Retaining salary in trades

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Jul 24, 2014 16:20:29 GMT -5 @thenudge said:

Jul 24, 2014 16:13:45 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

Can this example work in IFFHL:

Evander Kane
RSA $3.5M 4yrs(from previous trade unrelated)

For

Brayden Schenn

Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards

Are you asking if you could trade a player that was trade it to you since they retain a certain %. I believe the rule would be your aloud to trade a player with retain once after trading for him.


Would we aloud to retain money on a player contract twice during the same contract length?


Here's a example:

Team A get : Mike Richard

Team B get: 1st + retain 25 % on Richard Cap hit.

then you turn around a few weeks after and trade Mike Richard and retain 30%. Is that aloud ? Is 50 % the max aloud for the entire length of the contract and are we aloud to retained twice for the same player?

You can retain 50% twice, so you can retain 50% then have that player traded again for another 50% retained but you can only retain salary on a player twice . That is what i understand from the Capgeek rules 

[Deleted]

the RSA was from a previous deal not including Kane or Schenn. I was wondering if the RSA can be used as leverage in trade.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

You can't trade retained salary like an asset. Retained salary has to be on the player included in the deal.

[Deleted]

I see what your saying Matt. Just thinking it would make it interesting to move RSA like an asset.

I know the NHL doesn't allow this, but maybe it could be considered for IFFHL

[Deleted]

I'm against retaining salary in trades. We already have a 10% increase on the actual NHL salary cap and we have a bottomless pit of minor leagues to dump bad contracts (which I'm also against).

Part of the reason this mechanism exists in the NHL is due to the differences in revenue generation from team to team. We do not have to worry about this constraint.

I feel like part of the fun in having a salary cap at all in a free league is having to make tough decisions. Right now I have Tuomo Ruutu and Zybenek Michalek parked in the minors collecting dust and off my books while I am already hard pressed against the cap now that O'Reilly got $6M. To me, these problems are meant to be solved by a smart GM, not a free pass.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Jul 24, 2014 18:34:03 GMT -5 @davel said:

I'm against retaining salary in trades. We already have a 10% increase on the actual NHL salary cap and we have a bottomless pit of minor leagues to dump bad contracts (which I'm also against).

Part of the reason this mechanism exists in the NHL is due to the differences in revenue generation from team to team. We do not have to worry about this constraint.

I feel like part of the fun in having a salary cap at all in a free league is having to make tough decisions. Right now I have Tuomo Ruutu and Zybenek Michalek parked in the minors collecting dust and off my books while I am already hard pressed against the cap now that O'Reilly got $6M. To me, these problems are meant to be solved by a smart GM, not a free pass.

Very valid points. Well Done!

[Deleted]

agreed. Well said.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 18:34:03 GMT -5 @davel said:

I'm against retaining salary in trades. We already have a 10% increase on the actual NHL salary cap and we have a bottomless pit of minor leagues to dump bad contracts (which I'm also against).

Part of the reason this mechanism exists in the NHL is due to the differences in revenue generation from team to team. We do not have to worry about this constraint.

I feel like part of the fun in having a salary cap at all in a free league is having to make tough decisions. Right now I have Tuomo Ruutu and Zybenek Michalek parked in the minors collecting dust and off my books while I am already hard pressed against the cap now that O'Reilly got $6M. To me, these problems are meant to be solved by a smart GM, not a free pass.

I get what your saying but what if most of your team get injured ? You'll be calling up those part but when the player that were injured come back, you need to make a thought decision by sending the player back to the minor. Now they will need to go threw waiver. So I don't think you get it if your complaining that it's not hard enough and soo on. Also what about if you call up a waiver free player since he's under the 150gp but while he's up in the nhl he surpassed that number and want to send him down to the minor. Now your player need to go threw the waiver and can be claim by anyone. A lot can happen during a season and putting buddies in the minor for hard times to be call upon. Why would anyone cry about such a advantage ?

