EHM The Blue Line

I usualy offer front loaded contract to UFA. I really dont know if it's more effective than a regular contract but yeah, i still do it. With the 98-99 DB i've offered a foward a 3 years contract with a salary breakdown like this : 2 000 000 / 1 300 000 / 1 000 000 + singing bonus so the average cap hit would be 1.5 millions.

On the last year of his contract i've traded him. After a while i've looked at his cap hit it was 1 222 222 (1 million of his final year + singning bonus / 3).

Any one had this issue?

ujlien wrote:I usualy offer front loaded contract to UFA. I really dont know if it's more effective than a regular contract but yeah, i still do it. With the 98-99 DB i've offered a foward a 3 years contract with a salary breakdown like this : 2 000 000 / 1 300 000 / 1 000 000 + singing bonus so the average cap hit would be 1.5 millions.

On the last year of his contract i've traded him. After a while i've looked at his cap hit it was 1 222 222 (1 million of his final year + singning bonus / 3).

Any one had this issue?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "issue" - what are you expecting it to be?
The 1998 DB uses the 2006 Rule Set (and not the 2014 or 2015 Rule Set).....maybe that's why it's not what you expected?

So you mean it's normal?
Sorry for my first post i was at my job so could not provide any proof but here it is :
before

after


Back in the days i did not know the cba as i do now. So you're telling me that a team that acquire a player X, his salary would count as the cap hit?

What happen happen if he had two years left on the contract? would it be an average between the two years?

Also in the screenshot, you can see that the singing bonus wasn't even counted.

ujlien wrote:So you mean it's normal?.......Back in the days i did not know the cba as i do now. So you're telling me that a team that acquire a player X, his salary would count as the cap hit?.......What happen happen if he had two years left on the contract? would it be an average between the two years?

Sorry, I don't know, hopefully someone else who does will answer (while I know lots about the inner workings of EHM and editing EHM, I've never "known" the CBA as I lost interest in IRL hockey back in the 90s)

2005 CBA- http://letsgopens.com/NHL-2005-CBA.pdf (just 450 pages to read...)

On page 222 it starts talking about average contracts and cap hits. I see this as a bug... but I only combed the CBA.

The only exception I saw (which isn't applicable) would be if part of the contract was before 2005.

That's weird. It seems like a bug.

Because modern hockey/CBAs/etc is "not my world" HaHa - could someone please explain exactly what is happening that's wrong & exactly what's supposed to be happening instead? Thanks!

nino33 wrote:Because modern hockey/CBAs/etc is "not my world" HaHa - could someone please explain exactly what is happening that's wrong & exactly what's supposed to be happening instead? Thanks!

With the current CBA (post 2012-13) when a trade occur the teams keep the CAP HIT of the whole contract on their respective salary expense. Regardless of his annual salary or how many years lefts on the contract. With my example Scott Pellerin should have carry his 1.8 millions $ cap hit to Montreal when I traded him.

ujlien wrote:

nino33 wrote:Because modern hockey/CBAs/etc is "not my world" HaHa - could someone please explain exactly what is happening that's wrong & exactly what's supposed to be happening instead? Thanks!

With the current CBA (post 2012-13) when a trade occur the teams keep the CAP HIT of the whole contract on their respective salary expense. Regardless of his annual salary or how many years lefts on the contract. With my example Scott Pellerin should have carry his 1.8 millions $ cap hit to Montreal when I traded him.

Except the 1998 database uses the 2006 ruleset (as nino stated earlier). So to me, I don't see a problem. The database isn't using the the current CBA rules that you're referencing, it's using the 2006 CBA rules.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here.

Primis wrote:

ujlien wrote:

nino33 wrote:Because modern hockey/CBAs/etc is "not my world" HaHa - could someone please explain exactly what is happening that's wrong & exactly what's supposed to be happening instead? Thanks!

With the current CBA (post 2012-13) when a trade occur the teams keep the CAP HIT of the whole contract on their respective salary expense. Regardless of his annual salary or how many years lefts on the contract. With my example Scott Pellerin should have carry his 1.8 millions $ cap hit to Montreal when I traded him.

Except the 1998 database uses the 2006 ruleset (as nino stated earlier). So to me, I don't see a problem. The database isn't using the the current CBA rules that you're referencing, it's using the 2006 CBA rules.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here.

