Confirmed Signing with Link: [WSH] Capitals sign Brooks Orpik [1 year- 1 million]

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Where do you draw the line in those discussions? Once they've completed the trade would Snow be able to tell Tavares he was traded or can he not talk to him at all? If you break the trade to him are you allowed to say "We would have liked to keep you" or is that laying out your offseason plans? Are you allowed to say "We would have liked to have kept you and we'll see how the offseason works out" or is that being too transparent? Or does it not really matter because there has been a year of talking contract between the team and the agent so Tavares has a good idea of what the Islanders would offer in free agency.

luckily you don't need to understand these small lines in the sand. please accept my apology for getting you agitated over it. and if I can give you any comfort at all, let me simply assure you that the league has people in place to help those who need to know stay within the agreed limits

lets remember at the end of the day... 31 ownership groups own 31 teams... and each has a part say in who is hired to run the league administration. the league administration is given arbitrary powers by these 31 equal partners to govern disputes between the parties. the league bylaws are there at the grace of these owners and are in place to maintain a peaceful co-existence. the league administrators are tasked with overseeing how these bylaws are enforced

this isn't a court of law we are talking about. its 31 billionares all playing in a sandbox together and making sure none of them kick dirt into each others face

what will come of this will come of this... but from where I sit if I was one of the other 29 billionares… id be a bit upset and would need someone to prove to me that crap wasn't going on here

 

[StephenPeat]

if plekanec was someone everyone wanted... yes there would be some problems with him going back. the question would arise was their tampering?

keith tkchuk was the first guy I remember this being a problem. when he was traded from atlanta and then went back... he was a very good player that everyone wanted. and yes, there was a problem

now days theres been a few guys that have gone back after a trade and most of them no one cares about. I think the general concensus is these players go back because that's where their home/family is. I think when they were traded it was because they were spare parts. I don't think anyone feels there was an unfair advantage when these guys got traded or when they returned home

that's what it all comes down to... is there an unfair advantage?

im not sure there is an unfair advantage with brooks orpik. if hes someone no body wanted... then theres really no harm/no foul.

as his supporters point out he did go through waivers. so we know that no one wanted him at the higher cap hit.

the real question is... did anyone want him at a million dollars besides the capitals?

if the capitals offer was the only offer... then theres no problems

this is where the investigation needs to focus.

did any other teams try to sign orpik as an ufa?

if the answer is yes... we need to then dig deeper. hes not forced to take offers he doesn't want to take. but hes not allowed to know there will be an offer from the capitals.

if he turned down offers because he had knowledge that there would be an offer coming from Washington... that's where tampering happens. if Washington knew that Colorado would buy him back and that he would agree to return to the capitals at a reduced cap hit... that's where cap circumvention happens

we don't have proof right now that anything illegle has happened. it just stinks bad. there needs to be an investigation and if there was bad faith here then there needs to be punishment

Here’s a thought. Why don’t you invest every penny you think it’s worth and the obviously taxed mental capacity you’ve spent concerning yourself with this and YOU look into it. Best case scenario, we don’t have to listen to one more iota of this drivel because you’ll be so occupied. Worse case scenario, you uncover blatant tampering and STILL no one gives a f***.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Where do you draw the line in those discussions? Once they've completed the trade would Snow be able to tell Tavares he was traded or can he not talk to him at all? If you break the trade to him are you allowed to say "We would have liked to keep you" or is that laying out your offseason plans? Are you allowed to say "We would have liked to have kept you and we'll see how the offseason works out" or is that being too transparent? Or does it not really matter because there has been a year of talking contract between the team and the agent so Tavares has a good idea of what the Islanders would offer in free agency.

your post irritated me enough I will point blank answer your question

if theres an agreement between the player and the team that the player will get traded to another team and then return in the future then that's tampering

if theres no agreement then that's not tampering

does that answer your question or are you beyond seeing the obvious difference in what I just stated as clearly as I can state it

 

[Revelation]

there are two rules being broken

number 1... you cant make any arrangements with players that are property of another team. this is called tampering and this means...

