2018 Summer Game Plan

[longtimefan]

https://twitter.com/penguins/status/1017531299907686400

Oleksiak signs. More than I expected. 3 yrs/ $2.1375 capt hit

[FLPensFan]

Oleksiak, 3 years 2.1375M AAV announced by the team

https://www.nhl.com/penguins/news/penguins-resign-oleksiak/c-299473568

[FLPensFan]

https://twitter.com/penguins/status/1017531299907686400

Oleksiak signs. More than I expected. 3 yrs/ $2.1375 capt hit

My original thought when the season ended was about 1.6-1.8M. Anywhere under 2.5M is great value for him. The Penguins are paying a higher price because they bought up a year of UFA status from him. He would have been a UFA in 2 years.

Good signing, good term, good $$$.

[FLPensFan]

Contrary to what CapFriendly says, Penguins should have just a hair under 1.4M in cap space left (assuming Hayes starts in WBS).

[longtimefan]

So if they stick with what they have, they've got $745K in cap space if Hayes makes the team, $1.395 if they send him down and they only carry 22 players.

[DelPen]

Bank that cap space as much as possible and get Faulk and skinner at the deadline.

[KG]

Good contract for Rig and the Pens. Little more per to lock him up for 3 years. I like it.

[Daniel]

In it's bid to acquire all the permanently injured or retiring players, Elliott Friedman reports that Arizona is close to acquiring the contract of Marian Hossa from Chicago. Vinnie Hinestroza likely included in the deal to Arizona as compensation for taking on the dead cap hit.

That's now Bolland, Datsyuk (contract finally expired), Hossa....I think Arizona also had the contract of Chris Pronger at one time. Why don't they just get Nathan Horton, Johan Franzen, Clarke MacArthur, and David Clarkson while they are at it. Doesn't look fishy at all that a team that spends of the time just above the cap floor, a team half run by the NHL, and that reportedly comes close to missing payroll at times.....but hey, let's just buy up all the dead contracts.

Hockey thriving in the desert. No need to move the team. The kachina jerseys are back.

Yeah, the NHL needs to stop LTIR and other dead contract transactions Either give the trading team a salary cap penalty of some sorts or make it a rule that LTIR never counts against the cap. Double checked the LTIR rules on the capfriendly website (link below). LTIR to get to the cap floor yet not count to over the cap is inviting teams to circumvent both the upper and lower echelon of the cap rules. It really gives a competitive advantage to not only the team getting the cap relief, but the teams that get extra wins versus the team who refuses to spend to the cap floor in terms of real salary. It totally skews the playoff seeding and, potentially, teams that make/miss the playoffs.

When a player is placed on LTIR, their cap hit remains on the teams cap payroll and it continues to count as it always did.

https://www.capfriendly.com/ltir-faq

Edit - Trade has been announced and a lot of moving parts. I hope Rick Tocchet has an opt out clause for instances when the franchise just doesn't want to win, because this trade certainly qualifies.

https://www.tsn.ca/blackhawks-trade-hos ... -1.1137581

I don't think you can simply preclude LTIR players from having a cap hit, as I think it's no different than trading them to shed the contract. What needs to happen is the player needs to retire, or the team needs to suffer the consequences. It's a risk a team takes by signing a long-term deal. Simply trading the contract and a prospect for a low pick or career minor leaguer doesn't cut it.

Since it would not benefit AZ to make a deal just to get to the cap floor, this trade doesn't occur. Why would Arizona make this trade if they can't use the LTIR to get to the cap floor? Honestly, how does it even benefit Chicago if they can LTIR Hossa when the season starts?

[ville5]

In it's bid to acquire all the permanently injured or retiring players, Elliott Friedman reports that Arizona is close to acquiring the contract of Marian Hossa from Chicago. Vinnie Hinestroza likely included in the deal to Arizona as compensation for taking on the dead cap hit.

That's now Bolland, Datsyuk (contract finally expired), Hossa....I think Arizona also had the contract of Chris Pronger at one time. Why don't they just get Nathan Horton, Johan Franzen, Clarke MacArthur, and David Clarkson while they are at it. Doesn't look fishy at all that a team that spends of the time just above the cap floor, a team half run by the NHL, and that reportedly comes close to missing payroll at times.....but hey, let's just buy up all the dead contracts. :roll: :roll:

Hockey thriving in the desert. No need to move the team. The kachina jerseys are back. :face:

Yeah, the NHL needs to stop LTIR and other dead contract transactions Either give the trading team a salary cap penalty of some sorts or make it a rule that LTIR never counts against the cap. Double checked the LTIR rules on the capfriendly website (link below). LTIR to get to the cap floor yet not count to over the cap is inviting teams to circumvent both the upper and lower echelon of the cap rules. It really gives a competitive advantage to not only the team getting the cap relief, but the teams that get extra wins versus the team who refuses to spend to the cap floor in terms of real salary. It totally skews the playoff seeding and, potentially, teams that make/miss the playoffs.

