Salary Cap: Marleau's 3rd Year

[BlueForever75]

This management team knew very well what they were doing with the Marleau contract when it was signed. So far he has earned his keep and I do not see this season being any different then last considering that he has been labelled to be next to Matthews and Nylander this coming season.

There will be no reason not to keep Marleau around for the duration of his contract, really the only contract we wont be able renew because of Marleau's is Gardiner's but I think by next season there will be someone defensively that will be able to step up into his spot without a problem.

This by far isn't an issue, and not a bad move by management at all.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This management team knew very well what they were doing with the Marleau contract when it was signed. So far he has earned his keep and I do not see this season being any different then last considering that he has been labelled to be next to Matthews and Nylander this coming season.

There will be no reason not to keep Marleau around for the duration of his contract, really the only contract we wont be able renew because of Marleau's is Gardiner's but I think by next season there will be someone defensively that will be able to step up into his spot without a problem.

This by far isn't an issue, and not a bad move by management at all.

I envy but don't share your optimism. Not being able to keep Gardiner because of the last year of Marleau's contract would be absolutely terrible.

 

[LeafsNation75]

There will be no reason not to keep Marleau around for the duration of his contract, really the only contract we wont be able renew because of Marleau's is Gardiner's but I think by next season there will be someone defensively that will be able to step up into his spot without a problem.

I know someone like Bob McKenzie said when they signed Marleau it basically meant there was no money to re-sign JVR had they wanted to. However given that they were able to sign John Tavares I can't see how re-signing or not re-signing Gardiner has to do because of Marleau's contract.

 

[Gabriel426]

Depends on how much Jake is asking. If he is asking for 7-8mil, the Leafs will not resign him regardless of Marleau and JT.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I'm just looking at the contracts of the Lightning on CapFriendly and considering they have players like Stamkos, Headman, Kucherov and McDonagh signed to long term contracts at high cap hits, saying the Leafs could not re-sign Jake Gardiner because of Marleau's contract seems crazy to me.

 

[666]

They wouldn't have signed him if they thought it would prevent us from keeping the core together.

I doubt that management expected to sign Tavares when Marleau was signed.

 

[Mess]

Unless Marleau happens to get hurt during a game where everyone see's it happen, considering that Kyle Dubas has replaced Lou Lamoriello and we all know he had a history of players on being "injured" and placed on LTIR, at least a lot more during his time as the Devils GM, wouldn't people say how did Marleau get hurt all of the sudden? The last time Marleau did not play a full 82 games was the 2008-2009 season when he played only 76 games.

Yeah, not fake hurt and sent to Robidas island but legitimately injured long-term and physically unable to play as per CBA rules.

 

[Jozay]

Its in the way, but I'd be surprised if he got moved. Could see him going back to San Jose if they wanted him.

I doubt he wants to leave the team now as we're cup contenders.

 

[Battle Lin]

theres almost like a 1000 people on nhl rosters, and marleau might be the last person you gotta worry about not playing and not producing...the only thing this man knows how to do is stay healthy and play hockey...i mean he aint giving you monster years no more but mark this man down for a good solid year

 

[Mess]

I should have clarified, I meant "retiring" as allowing the Leafs to trade his cap to a cap floor team. Not that he would quit and stick it to the Leafs.

I'm not sure that is legally allowed as per CBA..

It allows you to trade injured players on LTIR contracts, but the CBA is written that if a +35 retires early the team takes the full cap hit regardless. (players like Pronger, Hossa, Marc Savard etc were all on legit LTIR) unable to play and contracts traded.. Leafs inherited the Horton contract and could therefore deal the Horton contract and the NHL would approve it.

There is no precedence that I can think of a retired (but healthy) player +35 contract being dealt away, as that would be the perfect cap circumvention situation the rules are trying to avoid.

You sign a +35 player for 3-5 years he gets most of his money up front from rich teams, but his AAV is spread out over term to take a small cap hot, then the secret plan is to retire early, and trade him to a team at the floor, which cost them no salary, but just phony cap hit.

Pavel Datsyuk is the only player, I can recall that had his contract dealt to Arizona after he left the NHL to return home and play in the KHL. So Detroit wasn't punished by the Cap hit by his departure. Detroit would have preferred he stayed and played however, but couldn't prevent him from leaving while leaving $12.5 mil on the table to do so. That was also possible because the KHL paid him instead and so he wasn't really out a lot of money. But Detroit wasn't intending any funny business but signed that contract in good faith and expecting to pay it out.

 

[ACC1224]

I'm not sure that is legally allowed as per CBA..

