Clarkson for horton

[Kin]

Interesting. So in this situation we get a pick/prospect and then could deal the player at the deadline for more assets.

I think that if the player we could get back in that sort of trade could just be flipped for more assets then the team in a cap crunch would do that themselves. This is about taking back players who would have very little value.

 

[Kin]

To me, that type of transaction has been available since the beginning of the 1st cap era CBA. Aug 2005 Flyers trade Roenick and a 3rd to LA for "future considerations" ... which was maybe a hot dog. The Flyers paid LA a 3rd to take Roenick's contract off their hands.

Franson and Lombardi for Lebda & an AHLer was arguably another such deal (because Lombardi was badly concussed at the time and had more time on his contract the Preds, like the Blue Jackets, didn't want to get stuck with).

I think Burke did one a while back - effectively took a one way AHL contract for a 6th or something like that.

So yes, they could literally buy some assets (picks or prospects) with the cap cash they just freed up and they should be seriously looking at doing so.

Yeah, I wasn't so much asking if it was possible as I was wondering what value the contract might have. There's a part of me that wonders if the NHL would love the optics of Horton's deal getting dealt around as it's kind of a different scenario than the ones you mention but if the NHL approved this deal you'd figure they'd approve any other deals for Horton.

 

[Frank E]

To me, that type of transaction has been available since the beginning of the 1st cap era CBA. Aug 2005 Flyers trade Roenick and a 3rd to LA for "future considerations" ... which was maybe a hot dog. The Flyers paid LA a 3rd to take Roenick's contract off their hands.

Franson and Lombardi for Lebda & an AHLer was arguably another such deal (because Lombardi was badly concussed at the time and had more time on his contract the Preds, like the Blue Jackets, didn't want to get stuck with).

I think Burke did one a while back - effectively took a one way AHL contract for a 6th or something like that.

So yes, they could literally buy some assets (picks or prospects) with the cap cash they just freed up and they should be seriously looking at doing so.

Yeah, I wasn't so much asking if it was possible as I was wondering what value the contract might have. There's a part of me that wonders if the NHL would love the optics of Horton's deal getting dealt around as it's kind of a different scenario than the ones you mention but if the NHL approved this deal you'd figure they'd approve any other deals for Horton.

I'm just guessing here, but I think there was a "It's Columbus" factor taken into account here.  A struggling budget minded team with a big anchor contract that could impede their ability to get competitive is a problem for the league...albeit Columbus signed the guy, but his back wasn't known to be an issue to anyone.

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

 

[bustaheims]

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

The precedent has been set and, unless the league can come up with specific sections of the CBA it violates (of which, there are none), there's nothing they can really do about it.

 

[Frank E]

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

The precedent has been set and, unless the league can come up with specific sections of the CBA it violates (of which, there are none), there's nothing they can really do about it.

Well, they figured out a way to punish technically-legal circumvention innovators before. 

 

[Redleaf]

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

The precedent has been set and, unless the league can come up with specific sections of the CBA it violates (of which, there are none), there's nothing they can really do about it.

Yep. Just like the real world. The rich get richer.

It's funny, when they implemented the cap, teams like the Leafs and Rangers were supposed to lose all the advantages they had in the past, or at least that was the idea. But we're finding out, it's imposible to completely keep the rich clubs from finding one way or another to still flex their financial muscles.

It still pains me to no end that prior to the cap, the Leafs never figured out how to put together a winner when they were allowed to spend as much money as they wanted to basically buy a cup.

 

[rdowdall]

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

The precedent has been set and, unless the league can come up with specific sections of the CBA it violates (of which, there are none), there's nothing they can really do about it.

But isn't there the all encompassing "Thou shall not circumvent the cap" clause in the CBA?  Also, back diving contracts started out, and then when they started to become more common, the league stepped and put a stop to it.  So yes, this has happened once, but if it becomes common place, then they may put a stop to it. 

 

[Highlander]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

 

[sneakyray]

sorry for no link but I saw a tweet that quoted bill daly as saying that every trade is subject to league approval and this one was approved so the league doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[sneakyray]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

 

[Highlander]

In reality, how many guys are on long term disabled like Horton and Savard.  This is going to be a gem in the rough opportunity and glad the Leafs exploited it in this case and may be able to flip for prospects or picks.
Dont see how the league could stop us from doing some kind of deal with Chicago that desperately needs the relief.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Has there ever been a trade the league has vetoed? 