if theres an agreement to trade a player to another team... then arrange for him to be bought out... and then bring him back so he gets to 'come home' that's illegal. its very hard to prove but its illegle and there are many examples in the past where teams have been punished for entering into talks with/or about players that belong to another organization

rule number 2... this one imo is much more serious. it is forbidden to renegotiate contacts. this means even if a player agreed to have his contract renegotiated, its not allowed. whatever deal the player/team origionally agrees to must be honored for its full term.

clearly this deal beween Washington and orpik was renegotiated. I say clearly because that's what I believe. I think this is what must be investigated. I think if the player turned down better contract offers from other teams... it shows that he expected an offer from Washington. if there was any knowledge on his part that Washington was going to bring him back... then clearly this was a deliberate attempt to renegotiate the cap hit. it was clearly a renegotiation of a contract

im sorry you fans of the team find this distasteful to admit that your team cheated... but it did

now comes the question... will they be punished? obviously a couple other teams have cheated and got away with it. I personally have no power to punish anyhow. but bettman does.

I will watch with interest what happens next. in the meantime if a tree falls in the forest it really doesn't matter who is around to hear it. the tree fell. simple as that. this deal was against league rules. simple as that imo

Just how f***ing dense are you?

He was literally on waivers where any team in the league could have picked him up and there was no way he could have "colluded" to come back to Washington. Not even by retiring. If you think Sakic colluded by buying him out you're better off chasing after Vegas for taking half of Brassard's cap hit in exchange for an enforcer (as opposed to a valuable 1B goalie).

What Orpik got paid by Washington is 100% in line with what he'd get on the open market. Dan Hamhius has higher pedigree as a veteran D at this point and got just barely more money. You're better off chasing after the Blues for signing Maroon for less than half of what he could get elsewhere based on his production and numbers by holding his son hostage.

But yeah, I'm sure Washington will sweep Boston for the 4th season in a row only because they brought back a 38 year old #6/7 D for 1 million dollars.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Here’s a thought. Why don’t you invest every penny you think it’s worth and the obviously taxed mental capacity you’ve spent concerning yourself with this and YOU look into it. Best case scenario, we don’t have to listen to one more iota of this drivel because you’ll be so occupied. Worse case scenario, you uncover blatant tampering and STILL no one gives a ****.

honestly it doesn't tax me at all to have a very easy grasp on this

and hopefully some other people have benefitted from the small amount of time I took from my life to share it with them. sorry my skills weren't strong enough to get through any help to you. but that's ok. I probably didn't have you as my target audience when I began this. you seem beyond my help and I don't waste a lot of time on lost causes

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Just how ****ing dense are you?

He was literally on waivers where any team in the league could have picked him up and there was no way he could have "colluded" to come back to Washington. Not even by retiring. If you think Sakic colluded by buying him out you're better off chasing after Vegas for taking half of Brassard's cap hit in exchange for an enforcer (as opposed to a valuable 1B goalie).

What Orpik got paid by Washington is 100% in line with what he'd get on the open market. Dan Hamhius has higher pedigree as a veteran D at this point and got just barely more money. You're better off chasing after the Blues for signing Maroon for less than half of what he could get elsewhere based on his production and numbers by holding his son hostage.

But yeah, I'm sure Washington will sweep Boston for the 4th season in a row only because they brought back a 38 year old #6/7 D for 1 million dollars.

I have never once said the waiver issue had any baring of importance on this at all. the fact you would make it the center of your counter argument shows you have been unable to see the true problem.

im sorry I was unable to focus you onto the relevant issue of concern

I hope you have a good day and good luck to your team. all we can do now is let people who understand the problem better do whatever it is they need to do

 

[StephenPeat]

honestly it doesn't tax me at all to have a very easy grasp on this

and hopefully some other people have benefitted from the small amount of time I took from my life to share it with them. sorry my skills weren't strong enough to get through any help to you. but that's ok. I probably didn't have you as my target audience when I began this. you seem beyond my help and I don't waste a lot of time on lost causes

It would appear your target audience is an Audience of One and it’s quite apparent you had yourself convinced of this Grand Collusion before you ever even began posting in this thread. Unfortunately there is not a single bit of objective evidence to support any of the egregious claims you make. In short, your target audience will continue to be foolishly deluded and everyone else (which basically means everyone anyway) will go back to not caring about something that is completely legal and to most rational people a complete non-issue.