It allows you to trade injured players on LTIR contracts, but the CBA is written that if a +35 retires early the team takes the full cap hit regardless. (players like Pronger, Hossa, Marc Savard etc were all on legit LTIR)

There is no precedence that I can think of a retired (but healthy) player +35 contract being dealt away, as that would be the perfect cap circumvention situation the rules are trying to avoid.

You sign a +35 player for 3-5 years he gets most of his money up front from rich teams, but his AAV is spread out over term to take a small cap hot, then the secret plan is to retire early, and trade him to a team at the floor, which cost them no salary, but just phony cap hit.

Pavel Datsyuk is the only player, I can recall that had his contract dealt to Arizona after he left the NHL to return home and play in the KHL. So Detroit wasn't punished by the Cap hit by his departure. Detroit would have preferred he stayed and played however, but couldn't prevent him from leaving and leaving $12.5 mil on the table to do so. That was also possible because the KHL paid him instead and so he wasn't really out a lot of money.

Couldn't they trade him one day and he retires the next?

 

[Suntouchable13]

He is playing in 19/20 for us unless he develops some kinda allergy.

 

[Mess]

Couldn't they trade him one day and he retires the next?

I guess that is a clever way to circumvent the CBA..

"Hey Patty you won the Cup, how about you waive your NMC so we're allowed to trade you to team X?" .. Then he retires from team X and they take the cap hit as a result.

Be pretty hard for the league to claim foul at least on the Leafs side anyways.

The flip side being if Marleau just helped the Leafs win a Cup, what would be the pressing need to get rid of him?

However both you and I believe that both parties Marleau and Leafs intend for him to play out his contract in Toronto, and help the Leafs win a Cup.. It was his veteran leadership the Leafs wanted when they lured him to TO in the first place..

Its only fans looking to get rid of him, but I doubt any of this type of discussion has every happened in the Leafs management boardroom.. In fact they seem to be promoting Marleau to the top line to play alongside Matthews (replacing Hyman) as Babcock pre-camp plan for this year.

 

[Brock Radunske]

Since this is the major hurdle in getting under the cap next season I was wondering, If Marleau puts together another 25 goal season, is there any way the Leafs and his representatives together and mutually terminate the contract? And would it be allowed after his bonus is paid July 1st?

Benefit for Marleau: could join another contender or return to San Jose and make a lot more than the $1.25M owed by the Leafs.

Benefit for the Leafs: Get rid of the $6.25M cap hit and legally circumvent the cap, keep everybody else around.

Couldn't they just pay the bonus and then trade him to the team of his choice for a draft-pick?

 

[ACC1224]

I guess that is a clever way to circumvent the CBA..

"Hey Patty you won the Cup, how about you waive your NMC so we're allowed to trade you to team X?" .. Then he retires from team X and they take the cap hit as a result.

Be pretty hard for the league to claim foul at least on the Leafs side anyways.

However both you and I believe that both parties Marleau and Leafs intend for him to play out his contract in Toronto, and help the Leafs win a Cup.. It was his veteran leadership the Leafs wanted when they lured him to TO in the first place..

Its only fans looking to get rid of him, but I doubt any of this type of discussion has every happened in the Leafs management boardroom.. In fact they seem to be promoting Marleau to the top line to play alongside Matthews (replacing Hyman) as Babcock pre-camp plan for this year.

Yeah, I'm only thinking this could happen with a cup win this season.
As optimistic as I am about the Team, I don't think they are cup winners yet.
He'll play next season.

 

[Mess]

Yeah, I'm only thinking this could happen with a cup win this season.
As optimistic as I am about the Team, I don't think they are cup winners yet.
He'll play next season.

Agreed, particularly if the Leafs come close but no cigar this year. (I agree its not likely to happen this year yet).

Then Marleau would really want to take a run at it the following year, after all its the reason he left his team of 20 years in SJ with the goal of retiring with a Stanley Cup believing Leafs gave him a better chance than SJ.

Marleau retiring early if the Leafs are serious Cup contenders next year, seems highly improbable to me, just so that someone else gets to hoist the Cup instead in his place as he graciously steeps aside.

I think fans see him as part of the problem in year #3, while management is hoping he is part of the solution to a successful Cup win.

 

[nuck]

I guess that is a clever way to circumvent the CBA..

"Hey Patty you won the Cup, how about you waive your NMC so we're allowed to trade you to team X?" .. Then he retires from team X and they take the cap hit as a result.

Be pretty hard for the league to claim foul at least on the Leafs side anyways.

The flip side being if Marleau just helped the Leafs win a Cup, what would be the pressing need to get rid of him?

However both you and I believe that both parties Marleau and Leafs intend for him to play out his contract in Toronto, and help the Leafs win a Cup.. It was his veteran leadership the Leafs wanted when they lured him to TO in the first place..

