Thursday, December 06, 2007

Nieds and the CBA - Updated

So I see this quote from Bob McKenzie at TSN:

The Ducks' committed payroll for next season is the issue. With Niedermayer potentially returning, and with another year left on his contract after this season, the Ducks could not add him to the roster now without freeing up cap room for next season. In the new CBA, it's called 'tagging' room and the Ducks don't have enough of it next season to allow Niedermayer back on the roster this season – unless they move a player who is under contract for next season.

And since I'm a geek, I have to figure out what this means. I have a copy of the CBA on my desktop (doesn't everyone?) and I look up this "tagging" rule (50.5(e)(iv)(C)):
In order for a Club to sign such a Player to a multi-year SPC after December 1 of a season, the Club must have Payroll Room equal to or in excess of the Averaged Amount of the Player Salary and Bonuses for the remainder of such season. If, however, the Averaged Amount of the SPC exceeds the Club's Payroll Room for the then-current League Year, the Club may still sign such SPC, provided that it has Payroll Room and, if such Payroll Room is insufficient to acquire the SPC, it has an amount equal to one or more SPCs that will expire at the end of such League Year, in an amount equal to or in excess of the amount by which the Averaged Amount exceeds the Club's Payroll Room (the "Tagged Payroll Room"). Until such time as the Club has or makes Payroll Room in the current year in excess of such Tagged Payroll Room, the Club may not engage in any Player transactions requiring Payroll Room, including but not limited to, acquiring an SPC or "extending" or entering into a new SPC (the "Tagging Rule"). In the event the Club does have or creates such excess Payroll Room, it may use such excess Payroll Room in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

It's like a friggin' obfuscated code contest. But I think I figured it out. The salary cap (around $51M) is actually pro-rated daily for the regular season, 187 days. So now that SN comes back, the Ducks don't pay him his entire $6.75M salary, it's pro-rated for the days he missed. That enables the Ducks to be under the cap this season, even though his average salary puts them over it. But the 'tagging rule' above says that if it's a multi-year deal, which SN's is, the team must also have salary at the end of this year equal to the amount they went over (based on his average salary, not the pro-rated one). If they don't, they need to clear out other players with multi-year deals before Scotty can suit up. I've tried running the numbers, but I don't see the Ducks over the cap this year, even taking SNs average salary cap hit, so I'm confused on that point.

For those wondering, the rule for single-year SPCs (standard player contracts) is that a club can sign them for whatever amount they want, as long as the total amount paid comes in under the cap. So if the Sharks have $1M left under the cap, they could theoretically sign Selanne to a $187M single year contract on the last day of the season, paying him $1M for a single day's work, and come in under the cap. This means the Roger Clemens idea is is full effect- there is no CBA prohibition on joining a team at any point of the season.

Update: It turns out the Ducks also need to pre-calculate the cap for all the years of SN's contract, and given the raises to Getzlaf and Kunitz next year, factoring in SN's numbers, they Ducks will by over. It's seems very odd the Ducks need to correct that overage now, but it is what it is. Thanks for the comments.


Bryce said...


Someone over at Hockeybuzz posted an article about this. Take a look it also gives a short explanation in english.

Mike said...

Crap. I first thought it was based on next year's cap numbers, but I convinced myself otherwise. Oh well.

Nick said...

this year shouldn't be a problem for SN or a potential Selanne, like you've noted it's next year. What i think makes this especially interesting is that they have to move out someone on a multiyear contract to free up around $3m of net year space.

This means that the players being talked about are schneider (possible), Beauchamin (in my opinion unlikely), or Marchant (what i'm sure they'd like to do but will be hard to move, plus they'd still need a little more after that).

just adding my 2 cents worth

Mike said...

Thanks guys... I'm going to fix some stuff in the post.

Jeremy said...

I still don't know how the numbers are calculated, but Bob McK has the Ducks needing to dump just under a Million in salary - and that greatly opens up who they could move.
Also, with regard to Selanne, check the CBA about veteran players, incentive contracts, and the cap. It is my understanding that players over 35 can have incentive-laden contracts, and the cap doesn't matter (to an extent). I believe teams can go up to 10% over the cap with these sort of deals. So if Teemu wants to come back, no problem.

Can'tStoptheGrier said...

Clearing one million in cap room allows them to just get under - but then the team will be so strapped that if someone got hurt or they wanted to add a player at the deadline, they couldn't.

I still say Schneider is changing homes.

Nick said...

A few more things I've picked up because I find this scenario very interesting:

Getzlaf has his extension, 5 yr 26.625 mill. Next year's cap hit should be 4.5 mill.

This means before adding SN or a perry extension the ducks cap hit for next year is at 46.5 mill. Adding SN's 6.75 takes that to 53.75 mill, a little over 3 mill over the cap this year (the space they need to clear).

I agree that this means Scheider has to go. If it was just a matter of getting SN under it could be someone else but they need room to sign perry as well as a number of other FAs (if they were all resigned for the same amount as this year it would be a total of around 5.5 mill). His cap hit is 5.75 mill and would be the best step toward doing this, but ultimately 2 million won't go that far and before next season more things should change.

However if SN ACTUALLY retired at the end of the season they could hold off on other resignings and hope edmonton keeps their hands off perry in RFA.

Anonymous said...

Should there be a Salary Cap in English Football?
Personally I think there should be! It’s just getting to be stupid money in football at the top of the premiership!
It’s always the same teams at the top proving that football success is based purely on money which ruins the idea of it being a sport! They’ve done it in rugby, basketball, hockey and American football and it makes the sports more competitive and better to watch!
I do a little Spread Betting from time to time and most matches don’t hold much surprise who is going to win, its boring! I want to see a team at the bottom pulling off an amazing season beating last seasons winners in a close fought battle!
Make things fair! It shouldn’t be about money!
All there is all that money in the premiership and barely any of it stays in the UK so it’s not even helping the economy!
From my Spread Betting, if I ever win big (which is never, I’m unlucky) it’s still nothing compared to the average premiership players weekly wage!
This Rant was brought to you by Spread Betting Spike.