 

[tony d]

Good keep for the Caps. Orpik's a good 3rd pairing defensemen and can provide some good veteran leadership for the Caps.

 

[Revelation]

I have never once said the waiver issue had any baring of importance on this at all. the fact you would make it the center of your counter argument shows you have been unable to see the true problem.

im sorry I was unable to focus you onto the relevant issue of concern

I hope you have a good day and good luck to your team. all we can do now is let people who understand the problem better do whatever it is they need to do

Right, because you completely pull what's "relevant" and what's not out of your ass since you have absolutely no way of getting around the cold hard reality of the waiver argument, or the fact that him signing back in Washington for a contract congruent with his skillset was completely in line with other signings around the league throughout the years. Plekanec resigning with his team after being traded? Not relevant because you don't feel like he colluded and your mind reading powers only work on Orpik.

 

[Silky mitts]

your post irritated me enough I will point blank answer your question

if theres an agreement between the player and the team that the player will get traded to another team and then return in the future then that's tampering

if theres no agreement then that's not tampering

does that answer your question or are you beyond seeing the obvious difference in what I just stated as clearly as I can state it

In your example of Tavares, you can have a written agreement, an oral agreement, or an understanding. For any type of agreement, is there any scenario when one of the parties seeks recompense if the other party backs out of the agreement? i.e. if someone offers Tavares more money it doesn't matter if there's an agreement because it is unenforceable as a practical matter. Of course the difference between this example and Orpik is 29 of the other 30 teams get another chance at Orpik via the waiver process.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I just asked my fellow bruin fans if this is something we want to do with mr backes. let me lay it out for you guys how this is a problem for the league.

backes is owed a base salary of 3 mill this year... 1 mill next year... 3 mill in year 3. the rest of his money is signing bonus and not effected by a buyout

{now I admit I don't 100% understand the ramifications of signing bonus. im currently under the belief that boston has already paid it to him? and that the new team wont be on the hook. if im wrong please let me know}

according to cap friendly... the cost to buyout backes would be 4.666, 667 million over the next 6 seasons... the cap ramifications are steep in the first 3 years and rather minor in the final 3 years. {but of course the new team isn't a cap team anyhow so lets not worry about the cap ramifications}

the relevant important number is the 4,667,667 million dollars that the new team must pay

the other relevant number is that backes is currently schedule to get only 7 million in base salary. if hes bought out he will get 4,667 million... if he signs a new deal for 3 years at 1 mill per season he will end up with 7.667 million. so... do you follow? do you see where im going with this? backes could end up with more money if he agrees to play ball. boston can go to him and say we need a lower cap hit but we need to make sure we keep you. you are important. we will arrange to get you a buyout from another team but you must give us your gentlemans agreement to return to us as an ufa. do you promise? are you a man of your word???

so now... theres an illegle agreement. backes knows boston intends to keep him but they are doing a run around the system to renegotiate his contract/cap hit

so now boston goes to a team like Arizona to pick a name out of the hat. boston says you guys will be out of pocket 4,667 million dollars. what do you want for that?

Arizona names its price...

so now boston can send Arizona say a second round pick and some kid like Bjork or whomever... whatever... that's not my point

my point is how does this effect the other 29 teams??? were any of them allowed to participate here?

backes made an agreement to return to boston long before he became an ufa.

that's the problem... understand???

and yes some idiots here will say that backes needed to pass through waivers before he could be bought out. but obviously if no one wants him at 6 mill for 3 years that's completely irrelevant

I know im only talking about special cases here... but heres a perfect example how boston can clear up a 5 million dollar cap problem AND STILL KEEP THE PLAYER

the player in question might not be a game changer... but that 5 million cap hit IS VERY IMPORTANT

ok... that's it... im done in this thread. if this didn't clear it up nothing will.

hope you all have fun

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

In your example of Tavares, you can have a written agreement, an oral agreement, or an understanding. For any type of agreement, is there any scenario when one of the parties seeks recompense if the other party backs out of the agreement? i.e. if someone offers Tavares more money it doesn't matter if there's an agreement because it is unenforceable as a practical matter. Of course the difference between this example and Orpik is 29 of the other 30 teams get another chance at Orpik via the waiver process.