Its only fans looking to get rid of him, but I doubt any of this type of discussion has every happened in the Leafs management boardroom.. In fact they seem to be promoting Marleau to the top line to play alongside Matthews (replacing Hyman) as Babcock pre-camp plan for this year.

Doesn't the cap recapture rule tag the team originally signing the retiring player to the fat deal? Like if Weber retired it would actually be Nashville eating that horrible cap hit and not the Habs.

 

[Boutette]

after all its the reason he left his team of 20 years in SJ with the goal of retiring with a Stanley Cup believing Leafs gave him a better chance than SJ.

Or the Leafs, with a reasonable good team, although as we saw last year, no closer to having a better chance of winning the cup over last year and this year (at least when he signed), were offering twice what SJ was in guaranteed money, which he is going to get whether he plays with Toronto in 2019-20 or not.

 

[Mess]

Doesn't the cap recapture rule tag the team originally signing the retiring player to the fat deal? Like if Weber retired it would actually be Nashville eating that horrible cap hit deal and not the Habs.

Yes there are CBA rules in place that punish original signing teams to those previous dynasty contracts, but those were contracts signed under the previous CBA rules..

Those deals were structured where they tag on a bunch of $1 mil years at the end of > 8 year deals simply to manipulate the cap AAV, with full intent that the player would never play out the contract.

The NHL closed that loophole on the last CBA when they limited contracts to 8 years with your own team or 7 years on new teams and put rules in place to prevent front loaded and paid deals with low base in final years. Marleau was signed under the new CBA so he he is different than Weber and Luongo and others of the past.

 

[Boutette]

In fact they seem to be promoting Marleau to the top line to play alongside Matthews (replacing Hyman) as Babcock pre-camp plan for this year.

Actually, it's Hyman whose been promoted to the top line, to play alongside Tavares and Marner. Or are you one of those people who think Matthews and Nylander, at the moment are superior to Tavares and Marner?

 

[LeafsNation75]

The NHL closed that loophole on the last CBA when they limited contracts to 8 years with your own team or 7 years on new teams and put rules in place to prevent front loaded and paid deals with low base in final years. Marleau was signed under the new CBA so he he is different than Weber and Luongo and others of the past.

Not that this matters but you forgot how the NHL also made the rule that if a player wants to re-sign for 8 years it needs to be done before July 1.

In the case of John Tavares even if he went back to the Islanders he could only have got a 7 year contract since he did not re-sign with the Islanders before July 1.

Also if a players rights get traded he can only sign a 7 year contract with his new team. To sign an 8 year contract a player needed to be traded before that seasons trade deadline.

 

[Peiskos]

Marleau is going to finish within the top 50 all time points in league history, he is in many respects a legend of the sport. Players like that typically don't fall off and produce nothing, Marleau is going to have another 25 G, 20 A, 45 point kind of season.

 

[ACC1224]

Actually, it's Hyman whose been promoted to the top line, to play alongside Tavares and Marner. Or are you one of those people who think Matthews and Nylander, at the moment are superior to Tavares and Marner?

IMO, the opposing teams will determine which is the top line by who they try and match against it.
Right not it's a 1A, 1B situation.

 

[Mess]

Not that this matters but you forgot how the NHL also made the rule that if a player wants to re-sign for 8 years it needs to be done before July 1.

In the case of John Tavares even if he went back to the Islanders he could only have got a 7 year contract since he did not re-sign with the Islanders before July 1.

Also if a players rights get traded he can only sign a 7 year contract with his new team. To sign an 8 year contract a player needed to be traded before that seasons trade deadline.

True, but non of those CBA rules are related to Marleau.

Marleau was signed as +35 year old UFA to a 3 year deal, and under special CBA rules that address multi-year deals and the consequences related to how it effects a teams cap.

 

[Mess]

Actually, it's Hyman whose been promoted to the top line, to play alongside Tavares and Marner. Or are you one of those people who think Matthews and Nylander, at the moment are superior to Tavares and Marner?

Demoted (= downwards) and top line (= upwards).

So Hyman is being demoted upwards while Marleau is being promoted downwards in your opinion.

I believe this is what they refer to as a oxymoron in the English language.

Whereas I believe Matthews is the teams best player, therefore your best player plays on the teams top by definition and so Marleau is being promoted from the 2nd line to the 1st line and Hyman demoted down from the #1 line to the #2 line, even if you want to split hairs and define them 1A and 1B.

Either way Marleau is being viewed as a top 6 contributing player by management, and any chance he retires early or allows to be dealt away before year 3 would be pure fandom speculation.