When a player is placed on LTIR, their cap hit remains on the teams cap payroll and it continues to count as it always did.

https://www.capfriendly.com/ltir-faq

Edit - Trade has been announced and a lot of moving parts. I hope Rick Tocchet has an opt out clause for instances when the franchise just doesn't want to win, because this trade certainly qualifies.

https://www.tsn.ca/blackhawks-trade-hos ... -1.1137581

I don't think you can simply preclude LTIR players from having a cap hit, as I think it's no different than trading them to shed the contract. What needs to happen is the player needs to retire, or the team needs to suffer the consequences. It's a risk a team takes by signing a long-term deal. Simply trading the contract and a prospect for a low pick or career minor leaguer doesn't cut it.

Since it would not benefit AZ to make a deal just to get to the cap floor, this trade doesn't occur. Why would Arizona make this trade if they can't use the LTIR to get to the cap floor? Honestly, how does it even benefit Chicago if they can LTIR Hossa when the season starts?

LTIR doesn't start on the first day of the season. Doesn't start until the 2nd day I believe. So for all intents and purposes it gives Arizona the cap hit to start the season and gives Chicago breathing room in this and the next 2 off seasons.

[Daniel]

LTIR doesn't start on the first day of the season. Doesn't start until the 2nd day I believe. So for all intents and purposes it gives Arizona the cap hit to start the season and gives Chicago breathing room in this and the next 2 off seasons.

Thanks. It, along with the Orpik trade, are such obvious cap circumvention trades that it's amazing the league allows it. Hopefully it gets tightened up in the next CBA. I think LTIR not counting against the cap period and not allowing a team to buyout a newly traded player ought to be sufficient.

[FLPensFan]

LTIR doesn't start on the first day of the season. Doesn't start until the 2nd day I believe. So for all intents and purposes it gives Arizona the cap hit to start the season and gives Chicago breathing room in this and the next 2 off seasons.

Thanks. It, along with the Orpik trade, are such obvious cap circumvention trades that it's amazing the league allows it. Hopefully it gets tightened up in the next CBA. I think LTIR not counting against the cap period and not allowing a team to buyout a newly traded player ought to be sufficient.

Yes, the trade an active player so another team can buy him out is cap circumvention as well. Quite honestly, so is salary retention. Not aware of any other sport where two teams can be paying for the same player.

[Daniel]

LTIR doesn't start on the first day of the season. Doesn't start until the 2nd day I believe. So for all intents and purposes it gives Arizona the cap hit to start the season and gives Chicago breathing room in this and the next 2 off seasons.

Thanks. It, along with the Orpik trade, are such obvious cap circumvention trades that it's amazing the league allows it. Hopefully it gets tightened up in the next CBA. I think LTIR not counting against the cap period and not allowing a team to buyout a newly traded player ought to be sufficient.

Yes, the trade an active player so another team can buy him out is cap circumvention as well. Quite honestly, so is salary retention. Not aware of any other sport where two teams can be paying for the same player.

You're right, salary retention is cap circumvention, but it's more subtle than the other two. What I mean is that the other two instances are examples of trading a player that the other team has no intention of playing and is only doing it for cap purposes. I'll use Brassard as an example. If salary retention wasn't involved, Ottawa doesn't make the trade or would have to take enough salary back to make it awash. Both situations weren't right for a club about to do a rebuild. They full intend to use all the players involved in the trade (I include using Cole to get 2 other assets).

The Brassard trade was a salary dump sure, but it can still be considered a hockey trade and Ottawa seemed to get some pretty nice assets back. The Orpik and Hossa trades were not meant to be hockey trades at all, they were pure cap circumvention trades. No one wanted Orpik and Washington was able to sign Carlson because Colorado was willing to take on the cap hit. Arizona got no one of consequence in the Blackhawk trade.

[100565]

I don't think it is cap circumvention. As long as each dollar paid to a player is counted towards some team's salary cap (as defined by CBA), then it is fine.

All teams know the trick, some teams use it.


Regarding changes to CBA, I think it would be cool to permit teams to substitute someone on th e 20 man game day roster from the active 23an roster during a game. Once a player is substituted out, he could not return for that game. It would add another layer of strategy and give one-dimensional players a role. Also, it would eliminate (almost) a team needing to play part of a game with 5 defensemen - due to injury.

[Daniel]

I don't think it is cap circumvention. As long as each dollar paid to a player is counted towards some team's salary cap (as defined by CBA), then it is fine.

All teams know the trick, some teams use it.


Regarding changes to CBA, I think it would be cool to permit teams to substitute someone on th e 20 man game day roster from the active 23an roster during a game. Once a player is substituted out, he could not return for that game. It would add another layer of strategy and give one-dimensional players a role. Also, it would eliminate (almost) a team needing to play part of a game with 5 defensemen - due to injury.

How can making a trade for the sole purpose of getting to the cap floor not be cap circumvention? Arizona is clearly stating they do not want to have a roster that comes close to the cap floor. They didn't trade for a player, they traded for his cap hit.

BTW, it's fine under the current CBA, I'm arguing that the next CBA needs to forbid it.

[ville5]

I also forgot to mention that you can't "bank" cap space, or as much if you LTIR a player. As we found out with Duper. I don't remember the exact particulars of such a case though. I'll defer to FLPensFan.

[KG]

From what I’ve read around the internetssss....Arizona was already above the cap floor without this trade. Howvever they aren’t going to be anywhere near a cap ceiling team. So they bacially traded some cap space for a couple of decent prospects...

Well within the cal rules . Don’t see it changing

[Daniel]

From what I’ve read around the internetssss....Arizona was already above the cap floor without this trade. Howvever they aren’t going to be anywhere near a cap ceiling team. So they bacially traded some cap space for a couple of decent prospects...

Well within the cal rules . Don’t see it changing

They were at $66M before the trade and $69M after. When you subtract Hossa and Bolland's salaries, they're actually under the cap floor. I just think it's bad for the league to have a team like the Coyotes constantly making trades to add salary cap space without adding the player.

[KG]

I agree with you. I don’t like the unofficially retired but never playing again player being traded. That shouldn’t be allowed going forward.

But I am ok with teams paying a premium for a team to retain salary for an existing player etc.

I think the CBA allows for a team to retain salary on 3 contracts per year? I wonder if they have a rule for how many players a team can acquire that won’t ever play again!

[joker10277]

From what I’ve read around the internetssss....Arizona was already above the cap floor without this trade. Howvever they aren’t going to be anywhere near a cap ceiling team. So they bacially traded some cap space for a couple of decent prospects...

Well within the cal rules . Don’t see it changing

They were at $66M before the trade and $69M after. When you subtract Hossa and Bolland's salaries, they're actually under the cap floor. I just think it's bad for the league to have a team like the Coyotes constantly making trades to add salary cap space without adding the player.

Hossa’s cap hit is 5,275,000 but his actual salary is 1 Million and since he’s on LTIR his salary is covered 80% by insurance , so Arizona got the cap hit and only has to pay him 200,000.

[Daniel]

I agree with you. I don’t like the unofficially retired but never playing again player being traded. That shouldn’t be allowed going forward.

But I am ok with teams paying a premium for a team to retain salary for an existing player etc.

I think the CBA allows for a team to retain salary on 3 contracts per year? I wonder if they have a rule for how many players a team can acquire that won’t ever play again!

I don't mind the salary retention at all. It allows teams like Ottawa, Buffalo, Vancouver, etc. to trade off high priced guys without getting high priced guys back. To get younger and do a total rebuild. I think the difference is that those are actual hockey trades and both teams expect to use the assets for something other than circumventing cap rules.

It kinda reads like 3 contracts per year, but I think it's unlimited. We discussed it around the time of the Brassard trade and I had brought up the exact verbage and FlPensFan corrected me.

[Daniel]

From what I’ve read around the internetssss....Arizona was already above the cap floor without this trade. Howvever they aren’t going to be anywhere near a cap ceiling team. So they bacially traded some cap space for a couple of decent prospects...

Well within the cal rules . Don’t see it changing

They were at $66M before the trade and $69M after. When you subtract Hossa and Bolland's salaries, they're actually under the cap floor. I just think it's bad for the league to have a team like the Coyotes constantly making trades to add salary cap space without adding the player.

Hossa’s cap hit is 5,275,000 but his actual salary is 1 Million and since he’s on LTIR his salary is covered 80% by insurance , so Arizona got the cap hit and only has to pay him 200,000.

Quite a scam....er deal.... for Arizona to not have to pay to the cap floor.

[longtimefan]

https://www.lighthousehockey.com/2014/1 ... yan-miller

This article is dated shortly after the new CBA went into effect.

I won't paste the full limitations on Retained Salary Transactions (you can check them in the CBA in 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) if you want to read legalese), but they boil down to:

You can keep up to 50% of the cap and salary commitment to a player you trade.
You can only have such commitments to three players at any given time. (e.g. Toronto currently has that with Ben Scrivens, Matthew Lombardi, and Matt Frattin. They can't add another until one of those contracts runs out.)
The total of your "retained salary" commitments cannot exceed 15% of the cap's upper limit. (So under the current $64.3 million cap, a team can retain up to $9.6 million.)
You cannot reacquire such a player for one year after the trade -- unless his contract has expired in the meantime (i.e., he became a free agent, signed a new deal, and you traded for him).
Any single player contract cannot be used in a "retained salary transaction" (trade) like this more than twice. (So if L.A. had agreed to retain some of Scrivens' salary when dealing him to Edmonton, the Oilers could not do the same if they traded him on this contract.)

