Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cap Recapture Calculator


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 greenrebellion

greenrebellion

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:02 AM

Anyone else played around with this?

 

http://www.capgeek.c...ure-calculator/

 

 

Assuming Franzen and Zetterberg follow normal aging curves, the end of this decade could get pretty ugly as we'll either be on the hook for their full cap hit or a decent sized cap recapture penalty.

 

This becomes less severe if the cap moves up as it has in the past, but as a hypothetical if both Franzen and Zetterberg retire in 5 years, here's what the numbers would like like.

 

 

Zetterberg (assumes 2018 retirement)

2018-19 through 2020-21 - Penalty of $4,300,000 per year

 

Franzen (assumes 2018 retirement)

2018-19 through 2019-20 - Penalty of $2,954,545 per year

 

 

So for two years we'd have a penalty of over $7 million before Franzen dropped off and then we'd have one year worth of penalty left on Zetterberg.  And if they don't retire, then we'd still be absorbing the full  $10 million hit between the two of them presumably with both players being marginal fourth liners towards the end of their contracts.

 

I know people have been discussing these concepts in various threads, but I hadn't seen the numbers laid out like this hence my post.  Anyone else concerned?



#2 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:12 PM

As big of an opponent as I was against backdiving deals and other 2005 CBA "cheats" and "workarounds", I still think this is massively unfair to teams that signed these deals, all of which were within the rules of the existing CBA and were approved by the league (except for Kovalchuk's first deal).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the effect of the recapture penalty to punish NHL front offices for taking advantage of the way cap hits are determined in the first place?  Duncan Keith and Marian Hossa will both make just shy of $8 million next year, but the salary cap treats them as if they were making $5 million.  To retroactively put into place a rule that punishes previously legal conduct makes no sense to me.  I have no problem with recapture penalties going forward (or other rules limiting year-to-year variance on salaries), but that's because teams are now under notice of the rules going forward.

 

Yes, I understand that the two compliance buyouts were granted to give teams an "out" for that, but that isn't a real solution either, since it forces you to release that player off your team (you can't re-sign a compliance buyout for one year afterwards).  If Zetterberg has kids in Sweden and wants to play there, or just decides that he wants to retire from the NHL for health or personal reasons, it just seems wrong to me that HE should be the one put in the position of tanking the Red Wings' salary cap situation by walking away from the team.

 

For the reasons stated by the OP, I kind of thought that Franzen was a borderline candidate for a buyout.  He isn't a player like a Datsyuk or Z that I feel could be productive into his late, late 30's.  His knee problems, physical style, and frame suggest a guy that will have a career arc more like Holmstrom, which means we'll be penalized when he hangs it up.


Edited by StormJH1, 28 June 2013 - 01:13 PM.


#3 Nev

Nev

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire, England

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

Thanks for putting into numbers what I've been saying elsewhere.  Franzen retires 2 years early at 38 and we get punished with a $3M cap hit penalty.

 

Its an incredibly dumb rule to boot, penalising teams for signing perfectly legal contracts.


"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

#4 FlashyG

FlashyG

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,153 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:56 PM

What makes you think either would retire early? Both are loyal Wings.

 

They'd just claim they can no longer play due to injury, go on LTIR and their salaries wouldn't count against the cap. They'd remain there until their contracts expired getting their full pay while not playing.



#5 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

There's always a way

#6 Z and D for the C

Z and D for the C

    This is the TBL forum, right?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,033 posts
  • Location:D, Michigan

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:21 PM

What makes you think either would retire early? Both are loyal Wings.
 
They'd just claim they can no longer play due to injury, go on LTIR and their salaries wouldn't count against the cap. They'd remain there until their contracts expired getting their full pay while not playing.


Bold faced lies from both them and the organization seem way worse to me than whatever "disloyalty" would be portrayed by retiring.

Franzen is barely effective now. I shudder to think what he'll be like in 7 or 8 years when his contract ends getting paid $3.9m, especially because everyone is so adamant about getting rid of old guys (like Filppula, apparently) for the new young ones.

