Dammit! I missed the Puck Daddy Live Chat!

by Quisp on Jul 14, 2010 12:13 PM PDT in Capmania, Capaphobia, Capaphilia, Capnesia

But I will edit myself into it after the fact.

Puck Daddy's Hockey Rumors Live Chat - Puck Daddy - NHL - Yahoo! Sports

[Comment From OC Kings Fan:] Question for the experts : I understand the Blackhawks are over the cap... What would happen to a team if it starts the season over the cap? Do they have to forfeit their games?

Wyshynski: If a team starts the season over the cap, they're forced to post a photo of Ken Hitchcock naked on the side of their arena.

Spector: OK, seriously, Greg, what are the penalities?

Wyshynski: I still don't buy Chicago's trading Sharp.

Spector: Isn't the overage deducted from their cap for the following season?

Wyshynski: There are deduction penalties, but like more [sic; most?] CBA penalties it's all a bit nebulous. I know, you're shocked.

Since the CBA prohibits league approval of any transaction that causes a team to exceed the upper limit (cap ceiling), it is simply not possible for a team to exceed the cap ceiling by any action during the year. (It's theoretically possible for the league to approve a deal that in retrospect it shouldn't have, and so, in the voiding of that deal, a team might find itself over the cap -- in that highly unlikely scenario, the team would be instructed to rectify the cap situation ASAP, in addition to any penalties for circumvention; since both exceeding the limit and the voided contract/deal would be violations.)

The only time a team can exceed the cap ceiling without a specific transaction causing the overage is, at the end of the off-season, when the temporary 10% increase is lifted, and teams need to conform to the actual upper limiit. If a team fails to do so, they are in circumvention of the CBA.

The CBA doesn't say specifically what must happen as a result of a circumvention of the salary cap limits. It all comes down to...wait for it...the Commissioner's descretion. Here is what he can do, per 26.13(c)(i-vii):

[Note: I trimmed out some of the remedies that have to do with bad acts by a player, since that obviously doesn't pertain to the topic of exceeding the cap ceiling]

In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Club or a Club Actor, the Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below:

(i) Impose a fine of up to $5 million. If such a fine is assessed against a Club [...] that Club's Payroll Room shall also be reduced by such amount for the following League Year [...]

(iii) Direct a Club to forfeit draft picks (the number, placement, and League Year of which shall be determined in the Commissioner's sole discretion);

(iv) Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been affected by a Circumvention; [...]

(vi) Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC [...] found to [be in] violation; and

(vii) Suspend any Club employee, Player, or Certified Agent involved in such a violation for a period of time determined in the sole discretion of the Commissioner, the System Arbitrator, or the NHLPA, respectively.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

So I guess it’s at Colin Campbell’s discretion which penalties he wants to impose and how much?

http://www.prosportsblogging.com

by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 14, 2010 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

Nope

Gary Bettman

by GoKings09 on Jul 14, 2010 12:37 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Which means he'll do what?

Nothing?

by 88fingerslukee on Jul 14, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Chicago can say good bye to one of their 7th round picks! oooo the horror!

Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.

by Mark D on Jul 14, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I would expect Bettman to bring the wrath of his fully operational battle station down upon the heads of those who dare to violate the CBA

otherwise, the CBA has no teeth. This wouldn’t be like not suspending Ovie because he’s a star. Bettman would have to apply draconian disincentives. In fact, this is why no-one has violated the upper limit yet. No-one wants to find out what the actual penalty will be.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Jul 14, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I would hope they bring the hammer down harder than just a fine/subtracting from next year’s cap. Suspensions and game forfeiture sound sufficiently scary.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 14, 2010 12:57 PM PDT reply actions

Yes, a wrist slap would defeat the purpose of having a cap

If the first team to violate the salary cap gets off easy (like losing a 7th round pick), then the other teams know exactly what to expect if they do the same thing. And if they judge that it’s not so bad, the salary cap will go ‘poof’ and disappear into the next autumn breeze for all practical purposes.

So the logical course for the league would be to throw the book at the first team to screw up. At least do something that would make them a laughing stock, if not make them forfeit games (which would be the ultimate penalty, I think).

But then, this the NHL. You can’t trust the leadership to do the logical, sensible thing.

by DougX on Jul 14, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions

How does one do the game forfeiture thing fairly?

I mean, you either have to forfeit a game to every opponent (29 games? ugh) or won’t a couple of teams get extra wins?

by 88fingerslukee on Jul 14, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been affected by a Circumvention

It seems like however many games are played with a roster that puts them over the cap = how many games they forfeit.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 14, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions

A current year cap penalty of 5 million sounds good to me...

That would send Chicago back to 2006. Hurray!

by yzguy on Jul 14, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, but they might just choose to go over it again…and pay another fine. This places teams who are able to shell out extra money at a distinct advantage over the cash-poor (who play by the rules and have no other choice).

I’m fine with that method of penalty, but as a strong deterrent, I fully expect the league to do more. Not that I think Chicago or any other team would dare. It’s just an interesting thought experiment.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 14, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Chicago isn't going to gut their entire roster only to ALMOST get under the cap ceiling

they’ll bury Huet in the minors or send him to Europe, they’ll either sign Niemi or any one of a million cheap veteran goalies, they’ll promote a bunch of AHLers and prospects and/or crusty Kyle Calder/Derek Armstrong types, and they won’t be very good.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Jul 14, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

right they won't go over...

In this hypothetical, they’re the team (I thought) the question was referring to.

by yzguy on Jul 14, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I get you.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 14, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions

not a fine

a cap reduction. You went over. Fix it. And now your cap is this….

by yzguy on Jul 14, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Isn’t that first possible penalty described as a fine, and then the cap lowered by the same amount? So the fine and cap-lowering go hand in hand. Continuing to flout the cap year after year isn’t realistic, I was just considering the hypotheticals of such a thing.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Jul 14, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions