Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
I think CapGeek has grossly misinterpreted how this will be done. It doesn't make any sense to penalize a team worse if a player plays 9/10 of his contract than if he plays 6/10 of it.
I believe that when the league says a team won't receive a credit for a negative cap benefit it means that if a player is traded part-way through the contract, and at the end when the recapture is calculated, one team's recapture amount is less than zero, they won't receive a cap bonus for the negative recapture.
To really get an idea of how absurd that calculator is, look at Ovechkin. He has a 13 year contract that pays $9M per year for the first 6 years, and $10M per year for the final 7 years. Using the calculator, if he retired after playing 12 years of the contract, the recapture penalty would be $2.769M. The problem is that the way his contract is structured, the Capitals never receive any cap advantage on it. After 12 years, he will have been paid $114M, and the total charged against the cap will have been $114.46M. Somehow, they would be penalized nearly $3 million despite having negative cap benefit.
How it should work is to take the total amount the player has been paid and subtract the total amount that has been charged to the cap. If there is a positive difference, the amount is divided by the number of years remaining on the contract at the time of the player's retirement, and that's the total recapture value. That number would be split proportionally between all of the teams who received some cap hit benefit from the contract.
|
Capgeek had the rule confirmed by the NHL. They could still be wrong, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.
The league wanted to declare war on long term contracts and they did it.