Edited by Z and D for the C, 28 June 2013 - 02:22 PM.

Just cause you look like the gimp don't mean you play like the gimp!


#7 Nev

Nev

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire, England

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:53 PM

What makes you think either would retire early? Both are loyal Wings.

 

They'd just claim they can no longer play due to injury, go on LTIR and their salaries wouldn't count against the cap. They'd remain there until their contracts expired getting their full pay while not playing.

 

First of all, you can't just pretend someone is injured.  They have to be properly medically assessed, and there are strict rules about it.  If the NHL found out the Wings were falsely reporting injuries to circumvent the cap, they'd go absolutely ballistic.

 

Secondly, Franzen's last 2 seasons only pay a million dollars each, rather less incentive to keep playing than when you're getting $5M per season.  He's earnt 95% of his money at this point, he's 38, it gets harder and harder to come back each season for less and less reward.  If Rafalski quits a year early and leave millions of dollars on the table because he feels called to do something else, Franzen can sure as hell retire because he can't be bothered.


"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

#8 stillwater

stillwater

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • Location:ontario

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:20 PM

There's always a way

 

What does that mean, really?



#9 Jesusberg

Jesusberg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,711 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:33 PM

There's always a way

 

 

 

What does that mean, really?

 

3qxpqo.jpg



#10 matthewdanna

matthewdanna

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

What I think we will see with players with these type of contracts is that they will traded before they retire.

 

For example, let's say we decide not to use a compliance buyout on Franzen next year and down the road his play declines and he shows signs that he will retire before his contract is up...

 

The Red Wings would try to trade him for a bag of pucks and possibly even trade him for another player in a similar situation.  If he retires as a member of a different team, that team will not have the cap benefit that the Red Wings will have accumulated over the years and it will therefore not count against them.  Taking Franzen in a trade would be a favor to the Wings in this scenario so we would have to reciprocate in some way.



#11 FlashyG

FlashyG

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,153 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 June 2013 - 03:51 PM

Bold faced lies from both them and the organization seem way worse to me than whatever "disloyalty" would be portrayed by retiring.

Franzen is barely effective now. I shudder to think what he'll be like in 7 or 8 years when his contract ends getting paid $3.9m, especially because everyone is so adamant about getting rid of old guys (like Filppula, apparently) for the new young ones.

 

Franzen barely effective? He's been the teams leading scorer in 2 of the last 3 years, and probably would have led the team this year too if he had played every game.

 

Admittedly his effort level isn't very good, but he's still our 3 best forward without even trying very hard. 


 

First of all, you can't just pretend someone is injured.  They have to be properly medically assessed, and there are strict rules about it.  If the NHL found out the Wings were falsely reporting injuries to circumvent the cap, they'd go absolutely ballistic.

 

Secondly, Franzen's last 2 seasons only pay a million dollars each, rather less incentive to keep playing than when you're getting $5M per season.  He's earnt 95% of his money at this point, he's 38, it gets harder and harder to come back each season for less and less reward.  If Rafalski quits a year early and leave millions of dollars on the table because he feels called to do something else, Franzen can sure as hell retire because he can't be bothered.

 

They wouldn't have to pretend...If either are willing to hang them up and end their careers it will be because they are breaking down physically. They aren't going to quit out of boredom or because they feel they aren't making enough money. 

 

Rafalski is a perfect example of someone who if in Z or Mule's position would not have retired but would have claimed the pain from his back and his knee are too much, and he would have been on LTIR for the final year of his deal.

 

Personally I think both will play out their contracts but I have absolutely no worries at all about either retiring early especially because they would never want to hurt the franchise based on this clause in the new CBA.



#12 greenrebellion

greenrebellion

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:11 PM

What I think we will see with players with these type of contracts is that they will traded before they retire.