I didn't think it was that way in the 2005 CBA either, but I can't find anything either way within the CBA. But, I can't claim to really have paid that much attention to the minor detail of cap its on traded players with variable salary amounts year to year, lol.

I would say we should look at anyone else who is playing with the 2006 rules ('05 CBA) and see if it's always doing that. I suppose if I feel up to it- it's probably not a hard test to GM two teams, get a guy to sign a variable salary contract then trade him in year 2.

Maybe I'm not understanding (highly possible/this is not "my world") but this article seems to indicate it's not Cap Hit that was considered with the 2005 CBA, and this is something that's changed with the latest CBA http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

The article (from January 13, 2013) says "With the NHL lockout settled, hockey fans wait with breathless anticipation for the League’s owners and general managers to find a way to subvert, cheat and undercut the rules they’ve just helped establish.......It’ll be like the cap-circumventing contracts of the last several years, which violated the spirit of the salary cap and created a world where Ilya Kovalchuk makes $7 million in 2018, $1 million in 2020 and $4 million in 2024" - I get the impression that the 2005 CBA looked at Salary and not Cap Hit

nino33 wrote:Maybe I'm not understanding (highly possible/this is not "my world") but this article seems to indicate it's not Cap Hit that was considered with the 2005 CBA, and this is something that's changed with the latest CBA http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

The article (from January 13, 2013) says "With the NHL lockout settled, hockey fans wait with breathless anticipation for the League’s owners and general managers to find a way to subvert, cheat and undercut the rules they’ve just helped establish.......It’ll be like the cap-circumventing contracts of the last several years, which violated the spirit of the salary cap and created a world where Ilya Kovalchuk makes $7 million in 2018, $1 million in 2020 and $4 million in 2024" - I get the impression that the 2005 CBA looked at Salary and not Cap Hit

Take a look at the salary of Kovalchuck : https://www.capfriendly.com/players/ilya-kovalchuk
year cap hit salary
2005-06 $6,400,000 $6,500,000
2006-07 $6,400,000 $5,000,000
2007-08 $6,400,000 $5,500,000
2008-09 $6,400,000 $7,500,000
2009-10 $6,400,000 $7,500,000

There was a loophole in the 05 CBA that "allowed" team to offer front loaded contract. Like the contract of Kovalchuck. There was no rules about the salary per year and the relation between them each year. So GM could offer 11 millions on the first year and only 1 million the second so the cap hit would be 6 millions. It was fixed with the 2012 CBA, teams could not offer a annual salary less than 50% of his highest year. So if a team would offer a 11 millions for the first year, the subsequent years could not be under 5.5 millions. So for a two years contract (11+5.5) the cap hit would be 8.25 millions



Since it was in the CBA of 2012, it shouldn't be in use with the 1998-98 DB, but to be honest i like it that way. Anyway this is not the issue i was talking about at first. The problem seems to be about the CAP HIT that should be carried over to the new team when a trade occur. i'll have to try with TBL 8.X roster to compare, if we have the same behavior.

Is it possible for someone using the retro 98-99 roster to try this and see if he has the same result as me? It could be a bug from my side too!

ujlien wrote:Take a look at the salary of Kovalchuck : https://www.capfriendly.com/players/ilya-kovalchuk

A couple things make me wonder if this is a good example to use/if it shows "proof" of something

• it says on the page "CONTRACT NOTE: This contract was terminated" yet it shows the terminated years
• it could be applying the current CBA rules to everything on it's site (isn't capfriendly a recent replacement for capgeek?)

I don't know it's not a good example! just wondering


EDIT - I'm still not sure I understand this well, in fact I'm sure I don't HaHa but...could it be that the original team is responsible for the signing bonus? and it doesn't get transferred over in the trade, just the salary does?

the reason the contract was terminated is because kovalchuck decided to move to the khl and the devils agreed. again this is not the issue here

ujlien wrote:the reason the contract was terminated is because kovalchuck decided to move to the khl and the devils agreed. again this is not the issue here

Yeah, I know about Kovalchuk's leaving....but I have been repeatedly struggling with exactly what the issue is

And for some reason you didn't respond to "it could be applying the current CBA rules to everything on it's site" or "could it be that the original team is responsible for the signing bonus? and it doesn't get transferred over in the trade, just the salary does?"

