Salary Cap: The Chara contract and what does it mean for the Leafs and Marleau?

[The Podium]

According to the indispensable Cap Geek, Z's cap hit will be $6,916,666 from 2011-12 through 2016-7, and then $4M in 2017-8, his age 40 season. If I understand the compromise brokered between the NHL and the players' association, players are charged their actual salary against the cap from age 40 onward. Thus, Chara makes $4M that season, and so his cap hit is $4M

With Marleau turning 40 prior to year 3 of his deal, does that mean his contract drops to his salary of 4 million (1.2 if signing bonuses aren't included)?

Click to read more...

 

[Alerion]

I don't have the answer but it's worth noting that Chara signed his deal under the old CBA. Good digging if nothing else, OP.

 

[The Podium]

I don't have the answer but it's worth noting that Chara signed his deal under the old CBA. Good digging if nothing else, OP.

Also worth considering Chara turned 40 prior to June 30/July 1st which is NHL's League Year while Marleau doesn't turn 40 until September

 

[WilliamNylander]

I wouldn't put it past Loophole Lou at all

 

[Alerion]

Also worth considering Chara turned 40 prior to June 30/July 1st which is NHL's League Year while Marleau doesn't turn 40 until September

Another good point. I'd love for one of the Leafs beat guys to touch on this, it's an interesting scenario.

 

[sharkhawk]

The computation was taken out in the last CBA

 

[Mess]

FYI:

CONTRACT NOTE: Due to the "Kovalchuk rule", Chara's final year cap hit is equal to his salary as he is aged 40 or older.

This rule was removed in the 2012 CBA

 

[Stephen]

Speaking of Chara, any chance we could add him as a rental?

 

[Pookie]

FYI:

CONTRACT NOTE: Due to the "Kovalchuk rule", Chara's final year cap hit is equal to his salary as he is aged 40 or older.

This rule was removed in the 2012 CBA

So then that's a full no loophole.

And a full no movement clause.

 

[Pookie]

Speaking of Chara, any chance we could add him as a rental?

Why not. Draft Schmaft.

 

[New Leaf]

So then that's a full no loophole.

And a full no movement clause.

NMCs and NTCs are different things. I feel like people forget this often.

 

[taurine330]

NMCs and NTCs are different things. I feel like people forget this often.

But doesn't NMC inherently include NTC.

 

[7even]

NMCs and NTCs are different things. I feel like people forget this often.

I've always understood it to be an NMC is an NTC but an NTC isn't an NMC. Likes squares and rectangles and ****.

 

[Pookie]

But doesn't NMC inherently include NTC.

They do.

NMC means no movement. Not by trade or waivers or demotion. Player is with the pro club (and cap hit too) for the duration of the contract unless they waive it or are bought out.

He asked for and got the Marlies' protection clause in my view, the price for burying older players in the minors.

NTCs may have limits on them like teams but players with them can still be waived or demoted. Greening and Michalek both had limited NTCs

Bottom line for this deal is that healthy or hurt, productive or not, this $6.25M cap hit is here to stay.

 

[New Leaf]

I've always understood it to be an NMC is an NTC but an NTC isn't an NMC. Likes squares and rectangles and ****.

It can be. But a number of NMCs come with limited NTCs.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

They do.

NMC means no movement. Not by trade or waivers or demotion. Player is with the pro club (and cap hit too) for the duration of the contract unless they waive it or are bought out.

He asked for and got the Marlies' protection clause in my view, the price for burying older players in the minors.

NTCs may have limits on them like teams but players with them can still be waived or demoted. Greening and Michalek both had limited NTCs

Bottom line for this deal is that healthy or hurt, productive or not, this $6.25M cap hit is here to stay.

It's simply astonishing how many leaf fans refuse or are unable to see the huge problems associated with this contract. It's the equivalence of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

 

[Jack Bauer]

It's simply astonishing how many leaf fans refuse or are unable to see the huge problems associated with this contract. It's the equivalence of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

Because with very little foresight and planning it's not going to be an issue.

Everyone agrees that if we just move forward and re-sign everyone that there's an eventual cap crunch.

As we stand 1 trade of an established player for draft picks gives us any flexibility we need. That is far from a huge problem. Especially 4 months away from absolutely needing to be cap compliant which is sounds like SOIR does for us anyway.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Why not. Draft Schmaft.

Is that you Cliff ?

 

[Jack Bauer]

It can be. But a number of NMCs come with limited NTCs.

I think there's a bigger difference then that.

NMC's mean no movement other then a buyout. Can't send the player to AHL without permission, expose to expansion draft, etc.

NTC is no trade. That can be no trade to all other 30 teams or a list which is where limited NTC comes in. The list can be teams you can go to or teams you can't.

But with an NTC you can be waived and sent down.

I could be wrong on that but I think the NMC holds a lot more weight then a limited NTC does in this CBA.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Because with very little foresight and planning it's not going to be an issue.

Everyone agrees that if we just move forward and re-sign everyone that there's an eventual cap crunch.

As we stand 1 trade of an established player for draft picks gives us any flexibility we need. That is far from a huge problem. Especially 4 months away from absolutely needing to be cap compliant which is sounds like SOIR does for us anyway.

So you acknowledge there's going to be some problems getting everyone signed in three years, right?

So you really think having over $6 million tied up in a 40 year old with a nmc isn't going to further complicate things? lol

 

[The Podium]

So you acknowledge there's going to be some problems getting everyone signed in three years, right?

So you really think having over $6 million tied up in a 40 year old with a nmc isn't going to further complicate things? lol

Do you really think management didn't consider this? Or do you think they said 'Hey we have this problem coming up, maybe we should **** ourselves some more?'

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Do you really think management didn't consider this? Or do you think they said 'Hey we have this problem coming up, maybe we should **** ourselves some more?'

I think it's quite possible that mlse told management to get a big name fa, no matter the price.

 

[The Podium]

I think it's quite possible that mlse told management to get a big name fa, no matter the price.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Yeah, mlse doing things like that is unheard of.

 

[Menzinger]

They do.

NMC means no movement. Not by trade or waivers or demotion. Player is with the pro club (and cap hit too) for the duration of the contract unless they waive it or are bought out.

He asked for and got the Marlies' protection clause in my view, the price for burying older players in the minors.

NTCs may have limits on them like teams but players with them can still be waived or demoted. Greening and Michalek both had limited NTCs

Bottom line for this deal is that healthy or hurt, productive or not, this $6.25M cap hit is here to stay.

Not quite. A Nmc means first and foremsot the player retains full control over their fate, shouldn't be viewed as "this player will never be traded" clause.