 

For example, let's say we decide not to use a compliance buyout on Franzen next year and down the road his play declines and he shows signs that he will retire before his contract is up...

 

The Red Wings would try to trade him for a bag of pucks and possibly even trade him for another player in a similar situation.  If he retires as a member of a different team, that team will not have the cap benefit that the Red Wings will have accumulated over the years and it will therefore not count against them.  Taking Franzen in a trade would be a favor to the Wings in this scenario so we would have to reciprocate in some way.

 

This doesn't work.  If you trade Franzen in (pick a year) and then he retires in 2018, you still get penalized.  Go play with the calculator and you'll see what I mean as it has a built in trade function.  In fact, in some cases, trading them can make the penalty even larger since the years at the end (when salary is below the cap hit) actually reduce the potential penalty.

 

 

 

Franzen barely effective? He's been the teams leading scorer in 2 of the last 3 years, and probably would have led the team this year too if he had played every game.

 

Admittedly his effort level isn't very good, but he's still our 3 best forward without even trying very hard. 


 

They wouldn't have to pretend...If either are willing to hang them up and end their careers it will be because they are breaking down physically. They aren't going to quit out of boredom or because they feel they aren't making enough money. 

 

Rafalski is a perfect example of someone who if in Z or Mule's position would not have retired but would have claimed the pain from his back and his knee are too much, and he would have been on LTIR for the final year of his deal.

 

Personally I think both will play out their contracts but I have absolutely no worries at all about either retiring early especially because they would never want to hurt the franchise based on this clause in the new CBA.

 

 

But even if they don't retire, you still end up with $10 million worth of cap hit towards the end of the decade that most likely isn't producing anywhere close to $10 million worth of production.  Zetterberg and his back issues.  Franzen and all his injury issues...who knows how effective these guys will be late in their careers.  Eliminating the ability to retire and get rid of the cap hit really screws the teams over that signed these contracts...which is ridiculous because they were perfectly legal contracts at the time.


Edited by greenrebellion, 28 June 2013 - 05:13 PM.


#13 FlashyG

FlashyG

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,153 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:36 PM

 

But even if they don't retire, you still end up with $10 million worth of cap hit towards the end of the decade that most likely isn't producing anywhere close to $10 million worth of production.  Zetterberg and his back issues.  Franzen and all his injury issues...who knows how effective these guys will be late in their careers.  Eliminating the ability to retire and get rid of the cap hit really screws the teams over that signed these contracts...which is ridiculous because they were perfectly legal contracts at the time.

 

If their injuries are slowing them down past the point of being effective they can go on LTIR until their contracts expire. In Franzen's case we can always save a compliance buyout for next year just in case he shows signs of slipping, or in the case that Nyquist or Tatar turn into players able to replace his production.

 

It will be a bit expensive to our cap in the last year or so of their deals, but who knows what the cap will be at that point.

 

IMO It's not really anything worth worrying about at this point in time.



#14 nyqvististhefuture

nyqvististhefuture

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:38 PM

id like to keep a buyout incase we decide to buyout franzen after next season, im also worried about the later years for franzen , i do believe hank would play in the later years like alfredsson is doing now but im not sold on franzen , i can see him retiring at 38



#15 RedWingsRox

RedWingsRox

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,121 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:40 PM

I agree with post who said it was unfair to penalize already existing long term contracts.  Most contracts in the world are grandfathered and are not affected by new rules along the way.  Don't know how NHLPA agreed to this rule ... blame Fehr for overlooking this. 



#16 saven

saven

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:13 PM

I'm betting the cap recapture mesure was a sticking point for the nhlpa in the last round of talks. It seems very unfair to punish teams for trying to get better. We sign guys to cap friendly deals and then the league comes behind and says no we don't want you doing that o and also here's a penalty for doing

Edited by saven, 28 June 2013 - 08:15 PM.

In explanation of my avatar: for those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't google federko.

#17 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 05:34 PM

 
What does that mean, really?


It means the loopholes will be found no matter what.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users