I will comment on this as I feel you raise a different issue that is one im interested in

theres a lot of gentlemens agreements in hockey. and when one side or the other backs out there are some hard feelings.

but there is not usually any consequences.

some examples off the top of my head...

I remember when Edmonton thought they had Michael nylander signed. he allegedly verbally agreed to a deal and then refused to sign after they announce they had him

I remember when boston and Toronto were talking a karberle for kessel trade. and for some reason both sides thought the other was going to add a first round pick.

I remember when boston had tim Thomas under contract and expected to be able to trade him in his final year when his ntc expired... and then he simply quit the team and went home and screwed them out of their opportunity to get a return for him

I bring up 3 very different examples where there seems to be agreements or the idea of an agreement between 2 parties and something doesn't end up being honored. but this isn't a court of law we are talking about. it is just a organized league that has some bylaws that govern the owners and a cba that governs the relations with the labor

what we are talking about with orpik isn't a cba violation... its a violation of intention at a governor/league office level

its an integrity issue and a question of how much are they going to enforce the cap management concerns. remember the cap is a self-imposed limit the owners willfully accepted to protect themselves from their own stupidity. theres no legal reason that the cap was forced onto anyone other than the owners begged the league front office... please force a cap onto us and make us obey it

 

[Foots]

I just asked my fellow bruin fans if this is something we want to do with mr backes. let me lay it out for you guys how this is a problem for the league.

backes is owed a base salary of 3 mill this year... 1 mill next year... 3 mill in year 3. the rest of his money is signing bonus and not effected by a buyout

{now I admit I don't 100% understand the ramifications of signing bonus. im currently under the belief that boston has already paid it to him? and that the new team wont be on the hook. if im wrong please let me know}

according to cap friendly... the cost to buyout backes would be 4.666, 667 million over the next 6 seasons... the cap ramifications are steep in the first 3 years and rather minor in the final 3 years. {but of course the new team isn't a cap team anyhow so lets not worry about the cap ramifications}

the relevant important number is the 4,667,667 million dollars that the new team must pay

the other relevant number is that backes is currently schedule to get only 7 million in base salary. if hes bought out he will get 4,667 million... if he signs a new deal for 3 years at 1 mill per season he will end up with 7.667 million. so... do you follow? do you see where im going with this? backes could end up with more money if he agrees to play ball. boston can go to him and say we need a lower cap hit but we need to make sure we keep you. you are important. we will arrange to get you a buyout from another team but you must give us your gentlemans agreement to return to us as an ufa. do you promise? are you a man of your word???

so now... theres an illegle agreement. backes knows boston intends to keep him but they are doing a run around the system to renegotiate his contract/cap hit

so now boston goes to a team like Arizona to pick a name out of the hat. boston says you guys will be out of pocket 4,667 million dollars. what do you want for that?

Arizona names its price...

so now boston can send Arizona say a second round pick and some kid like Bjork or whomever... whatever... that's not my point

my point is how does this effect the other 29 teams??? were any of them allowed to participate here?

backes made an agreement to return to boston long before he became an ufa.

that's the problem... understand???

and yes some idiots here will say that backes needed to pass through waivers before he could be bought out. but obviously if no one wants him at 6 mill for 3 years that's completely irrelevant

I know im only talking about special cases here... but heres a perfect example how boston can clear up a 5 million dollar cap problem AND STILL KEEP THE PLAYER

the player in question might not be a game changer... but that 5 million cap hit IS VERY IMPORTANT

ok... that's it... im done in this thread. if this didn't clear it up nothing will.

hope you all have fun

Blah blah blah. Who cares. The Capitals will whup up the Bruins for like the 5th year in a row.

