Our Take on Ilya Kovalchuck
by FTF Staff on Aug 9, 2010 9:17 PM PDT
in NHL News
Email
Print
If you haven't heard yet, Ilya Kovalchuck's 17 year deal with the NHL was dissalowed today by arbitrator Richard Bloch. The NHL has won the grievance, making Kovalchuck a UFA for the second time in one offseason.
We're assuming that the Devils and Kovalchuck made some sort of contingency contract for this situation, meaning that it's quite possible he sticks with the Devils anyways under a restructured deal. Luckily for New Jersey, it looks like they won't be hit with a fine for cap circumvention per Globe and Mail columnist James Mirtle. They can probably shave a few years off the deal, increase the cap his marginally, and still have Ilya in the Red and Black by training camp.
However, although this may eventually work out for all parties involved, we don't like the precedent set here today. With the CBA set to expire in 2012, the NHL has effectively increased the ammunition to be used by the NHLPA in any type of negotiations. These types of contracts are going to be one of the most significant issues brought up in two years.
While Bloch's decision in a vaccuum is understandable, one issue still remains-- how can you allow the contracts of Zetterberg, Hossa, Savard and Pronger (Pronger's case is a bit different, and we'll get to that), and then turn around and disallow Kovalchuck's? It seems like a contradiction, especially when one considers that under the letter of the CBA law, this contract should be legal. It exploits a loophole, and while we don't agree with that loophole (i.e. these contracts clearly play fast and loose with expectations of how long a player will play under his contract), these contracts have been deemed legal before.
Bloch's claims that the length of the contract, specifically the age of Kovalchuck at the end of the deal, was the sticking point. Per Sportsnet.ca, Bloch stated that this "was a retirement contract," and extends "well beyond typical retirement age for NHL players." While that may be true on average, the recent efforts by former star players show that the most skilled of players are more than capable of playing into their 40's if the will to play remains.
NBC's ProHockeyTalk sums up Kovalchuck's contract very well: "Kovalchuk's deal is something of a Frankenstein Monster of the other bad contracts. It adds even more inconceivable years (basically as many as Hossa and Zetterberg probably won't play combined) to the longest contract handed out and would end with him at the oldest age.The one saving grace is that it at least drops a little less abruptly than some of the other ones, going from $11.5M to $10.5M to $8.5M then $6.5M and finally hitting that mid-range year at $3.5M."
There's an argument for either side here, but the NHL comes out looking pretty foolish in our opinion. In essence, they let this happen due to the allowance of the other contracts. It was unavoidable that a contract like this would surface, and now the NHL will take the PR hit for it.
If we had our way with the CBA, all contracts (regardless of when they were signed), would count against the cap after the player turned 35. In addition, contracts signed before a player's 35th birthday could not extend past the player's 40th birthday. In our opinion, those stipulations would close the loophole rather quickly. You could still finagle one of the deals, but it would affect the team down the road even if the player were to retire.
This is the ultimately why we don't look at Pronger's deal as a comparable to Kovalchuk's. If Pronger retires before his contract is complete, Philadelphia will be on the hook for the entirety of his $4.92MM cap hit. Although the extra years tacked on at the end allowed the Flyers to reduce his cap hit now, the fact that they will be forced to shoulder a five million dollar burden when Pronger retires serves as a cautionary tale to other League GM's who wish to pursue contract such as these.
The question now remains where does Kovalchuk end up playing during 2010-2011. As we mentioned intitally, New Jersey is still an option, and it wouldn't surprise us if a contingency deal was in place. However, the fact remains that Los Angeles Kings General Manager Dean Lombardi could be frantically working the phones right now in an attempt to take one more stab at the high profile scoring winger. If he lands in the Pacific Division, expect the Kings to be a huge powerhouse next year, with the potential to end the Sharks three year hold on the Division title.
As always, be sure to check out Mirtle at The Globe, and In Lou We Trust for more information.