[Dave (PLK)]

Jul 24, 2014 18:34:03 GMT -5 @davel said:

I'm against retaining salary in trades. We already have a 10% increase on the actual NHL salary cap and we have a bottomless pit of minor leagues to dump bad contracts (which I'm also against).

Part of the reason this mechanism exists in the NHL is due to the differences in revenue generation from team to team. We do not have to worry about this constraint.

I feel like part of the fun in having a salary cap at all in a free league is having to make tough decisions. Right now I have Tuomo Ruutu and Zybenek Michalek parked in the minors collecting dust and off my books while I am already hard pressed against the cap now that O'Reilly got $6M. To me, these problems are meant to be solved by a smart GM, not a free pass.

You just helped me make my decision.

[Deleted]

If most of my team gets hurt, then my chances of winning the league are pretty low anyway, so its a moot point by then. In the NHL this would mean revenue losses, poor fan morale, etc. Real consequences. For me, at worst I put a couple in a post and move on with my life.

We have 3 reserve slots and teams near the cap should plan for contingencies in the first place. This is all part of the fun of having a rigid constraint like the cap.

Aren't you also against this idea?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 15:14:16 GMT -5 @thenudge said:

I'm against this idea for the following reason which are

1) What happen to the retain cap hit if that player get buy out in the nhl
2) it's very hard to determine the value of retaining 1M,2M....
3) New gm might not fully understand risk in retaining a 2M on a contract like Mike Richard which is like 10years long.
4) It's going a pain in the ass for the admin to take charge of it

I wasn't telling you anything. You wrote that you are against the idea. We agree!

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Jul 24, 2014 18:34:03 GMT -5 @davel said:

I'm against retaining salary in trades. We already have a 10% increase on the actual NHL salary cap and we have a bottomless pit of minor leagues to dump bad contracts (which I'm also against).

Part of the reason this mechanism exists in the NHL is due to the differences in revenue generation from team to team. We do not have to worry about this constraint.

I feel like part of the fun in having a salary cap at all in a free league is having to make tough decisions. Right now I have Tuomo Ruutu and Zybenek Michalek parked in the minors collecting dust and off my books while I am already hard pressed against the cap now that O'Reilly got $6M. To me, these problems are meant to be solved by a smart GM, not a free pass.

This is about trades not just a dump or a free pass, its not a free pass what so ever you are going to have to pay to get rid of that salary. part of retaining is so contract that are 7mil + become more affordable i don't think anybody other than me and maybe 2 other Gm's have the space for Brian Campbell and other comparable for how much they do some contract are just too much. 

[Deleted]

I don't disagree that it would lead to more trades - initially. But when you're carrying 3.5M dead cap space + at least $700K to replace Campbell in your lineup, you will have less flexibility going forward. So while there might be an instant burst of trade activity, eventually there will be a number of teams with effectively lower cap space and that will surely harm trade activity down the road.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Not if Gm's are smart in the NHL you rarely see Gm's retain salary for more than 1 or 2 year the highest I've seen is 3 year ans it was a low cap hit. It would more or less be for player with 1 or 2 years left on there contracts, you wont see someone retain 50% for more than 1 year unless it's low it helps team with cap space and teams without it. some teams have a good amount of space and can take on salary for a year or 2 because you check who needs to be resigned and determine how much you can keep

[Deleted]

Trade deadline data shows # of trades has fallen dramatically at the deadline in the last 4 years. Obviously this isn't the totality of all NHL trade activity, but it also shows that adding the retained salary rule didn't blow the flood gates open for trading either.

www.tsn.ca/tradecentre/feature/?id=10407

Part of the reason is that the league-wide cumulative cap space and the total cap hits doesn't change, only the distribution does. Eventually as cap space becomes more scarce (say after a few of these re-distributive deals occur), the price to take on salary will get higher.

I feel like we have enough tools already that the NHL doesn't have to mitigate cap issues. If those still aren't good enough, then it's decision time. I might have to trade a high salary guy for future assets even though I am trying to win right now. For me, that is most of the fun of playing a salary cap fantasy league.