[longtimefan]

I remember Brian Burke was the one who suggested that retaining salary in trades, believing it would make deals easier to make. I believe that it definitely holds true at the deadline, as you seem to see a lot of rentals having money retained to make the deal fit. I was surprised to find that it doesn't seem to be incorporated very often on deals with term. I'm only basing it on players currently under contract, but a look through capfriendly shows only seven players with salary retained. No team has more than one.

Florida is paying $562,500 of Arizona's Jason Demers' $4.4M contract for the next three years.

Boston is paying $1.9M of the Rangers' Matt Belesky's $3.8M deal this season.

Carolina will pay $308,333 of Marcus Krueger's salary for the Blackhawks, who originally signed him to his $3.083333M contract for this season, a deal the Hawks originally signed him to.

Arizona is paying $1,416667 of Calgary's Mike Smith' s $5.666667M deal for this season.

Vancouver is paying $800,000 of Roberto Luongo's contract to play in Florida for four more years. When it expires, they will have been paying over 8 years to play in Fla.

Derick Brassard is having $2M of his $5M contract by Vegas this season for him to play for the Pens.

Phil Kessel will have $1.2M of his $8M contract for the next four seasons to play with the Pens. The Leafs will have paid him 7 full years after leaving Toronto when the contract expires.


I'm surprised it's not used more often. I know the Pens have made four such deals. Shero brought Jussi Jokinen here with term left, and the Canes paid part of his salary. Of courese, Rutherford was on the other side. Rutherford also retained salary on Scuderi, and made the deals to bring in Brassard and Kessel. He's not exactly old and conservative. He has given the Pens an effective cap of $82.7M. Nobody else in the league has even $2M being paid by other teams. It's a feather in JR's cap. A pretty shrewd use of the existing rules.

[longtimefan]

LTIR doesn't start on the first day of the season. Doesn't start until the 2nd day I believe. So for all intents and purposes it gives Arizona the cap hit to start the season and gives Chicago breathing room in this and the next 2 off seasons.

Thanks. It, along with the Orpik trade, are such obvious cap circumvention trades that it's amazing the league allows it. Hopefully it gets tightened up in the next CBA. I think LTIR not counting against the cap period and not allowing a team to buyout a newly traded player ought to be sufficient.

Yes, the trade an active player so another team can buy him out is cap circumvention as well. Quite honestly, so is salary retention. Not aware of any other sport where two teams can be paying for the same player.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/ ... trade.html

Baseball, although there's no cap. It's more egregious. The link is to when the Yankees traded AJ Burnett to the Pirates and paid $20M of the $33M he was still owed....It's permitted circumvention in the NHL, since it was collectively bargained.

[FLPensFan]

According to Jason Mackey's chat with Rutherford today, the Penguins plan to try Brassard at wing in the top 6. Nothing set in stone that he will definitely be playing there when the season starts or all season, but it is Rutherford/Sullivan's idea to test Brassard at wing in training camp/preseason:

--“That is one option that the coaching staff has talked about,” Rutherford said of Brassard in a top-six role.

--“He’s got the skill level to do it,” Rutherford said of Brassard. “That’s one side of it. The other side of it, he’s never played the wing.

--“When you try something, it doesn’t mean you have to stick with it. You try it. It may work. It may not.”

--“If I had a chance to sign another center who could play wing, I’d do that,” Rutherford said. “It just gives you more depth and more options for the coach.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/penguins/2018/07/12/Penguins-top-six-wing-Derick-Brassard-Jim-Rutherford/stories/201807120216

If Brassard is going to be a top 6 winger, I'd rather just move him for an actual winger who has played actual wing before. Skinner actually plays all 3 forward positions (though he doesn't play much center anymore).....Charlie Coyle plays more wing now, but he started as a center in the NHL. There are probably several more wing/center guys out there available. If Brassard plays likely looking at something like this:

Guentzel-Crosby-Sprong/Simon
Brassard-Malkin-Hornqvist
Hagelin-Sheahan-Kessel
ZAR-Cullen-Rust
xHayes

I'm also starting to think the Simon/Sprong thing too might be the best option. Give Sprong 1st shot, sit him when he goes cold or needs to work on things. A platoon between he and Simon wouldn't be the worst thing.....unless Simon gets really hot and keeps Sprong out longer term.