 

[StephenPeat]

I just asked my fellow bruin fans if this is something we want to do with mr backes. let me lay it out for you guys how this is a problem for the league.

backes is owed a base salary of 3 mill this year... 1 mill next year... 3 mill in year 3. the rest of his money is signing bonus and not effected by a buyout

{now I admit I don't 100% understand the ramifications of signing bonus. im currently under the belief that boston has already paid it to him? and that the new team wont be on the hook. if im wrong please let me know}

according to cap friendly... the cost to buyout backes would be 4.666, 667 million over the next 6 seasons... the cap ramifications are steep in the first 3 years and rather minor in the final 3 years. {but of course the new team isn't a cap team anyhow so lets not worry about the cap ramifications}

the relevant important number is the 4,667,667 million dollars that the new team must pay

the other relevant number is that backes is currently schedule to get only 7 million in base salary. if hes bought out he will get 4,667 million... if he signs a new deal for 3 years at 1 mill per season he will end up with 7.667 million. so... do you follow? do you see where im going with this? backes could end up with more money if he agrees to play ball. boston can go to him and say we need a lower cap hit but we need to make sure we keep you. you are important. we will arrange to get you a buyout from another team but you must give us your gentlemans agreement to return to us as an ufa. do you promise? are you a man of your word???

so now... theres an illegle agreement. backes knows boston intends to keep him but they are doing a run around the system to renegotiate his contract/cap hit

so now boston goes to a team like Arizona to pick a name out of the hat. boston says you guys will be out of pocket 4,667 million dollars. what do you want for that?

Arizona names its price...

so now boston can send Arizona say a second round pick and some kid like Bjork or whomever... whatever... that's not my point

my point is how does this effect the other 29 teams??? were any of them allowed to participate here?

backes made an agreement to return to boston long before he became an ufa.

that's the problem... understand???

and yes some idiots here will say that backes needed to pass through waivers before he could be bought out. but obviously if no one wants him at 6 mill for 3 years that's completely irrelevant

I know im only talking about special cases here... but heres a perfect example how boston can clear up a 5 million dollar cap problem AND STILL KEEP THE PLAYER

the player in question might not be a game changer... but that 5 million cap hit IS VERY IMPORTANT

ok... that's it... im done in this thread. if this didn't clear it up nothing will.

hope you all have fun

The entire point you don’t seem to be getting is that there is No Way Arizona buys out Backes, takes the Cap Penalty for Six Seasons, and only gets nominal assets (2nd Rd pick). If the Bruins are offering substantial incentive (precisely why the Capitals gave the Avs a discount on Grubauer) then no one on earth could complain that the deal is illegal or violates the spirit of the CBA. Again no team is going to pay that buyout, accept the penalty, and do it for essentially no reason.

 

[JoemAvs]

I just asked my fellow bruin fans if this is something we want to do with mr backes. let me lay it out for you guys how this is a problem for the league.

backes is owed a base salary of 3 mill this year... 1 mill next year... 3 mill in year 3. the rest of his money is signing bonus and not effected by a buyout

{now I admit I don't 100% understand the ramifications of signing bonus. im currently under the belief that boston has already paid it to him? and that the new team wont be on the hook. if im wrong please let me know}

according to cap friendly... the cost to buyout backes would be 4.666, 667 million over the next 6 seasons... the cap ramifications are steep in the first 3 years and rather minor in the final 3 years. {but of course the new team isn't a cap team anyhow so lets not worry about the cap ramifications}

the relevant important number is the 4,667,667 million dollars that the new team must pay

the other relevant number is that backes is currently schedule to get only 7 million in base salary. if hes bought out he will get 4,667 million... if he signs a new deal for 3 years at 1 mill per season he will end up with 7.667 million. so... do you follow? do you see where im going with this? backes could end up with more money if he agrees to play ball. boston can go to him and say we need a lower cap hit but we need to make sure we keep you. you are important. we will arrange to get you a buyout from another team but you must give us your gentlemans agreement to return to us as an ufa. do you promise? are you a man of your word???

so now... theres an illegle agreement. backes knows boston intends to keep him but they are doing a run around the system to renegotiate his contract/cap hit

so now boston goes to a team like Arizona to pick a name out of the hat. boston says you guys will be out of pocket 4,667 million dollars. what do you want for that?

Arizona names its price...

so now boston can send Arizona say a second round pick and some kid like Bjork or whomever... whatever... that's not my point

my point is how does this effect the other 29 teams??? were any of them allowed to participate here?

backes made an agreement to return to boston long before he became an ufa.

that's the problem... understand???

and yes some idiots here will say that backes needed to pass through waivers before he could be bought out. but obviously if no one wants him at 6 mill for 3 years that's completely irrelevant

I know im only talking about special cases here... but heres a perfect example how boston can clear up a 5 million dollar cap problem AND STILL KEEP THE PLAYER

the player in question might not be a game changer... but that 5 million cap hit IS VERY IMPORTANT

ok... that's it... im done in this thread. if this didn't clear it up nothing will.

hope you all have fun

I am sorry I have only barely read the last 2 pages so I am not 100 % in the loop (and I don't want to read up given how these two pages went) but what the hell are you talking about?