I think it's maybe the latter.....



Your initial post said...

ujlien wrote:I usualy offer front loaded contract to UFA. I really dont know if it's more effective than a regular contract but yeah, i still do it. With the 98-99 DB i've offered a foward a 3 years contract with a salary breakdown like this : 2 000 000 / 1 300 000 / 1 000 000 + singing bonus so the average cap hit would be 1.5 millions. On the last year of his contract i've traded him. After a while i've looked at his cap hit it was 1 222 222 (1 million of his final year + singning bonus / 3).

But then your screenshot in your next post shows salary values of 1.5 and 1.2 and not the 1.3 and 1.0 you noted in your initial post?

Maybe your memory of the contract isn't correct, and the yearly amounts + signing bonus = a 1.8 average (Salary Against Cap)
And then when you traded the player the signing bonus is still 100% your responsibility, and so doesn't go with the player?

Is the issue you think the signing bonus should go with the player? And then my earlier suggestion (repeated above) does address the issue here...

nino33 wrote:could it be that the original team is responsible for the signing bonus? and it doesn't get transferred over in the trade, just the salary does?

When I reread things sometimes I think "this must mean that signing bonuses are included in salary" - but then I think how you said "so the average cap hit would be 1.5 million" but your Coyotes screenshot shows it to be 1.8 and not 1.5

Maybe you gave a contract of 2.0 + 1.5 + 1.2 + 700K for signing bonus, which would = 1.8 Salary Against Cap (which is what shows in the Coyotes screenshot)

Maybe you can't trade signing bonus, and so when you trade the player with the 1.2 salary that's all that goes to the new team, and you're still on the hook for the remaining signing bonus?

nino33 wrote:Maybe I'm not understanding (highly possible/this is not "my world") but this article seems to indicate it's not Cap Hit that was considered with the 2005 CBA, and this is something that's changed with the latest CBA http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

The article (from January 13, 2013) says "With the NHL lockout settled, hockey fans wait with breathless anticipation for the League’s owners and general managers to find a way to subvert, cheat and undercut the rules they’ve just helped establish.......It’ll be like the cap-circumventing contracts of the last several years, which violated the spirit of the salary cap and created a world where Ilya Kovalchuk makes $7 million in 2018, $1 million in 2020 and $4 million in 2024" - I get the impression that the 2005 CBA looked at Salary and not Cap Hit

I don't think that article is actually pertinent to this, that would pertain to contracts signed under the 2005 CBA and moving into the new CBA where they established limits on contract lengths. Under the old CBA they allowed backdiving contracts that ran until players were in their 40's to bring down the AAV.

To me this is a bug, the game should be handling cap hits in the same way as it currently does(the new CBA only added rules to changes in salary changes between years and total length of contract). One thing I did notice is that when Pellerin moves to the Canadiens it change his contract sign date. The aav hit is irrelevant, all that matters is that the aav changed when it shouldn't have.

@nino33 : when i initially posted, i was at my job so i did not remember correctly the number of this specific contract. But regardless of the number (2mil or 1.5 or whatever) it doesn't change the fact the cap hit changed from one team to another. The gap is 800k. As you know the signing bonus is spread on the whole contract so to have a gap of 800k on a 3 years contract the singing bonus would have been 2.4 millions wich i did not offer.

@vilifyingforce : i also thing it's a bug. i beleive the cap should be carried over.

vilifyingforce wrote:I don't think that article is actually pertinent to this.....

That wouldn't surprise me! I certainly didn't think I'd found "the answer"

vilifyingforce wrote:One thing I did notice is that when Pellerin moves to the Canadiens it change his contract sign date

That is odd!




I'm going to leave this one alone now HaHa as there doesn't seem anything definitive that can be pointed to

It's posted over at SI, and that's the best thing that can be done

nino33 wrote:

vilifyingforce wrote:I don't think that article is actually pertinent to this.....

That wouldn't surprise me! I certainly didn't think I'd found "the answer"

vilifyingforce wrote:One thing I did notice is that when Pellerin moves to the Canadiens it change his contract sign date

That is odd!




I'm going to leave this one alone now HaHa as there doesn't seem anything definitive that can be pointed to

It's posted over at SI, and that's the best thing that can be done

Yep! At least it's not gamebreaker!