 

[rdowdall]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

But it's a cap circumvention that can cause the cap to get out of whack because as long as the bad contract is with Blue Jackets they are not going to go out and sign another player to a 5 million dollar contract.  Now that that the Leafs have 5 million more to go over the cap, they could conceivably go out and sign another player to 5 million.  That's an extra 5 million dollar contract that would not have existed if Clarkson had stayed in Toronto.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

But it's a cap circumvention that can cause the cap to get out of whack because as long as the bad contract is with Blue Jackets they are not going to go out and sign another player to a 5 million dollar contract.  Now that that the Leafs have 5 million more to go over the cap, they could conceivably go out and sign another player to 5 million.  That's an extra 5 million dollar contract that would not have existed if Clarkson had stayed in Toronto.

How is it cap circumvention?  If the Blue Jackets don't make the deal they still have a bad contract (Horton's) but are unable to spend to improve their team because they can't afford it like the Leafs can.  How are you circumventing the cap to swap contracts? Just because one is on LTIR?  The Blue Jackets accepted that it was worth more to have Clarkson in the lineup with his hit rather than Horton out of it without the hit. What's being circumvented?

 

[TML fan]

Columbus can't go out and spend an extra $5 million on another player anyway.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

But it's a cap circumvention that can cause the cap to get out of whack because as long as the bad contract is with Blue Jackets they are not going to go out and sign another player to a 5 million dollar contract.  Now that that the Leafs have 5 million more to go over the cap, they could conceivably go out and sign another player to 5 million.  That's an extra 5 million dollar contract that would not have existed if Clarkson had stayed in Toronto.

How is it cap circumvention?  If the Blue Jackets don't make the deal they still have a bad contract (Horton's) but are unable to spend to improve their team because they can't afford it like the Leafs can.  How are you circumventing the cap to swap contracts? Just because one is on LTIR?  The Blue Jackets accepted that it was worth more to have Clarkson in the lineup with his hit rather than Horton out of it without the hit. What's being circumvented?

You are giving the Leafs the ability to spend over the cap.  They did not have the ability to do so before the trade.  Through the use of their extra revenue, they have bought the ability to spend more money on players.  The Leafs cap is now essentially 75 million as opposed to 70 million, which it wasn't before.  It's the same situation as how some people complain about the fact that Pronger hasn't retired yet because if he does, then that puts the Flyers in cap hell.

 

[TML fan]

So, would it be better to just tell poor teams not to try and improve if they can't get insured contracts? Because that's the only other alternative. For Columbus to just not sign anyone because they might get injured and they can't afford the real dollar amount it costs to pay someone to not play.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

But it's a cap circumvention that can cause the cap to get out of whack because as long as the bad contract is with Blue Jackets they are not going to go out and sign another player to a 5 million dollar contract.  Now that that the Leafs have 5 million more to go over the cap, they could conceivably go out and sign another player to 5 million.  That's an extra 5 million dollar contract that would not have existed if Clarkson had stayed in Toronto.

How is it cap circumvention?  If the Blue Jackets don't make the deal they still have a bad contract (Horton's) but are unable to spend to improve their team because they can't afford it like the Leafs can.  How are you circumventing the cap to swap contracts? Just because one is on LTIR?  The Blue Jackets accepted that it was worth more to have Clarkson in the lineup with his hit rather than Horton out of it without the hit. What's being circumvented?

You are giving the Leafs the ability to spend over the cap.  They did not have the ability to do so before the trade.  Through the use of their extra revenue, they have bought the ability to spend more money on players.  The Leafs cap is now essentially 75 million as opposed to 70 million, which it wasn't before.  It's the same situation as how some people complain about the fact that Pronger hasn't retired yet because if he does, then that puts the Flyers in cap hell.

But how is that cap circumvention if the CBA allows for that to happen?  That would seem to be the opposite of cap circumvention and instead be using the cap and the CBA rules to your advantage.

 

[Highlander]

So what happens if Horton retires, I would have thought that if Pronger retires, that settles the deal in regards to cap with Flyers? Sorry don't know the rules on this