[Rumour] UPD: Kings working to finalize release of Kovalchuk

[Vansmack]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Isn't this a 35+ contract? How can they just get rid of it with no cap implications?

Does a release imply that they get cap relief? They have a lot of cap space anyways, so I don't think it will make much of a difference.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by dammage79

We can do better. Kovalchuk would have been great before Neal. But Kovalchuk dont want no Canadian team sweater.

Toffoli is about the only thing of interest to me from L.A

Trudat! Kovalchuk would only become another overpaid Brouwer or Neal! Toffoli still have some usable years left and right handed. Flames could use some more depth on right handed right wing. Toffoli has better size than Czarnik.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Vansmack

Does a release imply that they get cap relief? They have a lot of cap space anyways, so I don't think it will make much of a difference.

But then why would the 35+ rule exist then? If a player retires, just terminate the contract instead and then "retire", with no cap implications?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But then why would the 35+ rule exist then? If a player retires, just terminate the contract instead and then "retire", with no cap implications?

I think both parties can agree to Mutually Terminate a contract.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Hes

I think both parties can agree to Mutually Terminate a contract.

So the 35+ rule is just nothing then? Exists for no reason?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But then why would the 35+ rule exist then? If a player retires, just terminate the contract instead and then "retire", with no cap implications?

You completely ignored the meat of his comment: You are assuming without evidence that mutually terminating the contract will get the Kings out from under the cap hit.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So the 35+ rule is just nothing then? Exists for no reason?

35 + rule is for retiring players. He is likely just going back to Russia and not formally retiring.

[getbak]

Has anyone suggested it would have no cap implications?

It's a 35+ contract, so the cap hit should count no matter what. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

[GioforPM]

If a player signs a multi-year contract after he's 35, the Cap Hit will count for the entire length of the contract even if he retires. The Cap Hit will stay with whoever the player belongs to when he retires. In your example, if Marleau was traded to Arizona and then retired with a year left on his contract, Arizona would have the the full Cap Hit for the remaining year.



https://puckpedia.com/salary-cap/ans...hit-if-retires

[TheScorpion]

I was under the impression that the 35+ rule existed for retiring players and buyouts, in which case the full financial measure of the contract remains on the team's cap hit for the initially agreed-upon duration.

I'm not 100% sure if that also applies to contract terminations, seeing as there's not a whole lot of precedent, but I'm pretty sure that the 35+ rule has no explicit exemption as it pertains to terminations.

What might be happening here is the Kings could be working to offload the contract to a cap space-rich team like the Senators after the bonus is paid. Then, both sides would agree to mutually terminate the contract. Kovalchuk would then return to Russia or opt to sign elsewhere in the NHL for a more reasonable salary and term. I believe he would no longer be being paid by the terminating team, but the full balance of the cap hit would remain on their books.

[TheScorpion]

Sounds like the situation is far from being resolved:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1194686191611908096

https://twitter.com/user/status/1194686330728529920

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Hes

35 + rule is for retiring players. He is likely just going back to Russia and not formally retiring.

So no different than Datsyuk, who left in 2016 to play in Russia but had a year remaining on his contract. His contract still hit the cap the next season.

I'm assuming then that this Kovalchuk contract will still count against the cap for this and next season

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I was under the impression that the 35+ rule existed for retiring players and buyouts, in which case the full financial measure of the contract remains on the team's cap hit for the initially agreed-upon duration.

I'm not 100% sure if that also applies to contract terminations, seeing as there's not a whole lot of precedent, but I'm pretty sure that the 35+ rule has no explicit exemption as it pertains to terminations.

What might be happening here is the Kings could be working to offload the contract to a cap space-rich team like the Senators after the bonus is paid. Then, both sides would agree to mutually terminate the contract. Kovalchuk would then return to Russia or opt to sign elsewhere in the NHL for a more reasonable salary and term. I believe he would no longer be being paid by the terminating team, but the full balance of the cap hit would remain on their books.

Yeah, I guess the Sens could agree to do that in exchange for another asset. They could then also buy him out and save some actual cash.

Or maybe that's what LA is negotiating - a non buyout buyout, so to speak. They aren't up against the Cap either and are in a rebuild so unlikely to be in cap jail next year, so maybe it's just a pure cash consideration.

[powderjunkie]

Only 5.9 years left on his 15 year deal with NJD