Sure Boston can clear 5 million and if they are lucky get back Backes...

But they also will have to give up a shitton of assets to the team stupid enough to be part of this.
And there are always waivers as well as other teams being able to easily beat Bostons offers.

As long as there are no legally binding deals in place before Backes gets traded, this is a non-issue. Rentals often go back to their original team.

Also I think the cost to get another team to pay Bostons buy-out will be so astronomically high that it will never be worth it. Bjork and a 2nd round pick? For that amount of dead money and dead caphit. Keep dreaming. We are talking a 1st and Vaakanainen at the least I would say. Probably even more. And why would they even agree to it?



Unless Backes and Boston has a shady side agreement that forces Backes to sign with Boston after a buyout as well as a shady side agreement with the other team that they are forced to buyout Backes as part of the deal, your whole argument makes no sense. And even if that happens (which is hughly unlikely), nobody will be able to prove that it happened unless there are a lot of very incompetent lawers, agents and GMs involved.

And even then it might not even be a problem because every other team will get the chance to claim Backes off waivers and have the chance foil the evil plan. So I don't even think that it would be a real problem.

Right now this is a complete non-issue. And if ever some teams would start to exploit this angle, it could easily be fixed in an instant by simply not allowing a player that got traded away to sign with his original team in the same months or two.

Bang. Huge problem that isn't really one solved even before anyone really cared about it aside from an angry fan of a division rival.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I am sorry I have only barely read the last 2 pages so I am not 100 % in the loop (and I don't want to read up given how these two pages went) but what the hell are you talking about?

Sure Boston can clear 5 million and if they are lucky get back Backes...

But they also will have to give up a ****ton of assets to the team stupid enough to be part of this.
And there are always waivers as well as other teams being able to easily beat Bostons offers.

As long as there are no legally binding deals in place before Backes gets traded, this is a non-issue. Rentals often go back to their original team.

Also I think the cost to get another team to pay Bostons buy-out will be so astronomically high that it will never be worth it. Bjork and a 2nd round pick? For that amount of dead money and dead caphit. Keep dreaming. We are talking a 1st and Vaakanainen at the least I would say. Probably even more. And why would they even agree to it?



Unless Backes and Boston has a shady side agreement that forces Backes to sign with Boston after a buyout as well as a shady side agreement with the other team that they are forced to buyout Backes as part of the deal, your whole argument makes no sense. And even if that happens (which is hughly unlikely), nobody will be able to prove that it happened unless there are a lot of very incompetent lawers, agents and GMs involved.

And even then it might not even be a problem because every other team will get the chance to claim Backes off waivers and have the chance foil the evil plan. So I don't even think that it would be a real problem.

Right now this is a complete non-issue. And if ever some teams would start to exploit this angle, it could easily be fixed in an instant by simply not allowing to sign a player that got traded away with his original team in the same months or two.

there are many teams that have ZERO intention of ever getting remotely close to the cap. so lets leave that out of our consideration to keep this a more simple concept for us to understand

now many of these teams are very concerned about the real dollars that are involved.

in the backes example I threw out to show im not playing favorites and im willing to use my own team as an example... his real dollars are 4.667 million for a buyout according to cap friendly

so the other team will be out 4.667 million

lets say as a bruin gm... I see a player on Arizona they don't want anymore. for arguments sakes lets say brad Richardson since there doesn't seem to be any good examples.

