Mike Richards Waived

[AJgoal]

Per Bob McKenzie: LA puts Mike Richards on waivers. Also, NJ puts Tim Sestito on waivers  

 

Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie)  https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/559761732290502656
 

 

Oof.

[jammer2]

  According to the guys on Leafs lunch, if Richards retires ie no one picks him up, Philly is on the hook for the rest of his contract.

[JackStraw]

@AJgoal - Wow. That's a shocker.

 

@jammer2 - Why?

[radoran]

@jammer2 - Why?

 

I think it is the new "cap advantage recapture" clause.

 

  According to the guys on Leafs lunch, if Richards retires ie no one picks him up, Philly is on the hook for the rest of his contract.

 

I can just about guarandamntee you that there will be such a wailing and gnashing of teeth that they "grandfather" it in that they don't have to.

 

They made the deal before the rule came into effect. I doubt that they make the deal if they knew that another team could stick them with a cap hit a few years later.

 

Of course, this is the NHL so anything is possible...

[AJgoal]

@jammer2, that doesn't make a lick of sense. AFAIK, there's no provision for that sort of thing at all. Cap recapture would apply, but it would hit LA significantly more than the Flyers, if it hit them at all (I can't remember if he played for them under his current contract or not).

 

OK, yeah. Richards played 3 seasons for the Flyers under this contract, so the Flyers will get dinged with a cap recapture penalty - But it won't be too bad because the seasons he played for them he was payed right around his cap hit - 5.4, 5.6, 6.4 million vs. 5.75 - they only saved 150k against the cap.

[jammer2]

Even the guys on Leafs Lunch were not totally sure, but they were pointing to the Vancouver and Luongo situation as an example. They said 100% that if Luongo retires early, that the Canucks are gonna get hit with the rest of Luongo's cap hit, because they signed him to the deal. Using this theory, both the Flyers signed Richards and Canucks signed Luongo before this recapute clause in the CBA was put into effect. Thus, both teams are on the hook. I don't think there is any Grandfathering in of this thing, if you singed a player, you're responsible.....as idiotic as that sounds.

[hf101]

So which team claims Richards?  Buffalo?  or a playoff bound team like Florida or Nashville?

 

If he isn't claimed which is what the Kings are hoping for, he'll probably be sent to the Monarchs and can be brought up for the playoffs.

 

Lombardi rolled the dice by not buying him out last summer... looks like he lost.

[radoran]

Even the guys on Leafs Lunch were not totally sure, but they were pointing to the Vancouver and Luongo situation as an example. They said 100% that if Luongo retires early, that the Canucks are gonna get hit with the rest of Luongo's cap hit, because they signed him to the deal. Using this theory, both the Flyers signed Richards and Canucks signed Luongo before this recapute clause in the CBA was put into effect. Thus, both teams are on the hook. I don't think there is any Grandfathering in of this thing, if you singed a player, you're responsible.....as idiotic as that sounds.

 

Luongo was traded after the restrictions of the new CBA were established.

 

Mike Richards (and Jeff Crater) are/were not.

[JackStraw]

Even the guys on Leafs Lunch were not totally sure, but they were pointing to the Vancouver and Luongo situation as an example. They said 100% that if Luongo retires early, that the Canucks are gonna get hit with the rest of Luongo's cap hit, because they signed him to the deal. Using this theory, both the Flyers signed Richards and Canucks signed Luongo before this recapute clause in the CBA was put into effect. Thus, both teams are on the hook. I don't think there is any Grandfathering in of this thing, if you singed a player, you're responsible.....as idiotic as that sounds.

 

Fwiw, Bobby Mac tweeted that LA would get hit, not the Flyers.

[Podein25]

Even the guys on Leafs Lunch were not totally sure, but they were pointing to the Vancouver and Luongo situation as an example. They said 100% that if Luongo retires early, that the Canucks are gonna get hit with the rest of Luongo's cap hit, because they signed him to the deal. Using this theory, both the Flyers signed Richards and Canucks signed Luongo before this recapute clause in the CBA was put into effect. Thus, both teams are on the hook. I don't think there is any Grandfathering in of this thing, if you singed a player, you're responsible.....as idiotic as that sounds.

McKenzie is saying Kings would be on the hook. I trust him to be right.

Crazy

[hf101]

@TSNBobMcKenzie

If Richards clears waivers, sent to AHL, $925K of $5.75M cap hit comes off LA's cap. So Richards would represent $4.825M of dead cap space.

 

 

In other words, Lombardi is hoping Richie is claimed.

