Puck Daddy article on Cap troubles

[The Missing Piece]

I can confirm that all lawyers never make mistakes.

I can also confirm that all lawyers no matter what they practice know everything in relation to every issue regarding the cap and the CBA in its entirety.

Carry on.

 

[The CyNick]

the premise of the article is messed up

it basically says gapgeek knows the leafs cap situation better than the leafs do. which is down right Pejorative Slured.

the leafs could be saying they are not over the cap, when really they are to help ensure they are not getting low ball offers in trades. idea being, the other team goes I know you are screwed cap wise, so my offer is a bucket of pucks for liles and you take on salary.

its also more likely that the people who actually have access to all the details of these contacts and are in constant contact with the league would have a better understanding of the fine details than some random blogs.

typical case of writing a negative piece on the leafs to get exposure, which worked in spades.

 

[The Podium]

Someone tell me if im wrong, this is what i posted on the main boards

I think this guy is wrong....

Someone correct me if im wrong but Gardiner has a base salary of $875k and a player bonus of 300k. The Leafs are currently ~217k over the cap, wouldnt the bonus cushion put us 83k under the cap with a 23 man roster (can go up to 500k when Clarkson and/or McLaren returns)

I mean its not an ideal situation, but once players start returning and the market begins to be established, the Leafs can shed salary somewhere giving them some breathing room.

 

[The Beyonder]

Maybe Puck Daddy should go apply for Claude Loiselle's job since he's obviously more aware of the intricacies of the cap than Claude and the entire leafs brass.

 

[Damisoph]

As Mr. Krueger would say "I'm not too worried about it."

 

[diceman934]

You're missing the point entirely. Your argument was that - as a lawyer - Loiselle automatically knows more than a blogger. I'm just trying to show that it's possible a lawyer might not be infallible.

My point is that Loiselle is responsible for the cap and the CBA and that he knows the CBA better then some smuck who writes a blog .....that was my point. Feaster you brought into the equation and as I pointed he error-ed not on the cap but on a players eligibility. The cap is the subject matter of this thread.

 

[diceman934]

Someone tell me if im wrong, this is what i posted on the main boards

Cap geek includes the Gardinar Bonus of $300,000 this year in the salary amount under defense and then remove it at the bottom when calculating the total cap space available.

We are showing a deficit of $216,667 which takes into account the bonus of Gardinar.

What is not happening is that Smith would not be on the roster and we would then be at 22 and have $333,333 as a amount to fill in spots as well as the money saved with injuries. This is not a whole lot but it is enough. Hence why Loiselle states we are not over the cap as Smith or maybe Big Joe will not be included. We do not have to carry the maximum number of players of 23 which is what cap geek is showing.

I do not understand why so many people can not see this.....we will carry 13 forwards and not 14 as is currently be shown on cap geek.

Of course this would not be good to admit or understand if you wanted to write an negative article as it makes the article mute.

 

[The Podium]

Cap geek includes the Gardinar Bonus of $300,000 this year in the salary amount under defense and then remove it at the bottom when calculating the total cap space available.

We are showing a deficit of $216,667 which takes into account the bonus of Gardinar.

What is not happening is that Smith would not be on the roster and we would then be at 22 and have $333,333 as a amount to fill in spots as well as the money saved with injuries. This is not a whole lot but it is enough. Hence why Loiselle states we are not over the cap as Smith or maybe Big Joe will not be included. We do not have to carry the maximum number of players of 23 which is what cap geek is showing.

I do not understand why so many people can not see this.....we will carry 13 forwards and not 14 as is currently be shown on cap geek.

Of course this would not be good to admit or understand if you wanted to write an negative article as it makes the article mute.

It's taking into account Clarksons suspension and McLarens injury, if we are at 22 we can't ice a full lineup with those two out (11 forwards)