boston could agree to take this contract back and bury it in the ahl. now Arizona would only be out 2.5 million dollars to do the buyout

lets remember that the buyout helps Arizona get to the cap floor. lets sayin one of the years Arizona would be below the cap floor by 2.5 million. by using the buyout they are able to save 2.5 million

so now Arizona is out no money at all... and also doesn't care about the cap hit because they were never going to be close to the cap hit anyhow

honestly its not how I would do business. but don't for a second think it might be impossible for guys like Arizona or the guy in Ottawa to be pulling crap like this. several teams have been willing to take ltir contracts over the past few years and pay a small amount of money out of pocket to gain assets for unused cap room

my example takes things to an ugly new level because in my example the player returns to the original team as a much reduced cost. its bad enough that teams are trading cap space but that's within the rules. what is the new problem here is the hint of tampering going on that results in the player going back to the original team at the lower cap hit

 

[EdAVSfan]

your so oblivious that I feel its a waste of time to try to explain to you where you are oblious.

it would be like telling you to watch your step because an obstacle is on the ground in front of you and you telling me im an idiot because the sky is clear of any clouds today

ultimately theres no need at all for you to have any sort of understanding on this matter so I wont lose sleep over your ignorance. if you do want to be able to get a better understanding, ive already explained it in depth. maybe re-reading my posts a few times and getting someone to help you with the bigger words might be useful?

if not... that's ok. the nhl has a lot of legal experts working for it that will ultimately deal with this matter. you and I can go back to talking about trade rumors and other matters that would be more fun and easier for us to understand I think

Interesting, you’re delving into personal insults.

I’m done with you. Your gibberish has been going on for too long, and you have quite literally everyone in this thread disagreeing with you.

I’ll await the investigation.

Nonsense.

 

[Ajaton Azer]

I think one million dollars for Brooks Orpik is quite nice deal for Washington Capitals. He can still play some nice hockey, so there you go!

 

[EdAVSfan]

there are many teams that have ZERO intention of ever getting remotely close to the cap. so lets leave that out of our consideration to keep this a more simple concept for us to understand

now many of these teams are very concerned about the real dollars that are involved.

in the backes example I threw out to show im not playing favorites and im willing to use my own team as an example... his real dollars are 4.667 million for a buyout according to cap friendly

so the other team will be out 4.667 million

lets say as a bruin gm... I see a player on Arizona they don't want anymore. for arguments sakes lets say brad Richardson since there doesn't seem to be any good examples.

boston could agree to take this contract back and bury it in the ahl. now Arizona would only be out 2.5 million dollars to do the buyout

lets remember that the buyout helps Arizona get to the cap floor. lets sayin one of the years Arizona would be below the cap floor by 2.5 million. by using the buyout they are able to save 2.5 million

so now Arizona is out no money at all... and also doesn't care about the cap hit because they were never going to be close to the cap hit anyhow

honestly its not how I would do business. but don't for a second think it might be impossible for guys like Arizona or the guy in Ottawa to be pulling crap like this. several teams have been willing to take ltir contracts over the past few years and pay a small amount of money out of pocket to gain assets for unused cap room

my example takes things to an ugly new level because in my example the player returns to the original team as a much reduced cost. its bad enough that teams are trading cap space but that's within the rules. what is the new problem here is the hint of tampering going on that results in the player going back to the original team at the lower cap hit

Except Colorado will take him off waivers, retain 50% and trade him.

His cap hit will be only 3M. And he’d only cost the avs 3.5M in actual dollars over 3 years.

I’m sure there will be some takers for that kind of deal.

(I just had to get involved in this no-brainer collusion from the bruins. No way this could blow up in their face.)

 

[JoemAvs]

there are many teams that have ZERO intention of ever getting remotely close to the cap. so lets leave that out of our consideration to keep this a more simple concept for us to understand

now many of these teams are very concerned about the real dollars that are involved.

in the backes example I threw out to show im not playing favorites and im willing to use my own team as an example... his real dollars are 4.667 million for a buyout according to cap friendly

so the other team will be out 4.667 million

lets say as a bruin gm... I see a player on Arizona they don't want anymore. for arguments sakes lets say brad Richardson since there doesn't seem to be any good examples.

