[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You must not have checked it recently. Capgeek changed it in early March when they got confirmation from the NHL on how the rule was to be implemented.

I checked it several times around the trade deadline at the end of March, it wasn't changed then.

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's how I assumed it worked when I first heard about it as well, but I've seen no evidence of that other than my initial interpretation of the rule. Given that the people at Capgeek have actually spoken to people involved in creating and implementing the rule I'm inclined to defer to them until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. They have good sources on these matters and off the top of my head I can't think of a CBA matter that they've been wrong about in the past.

I don't think it's absurd to think that the NHL wants to punish teams above and beyond any benefit they gained. Bettman has made it quite clear that he wanted to crush these contracts and the negotiations were largely being run by teams that aren't affected by the rule.

The problem with that way of thinking is that teams get punished more for recieving less cap benefit. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that it would have been negotiated that way any one of the parties, much less approved in a vote by either side.

The way Capgeek was initially (and I've tried to explain), the math worked out completely, so that the cap hit reductions that were gained by teams would be brought to a net of zero, which makes complete sense, in that it's called a "recapture" clause.

The way it's showing now, and being talked about in this thread, the math doesn't work out to net zero. Also, the heaviest "penalties" would be reserved for teams that received the least benefit.

Here's the summary of terms, from the NHLPA website:

For all existing SPCs with terms in excess of six (6) years (“long-term contracts”), a “Cap Advantage
Recapture” provision will become applicable. Specifically, for years in which the Player under a
long-term contract is no longer playing in the League by reason of retirement, “defection” from the
NHL or otherwise (such that he is not playing and is not receiving Salary pursuant to the terms of
his SPC), any “Cap Advantage” that may have been gained by a Club during the time the Player
was playing in the League under his SPC (defined as the amount by which a Player’s actual cash
compensation exceeds his full Averaged Amount (“AA”)), both annually and in the aggregate, will be
“Recaptured,” and charged against the Club’s Upper Limit from year-to-year in equal amounts over the remaining term of the Player’s SPC.
If the contract in question is ever traded or assigned to one or more other Clubs in the League, each
Club will be subject to being charged with any and all “Cap Advantage” amounts it receives while
being obligated pursuant the contract.
The “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will not apply to “Cap Advantage” amounts a Club may
have gained prior to trading a Player’s contract, where such trade occurred before the execution of
the new Agreement (including any binding MOU).
On a “bona fide”mid-season retirement, the Cap Advantage Recapture charge shall begin accruing
in the following League Year. The parties shall discuss the treatment of a Cap Advantage
Recapture charge in the case of a retirement “orchestrated” for the sole purpose of delaying the cap
charge to the following year

I don't think that's unclear at all. Pretty black and white to me.