[AJgoal]

Huh. According to the former Capgeek, if the trade occurred prior to the new CBA, the first team is on the hook for the entirety. Not sure how that makes sense, but looks like the Leafs guys are partially right. Also, negative years don't seem to count - so years where the team took a higher cap hit than the salary paid don't seem to negate portions of the higher hit (Richards first two seasons under the contract and 2012).

 

So the Flyers would get hit for 4.9 million over 5 years - .92 million a season, IF Richards were to retire after this season.

 

And it's already been done with Kovalchuk, so don't expect it to be rescinded.

[radoran]

And it's already been done with Kovalchuk, so don't expect it to be rescinded.

 

Kovalchuk was a situation where the team who signed him is the team he's retiring from - not after a trade as with the Luongo situation or with Richards.

 

I concur that your postulation is probably correct, but given that this is the NHL...

 

anything is possible.

[AJgoal]

I meant the rule in general. You, as usual, are correct in correcting me with your distinction. Jerk  

[pilldoc]

Wow.......

 

has his play dropped that dramatically??  Can you imagine Richards going back to the AHL?????

[jammer2]

  Let's hope Bobby Mac is right about his tweet. Like rad said this *is* the NHL we are talking about. What other sport would even dream on penalizing you on a contract given out 5 or 6 years before the "recapture" provision was included?

[AJgoal]

The funny thing is that Richards' contract isn't all that greivous as far as cap savings go. Only 5 of the 12 years had a cap advantage, and last year was the biggest salary/cap difference at just under 2 million. His last four years are exact cap/salary matches.

[radoran]

I meant the rule in general. You, as usual, are correct in correcting me with your distinction. Jerk  

 

It's also a different thing than "Philly is on the hook for the rest of his contract."

 

$.92M is not quite the same as $5.75M

[AJgoal]

It's also a different thing than "Philly is on the hook for the rest of his contract."

 

$.92M is not quite the same as $5.75M

 

Absolutely. I don't know how that idea came about. Maybe someone confused some of the specifics, since the rcapture penalty is charged equally over the remainder of the contract?

[radoran]

Absolutely. I don't know how that idea came about. Maybe someone confused some of the specifics, since the rcapture penalty is charged equally over the remainder of the contract?

 

I was initially reacting to jammer's post. Then we got down into the weeds details.

 

[AJgoal]

So was I. Oh well, it's all speculation until he actually retires.

[ruxpin]

Who knew I would need a degree in actuarial science to continue to be a hockey fan.

 

 

Btw, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.  

First, to punish the original team at all is bizarre to me.  It seems to me that is the contract the new team acquired.  Part of that should be dealing with the consequences of that contract.   Don't like it, don't acquire it.

Second, if the contract preceded the new CBA, the penalty should not apply.  

 

I'm not saying it doesn't apply (I didn't do the actuarial science thing).  I'm just saying it shouldn't. 

[idahophilly]

Homer's contract to Richards is the gift that keeps on giving....

[AJgoal]

The layout of the rule doesn't make a lot of sense. Why the differentiation between trades that occured before and after the new CBA?

 

EDIT: We're wandering significantly off topic here. Richards hasn't retired, to the best of my knowledge. The cap recapture penalty is really its own discussion unrelated to his being waived.

[radoran]

I'm not saying it doesn't apply (I didn't do the actuarial science thing). I'm just saying it shouldn't.

 

THIS IS ALL PURELY HYPOTHETICAL because these sorts of deals aren't allowed any more.

 

But... just to play devil's advocate here (not that you really need an advocate but, just saying...)

 

Team A signs a guy to 12 years, $5.75M per. Heavily front loaded - this isn't exactly the Richards contract. Team A gets the cap benefit of having a "$7M" player on their team for six years while paying him $9M with a cap hit of $5.75M*.

 

Player shows signs of slowing down, so Team A trades him to Team B who is looking for "big name to put butts in seats"

 

Under contract terms, Team B is paying him close to or below cap hit number.

 

Player's game falls off cliff in Y9 and he retires.

 

Who gets the cap penalty in this scenario? The team who benefitted from the cap shenanigans or the team who traded for him but was paying "actual value" or taking a higher cap hit than actual salary?

 

If Team A traded Player and Team B traded for Player knowing that this cap recapture penalty was in place, they both knew what they were getting into.

 

If the trade happened before the penalty was put in place and neither team knew that they would be subject to a penalty, how can you penalize either of them?

 

 

 

* I don't know if these numbers "work" - I'm not an actuarial scientist