[Signing] Caps sign Orpik (1 year, $1 million)

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Iggy_12

Doesnt this fall under the Dean Mcammond rule?

No.

The Flames traded McAmmond to Colorado three days prior to the NHL waiver draft. Article 13.36 of the then CBA stated:

A player traded by a club within the four weeks prior to the waiver draft may not be re-acquired by such club within the forthcoming season.

The league initially approved the trade, then realised the error, and permitted it to occur, but McAmmond could not play for Calgary that season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Iggy_12

Doesnt this fall under the Dean Mcammond rule?

Slightly different. The Flames traded McCammond right at the start of the season prior to the waiver draft, then traded for him in March in the same season. That was against the rules then, or, rather it meant he couldn't play for them in season.

"The player technically was not eligible to return to Calgary," Bill Daly, NHL executive vice-president and chief legal officer, said in a statement Friday. "The Flames traded McAmmond to Colorado on Oct. 1, 2002, three days prior to the NHL waiver draft, and Article 13.36 of the collective bargaining agreement states explicitly that 'a player traded by a club within the four weeks prior to the waiver draft may not be re-acquired by such club within the forthcoming season.'

"After becoming aware that the transaction had been concluded in error, we consulted with the clubs involved in the trade and determined that while a reversal of the trade was not required, the player nonetheless will not participate in league play for Calgary for the balance of the season," Daly said.

The reason the rule exists is so teams don't try anything strange at the annual waiver draft, like making pre-arranged deals with teams for players they don't want to lose in the draft.

In the past, some NHL teams would trade a player they didn't want to expose in the waiver draft and then re-acquire him a few weeks later for a low draft pick. In practice, it was called "hiding" players.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/mcam...eason-1.409123

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Team got assets for taking player, player gets bought out, player signs at cheaper contract.

Seems fair game to me.

Team gets out of cap hit, still has player on roster.

Doesn't seem fair game to me.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Team gets out of cap hit, still has player on roster.

Doesn't seem fair game to me.

They had to give up a significant asset.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Team gets out of cap hit, still has player on roster.

Doesn't seem fair game to me.

It's a loophole and a fair one given they gave up assets. Not even sure how the league could prevent this in the future.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It's a loophole and a fair one given they gave up assets. Not even sure how the league could prevent this in the future.

They could make a rule that neither the team that buys out a player or a team that trades a player who gets bought out the next offseason can sign said player as a UFA. They could reduce the latter to teams who trade in the second half of the season or something.

[DoubleK]

My $0.02.

It's full on circumvention and needs to be fixed in the next CBA.

This isn't any better or different than the Kovalchuk-type contracts that were punished by the league.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The league lets teams trade injured players to Arizona - so they can get to the cap floor, other teams clear cap space, and insurance pays for the contract.

Not sure how this is any worse.

Team got assets for taking player, player gets bought out, player signs at cheaper contract.

Seems fair game to me.

I agree. This trade/buyout/signing is not being used to get around waiver rules or get out of recapture penalties and should be allowed. The Caps made a shrewd decision to get less for Grubauer in return for cap savings on Orpik.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I agree. This trade/buyout/signing is not being used to get around waiver rules or get out of recapture penalties and should be allowed. The Caps made a shrewd decision to get less for Grubauer in return for cap savings on Orpik.

But you can argue it is being used to get around the no contract renegotiation and/or salary retention rules as spelled out in the current CBA.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It's a loophole and a fair one given they gave up assets. Not even sure how the league could prevent this in the future.

The ‘No Circumvention’ clause in the CBA pretty much gives the league blanket powers to nix any transaction that occurs solely to exploit a loophole. I believe this is a case where that clause should have been invoked.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The ‘No Circumvention’ clause in the CBA pretty much gives the league blanket powers to nix any transaction that occurs solely to exploit a loophole. I believe this is a case where that clause should have been invoked.

They used it to nix the Kovalchuk contract which was not otherwise against any rule, correct?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They used it to nix the Kovalchuk contract which was not otherwise against any rule, correct?

I believe that is correct.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Capitals keeping most of their SC team intact. They are probably thinking that they can make another push with the same group, which I do not really think will be a problem to make the playoffs and a good run again. They beat some tough teams in the East, there's no reason that they cannot do it again.

[sureLoss]

From Friedman’s 31 thoughts

14. You’ll remember that Washington traded defenceman Brooks Orpik to Colorado at the draft. The Avalanche bought out Orpik from the one season remaining on his contract, and he went back to the Capitals one month later. Savings for Washington: $4 million in cap space. A couple of weeks ago, the league notified the individual clubs that it reviewed the situation, and explained its concerns. Teams viewed the memo as a warning, that if the NHL could make an example of someone, it would.

[yourbestfriend]

It definitely feels like cap circumvention. However, its probably a bit difficult to prove unless the nhl has straight up voice recordings or tangible documentation of collusion.
At the end of the day it's two teams at arms length making independent decisions. Hard to prove otherwise.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

From Friedman’s 31 thoughts

From the same column
"First, a player/agent ask is always high – Draisaitl’s contract is a bit of an outlier compared to his peers"

E=NG

[Coach]

If we could make an example of someone, we would. But not this time. Because.