boston could agree to take this contract back and bury it in the ahl. now Arizona would only be out 2.5 million dollars to do the buyout

lets remember that the buyout helps Arizona get to the cap floor. lets sayin one of the years Arizona would be below the cap floor by 2.5 million. by using the buyout they are able to save 2.5 million

so now Arizona is out no money at all... and also doesn't care about the cap hit because they were never going to be close to the cap hit anyhow

honestly its not how I would do business. but don't for a second think it might be impossible for guys like Arizona or the guy in Ottawa to be pulling crap like this. several teams have been willing to take ltir contracts over the past few years and pay a small amount of money out of pocket to gain assets for unused cap room

my example takes things to an ugly new level because in my example the player returns to the original team as a much reduced cost. its bad enough that teams are trading cap space but that's within the rules. what is the new problem here is the hint of tampering going on that results in the player going back to the original team at the lower cap hit

Yeah but if everything plays out the way you are saying it does, Backes and Boston wouldn't be my main issue from a CBA standpoint. It would be Arizona trying to circumvent the capfloor. And while doing so artificially skewing trade value comparisons and destroying the competitive balance by bailing out teams for their longterm mistakes for inadequate compensation. So I agree if anything that is what would have to be looked at. Not the Backes- Boston angle which IMO is a non-issue

But ts hard to stay under the capfloor permanently nowadays given that bridge contracts seem to be somewhat a thing of the past. And Arizona is not committing 6 years of massive capspace for a meager return. I think you are completely misevaluating this.

Teams might to take on short term bad deals for mediocre value to hit the capfloor. Or take on extra money shorterm to decrease the asking price like Colorado did with Orpik.
But teams like that loath bad longterm commitments. Especially poorer teams. Odds are that they will reach the capfloor in a couple of years anyways and taking on an obligation like that would therefore still cost a massive bounty IMO which makes the whole scenario implausible.

 

[McVechkin]

Meh.. as a caps fan I love that they finally took advantage of a system. They have never done that with any of the other trends in the past and always missed out. What they did was totally fine by the way the CBA is written.

But I do sort of side with the group that doesn't really like it... I could see it becoming the next "back diving contract trend". I would be OK with there being an amendment to the CBA that states a player cannot resign with the team that bought him out or the original contract team for 1 year.

But trading a player and another valuable asset for a fair return.. and then having that player go through waivers and being bought out, then enter free agency and sign with the original team is 100% allowed as the CBA is written.

 

[sapperdaddy]

Is Orpik still going to wear an A for Washington despite being traded away? I mean he never missed one game or practice with the Caps, but it’s just kinda an odd thing how this worked.

He could, though I'd rather they pass the mantle to the rising leaders of the team. Like Wilson, or if you want to insist on being a d-man, Carlson.

 

[sapperdaddy]

This thread be like

 

[Silky mitts]

This thread be like

Best tv show of Ovechkin era, or the Americans

 

[Roshi]

I would have no problem at all with the Backes example. If you think you can get through the waivers and make Backes honour ”the agreement” when another team offers him 2,5/3 which makes 4,5 millions more money in his pocket, hey, you should go for it.

I dont think you can though. It will cost you premium asssets and im guessing (like writer couple posts higher said) another team would take him from waivers to deal him ahead with retention.

There are silent agreements in the NHL all the way from bottom to top. Stop acting like its only now brought out to sunshine from the dungeon.

Its propable Caps told Orpik that they are doing the trade purely on cap reasons, and if Avs ends buying his contract out they are more than happy to have him back if he wants to. What is wrong with that? I have no idea. You cant tell your employes that you would want to have them back when they are leaving (for any reason)?

After the trade Caps had zero leverage on anything, except of the hope that Brooks wants to be back. 29 teams had the chance to take him from waivers and either play him or try to trade with retention. Then 29 teams had the chance to offer him 2-3 millions a year and it was up to Orpik what he wants to do. Thats why they call them unrestricted free agents, because they have the right to choose. Orpik wanted to be back, hooray for the Caps. We dont know if anyone else offered him anything and that really, really doesnt matter.

Someone wants to repeat this route with their overpaid guys? I dont care. They have to go through it all and if they do, gudos for you guys. There is x amount of league wide cap space and if someone is using their share of the cap space as a trading asset, i dont mind. Thats legal and in the spirit of the business side of the sports. And it happens all the time..

Its also funny how people always talk about money like its nothing. Like 4,6667 millions is a day in the park for a franchise like Coyotes. Have you guys ever tried to sell your boss the idea of investing 5 million dollars for unknown futures? I havent, but id guess You put your ass on the line everytime you ask them to pay big money with a golden future promise.