J
Jalili
Guest
Bates said:
The difference in Buffalo's recapture penalty if Ehrhoff is traded and retires early would be something in the range of $10M vs $3M.
So it's a pretty big deal to trade him.
Miller, Ott traded to STL for Halak, Stewart, +
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
The difference in Buffalo's recapture penalty if Ehrhoff is traded and retires early would be something in the range of $10M vs $3M.
So it's a pretty big deal to trade him.
That cap recapture penalty is awful. Just awful. It doesn't help the players or the owners and really is only there because Bettman is spiteful.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
I doubt they get any other 1st rounders out it. If he doesn't re-sign before the draft or they Blues don't advance, that pick likely remains a 3rd rounder, no matter what else happens.
bustaheims said:
In that case that's a pretty weak clause for Buffalo. Usually when the pick is conditional on a player re-signing it's not for the current draft.
Also, when St. Louis announced the trade on twitter and on their website they made no mention of the pick being conditional, just that it was a 3rd rounder. Maybe they feel the same way I do about the condition
bustaheims said:
With the way the contract is structured (the salary exceeds the AAV in only first 2 years of the contract), it wouldn't be until 2017-18 season before Buffalo's total recapture amount would start to reduce.
If the Sabres were to trade Ehrhoff between now and the start of the 2017-18 season and he were to retire any time after that the they would have $10M of cap recapture penalty over the remaining term of the contract which expires in 2021. That would be the case if he were to remain with the sabres and were to retire before the 2017-18 season.
The recapture number will fall to 9M after 17-18, 6M after 18-19 and 3M after 19-20 if he were to stay with the Sabres.
The acquiring team has no chance of ever facing a material, if any recapture penalty (I'm not sure if a portion of this season's recapture amount will transfer to the acquiring team if Ehrhoff is dealt before the deadline) since the salaries in remaining years are all at or under the AAV.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
The recapture penalty would fall entirely on Buffalo if he's traded, since from this season on, his actual salary is equal to or less than his cap hit. It's only the $10M in cap Buffalo saved in the first two seasons of the contract that create a recapture situation.
For Buffalo, if he's traded this season, the capture penalty would break down like this, depending when he retires:
After this season, Buffalo would have a penalty of ~$1.43M per through 20/21.
After next season, ~$1.67M per through 20/21.
After 15/16, $2M per through 20/21.
After 16/17, $2.5M per through 20/21
After 17/18, $3.33M per through 20/21 (and the team that acquires him gets a benefit of $1M)
After 18/19, $5M per through 20/21 (benefit of $4M for acquiring team)
After 19/20, $10M for 2021, and a benefit of $9M for the acquiring team.
*** I'm not sure how the benefit works out for the other team. I'm not sure it actually has an impact, but, it's information that may be relevant. ***
However, if he stays with Buffalo and retires, the penalties to the Sabres are as such:
After this season: ~$1.43M through 20/21
After next: ~$1.67M through 20/21
15/16: $2M through 20/21
16/17: $2.5M through 20/21
17/18: $3M though 20/21
18/19: $3M through 20/21
19/20: $3M though 20/21
It's unlikely Ehrhoff retires before 17/18, but, after that, it starts to become risky - and that's also where the impact to the Sabres really becomes an issue.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
That would be my guess. Or, possibly, it can be used to offset a buyout penalty. I suppose I can take a look into the CBA to see if there's any clarification there.
EDIT: Looks like there's absolutely nothing gained by receiving a benefit from the recapture. That's what I figured.
So the Sabres did build something else into that clause. Still, if the Blues don't activate that condition through reaching the conference finals I have no idea why they just wouldn't wait until after the draft to make an extension official.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Turns out, the conditions are actually pretty complex.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/29367/re-signing-miller-will-trigger-pick-change
Basically, if the Blues give up the pick because of their success, all they're really doing is trading down from the end of the 1st round to the middle of the 2nd, while gaining a 3rd.
bustaheims
Active member
Jkellyhockey: Doug Armstrong says Jake Allen will be with the Blues next season.
Sounds like the Blues are seriously considering not retaining Miller, as Jake Allen is too good to be a backup. They'll probably look to add someone to work in a platoon with him.
Sounds like the Blues are seriously considering not retaining Miller, as Jake Allen is too good to be a backup. They'll probably look to add someone to work in a platoon with him.
bustaheims said:
He was the AHL's goalie of the year, so yeah they need to either play him or trade him.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Bascially. They're almost certainly not going to commit significant money and term to a guy like Miller when they have Allen poised to take over in net.
ZBBM
Active member
bustaheims said:
Give that man ^^^ a pineapple!
Ryan Miller's short ? and unsuccessful ? tenure with the St. Louis Blues is all but over.
Brian Elliott was signed to a three-year contract extension on Monday by the Blues and general manager Doug Armstrong noted that Jake Allen will be the other goalie in the tandem, leaving Miller as the odd man out.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=452588
And no, he wouldn't be happy backing up Reimer after we deal Bernier for Ovie.
I'm not saying that they should have re-signed Miller, but Elliott/Allen is a pretty meh goalie tandem for one of the best teams in the West.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Going to make a splash for some offensive help?