargained agreements that all parties entered into willingly... including the Nashville owner when he agreed to the current CBA with the cap recapture clause in there and no way out for his franchise.

And nobody can make the case that Nashville did NOT circumvent the cap. By definition, they did. They paid Weber more than Weber cost them against the cap. That is the definition of cap circumvention. It doesn't matter if they didn't use all of the cap benefit he provided them.. end of the day, the owners paid out more money to the players (i.e. circumventing the cap) than they otherwise should have under the CBA. Cap cirvumention.

These are all dumb arguments that don't hold water in any fashion. Not in common sense, not according to the CBA, not in a court of law.

Nashville has two outs:
1) The next CBA does away with cap recapture or explicitly provides an exception for their situation
2) Weber doesn't retire and goes on LTIR

 

[Legionnaire11]

He didn't write it, but he sure as heck knew what it meant when he signed it.

No matter how many times you and other say this, it is untrue as the recapture penalty did not exist at the time.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Country stars are gonna have to record a We are the World to pay for this one

 

[Legionnaire11]

And nobody can make the case that Nashville did NOT circumvent the cap. By definition, they did. They paid Weber more than Weber cost them against the cap. That is the definition of cap circumvention. It doesn't matter if they didn't use all of the cap benefit he provided them.. end of the day, the owners paid out more money to the players (i.e. circumventing the cap) than they otherwise should have under the CBA. Cap cirvumention.

False, 0therwise there are a ton of cap circumvention contracts in the NHL today. Teams are legally allowed to structure deals with varying pay where some years the player is paid more than his cap hit. Cap circumvention is literally anything that circumvents the CAP, as in allows a team to have more salary paid to players than what the upper limit of the salary cap allows. The Predators only did this one year to a total of $1.3M

They should definitely face recapture. But whether anyone else thinks it fair, right or wrong, the league will never hit the Predators with $24M in dead cap in a season.

 

[RaiderDoug]

Yes.

Unless you think the NHL owners will dissolve the CBA, go into a labor dispute and cost each of themselves millions of dollars so that they can let Nashville get off easy for already having cost them millions of dollars. Sounds pretty wrapped up if you think that's the case.

That's the only other option unless you want to ignore contract law and continue to live in your own fantasy world.

I'm not sure the CBA is going to be a roadblock or a factor here - why would they go into a labor dispute? Besides, contracts are amended for one off situations all the time.

The NHL is not going to neuter one of it's successful franchises that signed a contract with a provision that wasn't in place when the contract was actually signed.

The NHLPA is not going to want to see a team that spends to the cap all of a sudden not spend to the cap - 24 million in dead money is anywhere between 6-8 high paying jobs cut down to league minimum players. NHLPA wants more teams spending to the cap.

The only people that want to see this are rival fans that want to see a team get popped. I get it, that would be fun (even though it's my team). But the fact is, all parties with a financial stake in the game stand to lose millions of dollars if the NHL goes through with this - so it ain't going to happen.

 

[Sempiternal]

I would say that it's highly likely that Shea Weber retires earlier than his contract expires.

 

[Edgy]

False, 0therwise there are a ton of cap circumvention contracts in the NHL today. Teams are legally allowed to structure deals with varying pay where some years the player is paid more than his cap hit. Cap circumvention is literally anything that circumvents the CAP, as in allows a team to have more salary paid to players than what the upper limit of the salary cap allows. The Predators only did this one year to a total of $1.3M

They should definitely face recapture. But whether anyone else thinks it fair, right or wrong, the league will never hit the Predators with $24M in dead cap in a season.

False. There aren't a ton of cap circumventing contracts today.

Cap circumvention criteria are explicitly defined in the CBA, if you abide by those criteria you are not circumventing the cap. That's why the CBA is there, so matters are not open for interpretation.

NJ paid their dues for their contract, Vancouver is about to start paying. Nashville is not getting bailed out if Weber retires before his contract is up or a new CBA is in place that allows for an exception in such a case.

And for those claiming the NHL will not let a franchise bleed instead of breaking its rules so it can survive and thrive, take a look at Arizona.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Yes but a reason will be found to stash him on LTIR so there is no penalty just like every other case except Luongo. I am sure Hossa can pass on his "skin condition"

Yeah, with the significant injury he's had already, I'm sure there's something nagging that he can decide is finally too much to take and away he goes. Although on the other hand, Montreal has no reason to ask him to go on LTIR in those last 3 years, and he has almost no reason to go on it either. I think they'd rather have complete cap freedom rather than dick around with LTIR just so Weber can get a nominal (in star player terms) salary.

 

[Legionnaire11]

False. There aren't a ton of cap circumventing contracts today.

Cap circumvention criteria are explicitly defined in the CBA, if you abide by those criteria you are not circumventing the cap. That's why the CBA is there, so matters are not open for interpretation.

NJ paid their dues for their contract, Vancouver is about to start paying. Nashville is not getting bailed out if Weber retires before his contract is up or a new CBA is in place that allows for an exception in such a case.

And for those claiming the NHL will not let a franchise bleed instead of breaking its rules so it can survive and thrive, take a look at Arizona.

You said cap circumvention was paying a player more than what they counted against the cap. You said that is the definition of cap circumvention.

Yet the CBA explicitly allows for players to be paid more than what they count against the cap. So what you said is entirely false.

The type of contract Weber signed is still legal today, the last CBA only placed limits on how much the salary can vary from season to season.