Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
We'd like to clarify a point from our previous tweet in which we refer to Berglund's contract termination as being "mutual", based on info we've received.
Contract termination is almost never mutual, in that the player is not required to sign-off on his own termination.
What if he agrees to sign-off? Does that not indicate both parties can move on?
That would be great, LOL
ESQ wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:06 pm
Richards never played again, LA paid him something still owed on his contract to settle the PA's grievance, and the Kings had a greatly reduced cap recapture hit - which expires this year, actually.
Mike Richards' cap recapture penalty was not reduced.
Twas the cost of a normal buyout that was reduced.
ESQ wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:06 pm
Richards never played again, LA paid him something still owed on his contract to settle the PA's grievance, and the Kings had a greatly reduced cap recapture hit - which expires this year, actually.
Mike Richards' cap recapture penalty was not reduced.
Twas the cost of a normal buyout that was reduced.
It's important to note that cap recapture penalties are never reduced or eliminated.
I corrected Rikster the other day when he said something similar about Kovalchuk's recapture penalty.
If a recapture-eligible player has his contract terminated or he retires (non-LTIR)
... the full recapture penalty is applied in all circumstances.
I defer to you, I assumed it was reduced because the cap hit is so low, but the Richards contract was pyramid shaped instead of front-loaded, which greatly reduced the cap recapture.
ESQ wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:04 pm
I defer to you, I assumed it was reduced because the cap hit is so low, but the Richards contract was pyramid shaped instead of front-loaded, which greatly reduced the cap recapture.
Yeah, if you look at the Richards contract, you'll see the math works:
Nick Kypreos
@RealKyper
Milan Lucic days as a
@EdmontonOilers
are over. With Lucic waving his no move clause it opens up the trade to
@NHLFlames
. At this point sounding like a 1 for 1 trade for James Neal.
@NHL
12:33 PM · Jul 19, 2019 ·
Neal has 4 years left at $5.75M. Looch has 4 years left at $6M.
Neal stands a better chance of keeping up with Edmonton's top-6 forwards in terms of speed, but that's about it.
I feel like Calgary is making out like gangbusters here. They get stronger, scarier (in the scrums), and are managing to get Edmonton to retain salary AND pay them a pick!
I thought Ken Holland was supposed to right the ship.....not take the final masthead below the waves with his first course correction.
Mëds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:04 pm
This one is a head scratcher.
Neal has 4 years left at $5.75M. Looch has 4 years left at $6M.
Neal stands a better chance of keeping up with Edmonton's top-6 forwards in terms of speed, but that's about it.
I feel like Calgary is making out like gangbusters here. They get stronger, scarier (in the scrums), and are managing to get Edmonton to retain salary AND pay them a pick!
I thought Ken Holland was supposed to right the ship.....not take the final masthead below the waves with his first course correction.
I think the opposite, I wonder if Calpuck is having a meltdown acquiring the slower Lucic, while Neal has more rebound opportunity to score again.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Mëds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:04 pm
This one is a head scratcher.
Neal has 4 years left at $5.75M. Looch has 4 years left at $6M.
Neal stands a better chance of keeping up with Edmonton's top-6 forwards in terms of speed, but that's about it.
I feel like Calgary is making out like gangbusters here. They get stronger, scarier (in the scrums), and are managing to get Edmonton to retain salary AND pay them a pick!
I thought Ken Holland was supposed to right the ship.....not take the final masthead below the waves with his first course correction.
I think the opposite, I wonder if Calpuck is having a meltdown acquiring the slower Lucic, while Neal has more rebound opportunity to score again.
I agree - this isn't a good deal for Calgary. There had better be more to it than just Lucic for Neal. Salary retention by Edmonton and a decent draft pick at least. Otherwise, Treliving has shit the bed on this one.
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it" - Yogi Berra
Neal has little competition for a top six spot, he should do much better in Edmonton.
Calgary doesn’t need Lucic to be much more than a grinder, so that is better for him too.
Might be a good trade for both teams, but Lucic is more likely to bust because he is quite slow now.
BCExpat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:18 pm
I agree - this isn't a good deal for Calgary. There had better be more to it than just Lucic for Neal. Salary retention by Edmonton and a decent draft pick at least. Otherwise, Treliving has shit the bed on this one.
Rumour: Neal for Lucic. Oilers retain 10% of Lucic salary.