Go Sharks.
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
how can you allow the contracts of Zetterberg, Hossa, Savard and Pronger (Pronger’s case is a bit different, and we’ll get to that), and then turn around and disallow Kovalchuck’s?
We’re used to it as Russians.
Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.
Luongo, Franzen… the list goes on. Like TCY and I said, we’d like contract restrictions on anyone who signs a deal that carries them past their 35th birthday, but that isn’t negotiable at this point in our opinion. Other contracts were allowed, and while this pushes the envelope in that regard, the NHL’s chance to make a stand was about four contracts ago.
The one saving grace in terms of PR is that Lou and Bettman are very close. With that in mind, it’s clear that the NHL wasn’t doing this to one of the lone wolves in the management/ownership circle.
Either way, the NHLPA is in tatters right now, with no strong leadership at the helm. Better get their ass in gear, because some rumors have been circulating that the NHL may go after more of these contracts now.
"San Jose is where I want to be at the end of the day, and there's an opportunity now to make it there. It is where my heart is." - Jamie McGinn, 2/22/10
Fear The Fin: Where Selling Your Soul Is The Likely Solution
I think this sent a very strong message and I don’t know if we’ll see any similar contracts again until they close the loop.
I feel bad for Kovalchuk who continues to remain in the limbo. And I feel bad for Devils fans. This is far worse than our defense concerns.
Imagine if this was Marleau’s contract..
But I agree – this all smells like a lockout to me.
Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.
Apologies— when I said go after more of these contracts, I meant there have been rumors that they may go after Hossa’s, Luongo’s etc. now. Which would be all sorts of ridiculous in my opinion, considering it has been a year since those contracts have been signed.
"San Jose is where I want to be at the end of the day, and there's an opportunity now to make it there. It is where my heart is." - Jamie McGinn, 2/22/10
Fear The Fin: Where Selling Your Soul Is The Likely Solution
It’s actually in the footnote 23 of the ruling that they may still go after those contracts. I hope they do. That would be a beautiful thing for free agent market if Luongo, Hossa, Pronger, Savard all became free agents again.
Saw it in this article.
Maybe SKA can sign them all, together with Kovalchuk.
Or maybe we can solve our problems by going after Pronger.
Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.
Pronger in teal would be awesome… Love it if Chicago lost Hossa too. Althought it would solve all their cap issues…
by skilletboy on Aug 9, 2010 11:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
OK, Seriously.
Who do we have to trade to make space for Pronger?!
please to be exiting my eyebrow parade, son. You appear to be raining on it. - CTGray
Nice read guys.
The thing is, the Kovy deal was designed to fail. This was all the point. Do not forget that their are members of the NJ management helped write the CBA.
Failure to close the loophole made it likely that players like Doughty, Seabrook, and others would come up next year and tempt teams to make these deals.
So, they make a point with this one. Think about it. There are 6 years in the Kovy deal where he is making around the current league minimum about a decade in the future. ( Luongo’s last 4 years are 3.3/1.6/1/1 and Hossa is 1/1/1/1…at least more capable of passing the smell test ) I am remembering off the top of my head, but I think its the last 5 years of Kovy’s deal that are 550K, and a mil the sixth.
They pushed it that way, and also inserted a poison pill the NMC moving to a NTC in the last 6 to make it easier to waive if needed at least according to the arb. )
There is no doubt they will use the stage for a little bit, and may have even told the Canucks and Hawks that they are looking at those deals again But there is simply no way they will void any other approved deals. To do so would be highly provocative with another CBA coming up.
They will take the precedent and the message sent and that will be that. This way, they affectively send a strong message about signing deals that don’t pass the smell test ( the NJ deal doing just that…you are welcome Gary!!)…
What, are they going to declare the Hawks Cup void because they played with an invalid player? Taint the story they craved, a big market city winning for the first time for 49 years?
Man…what a summer huh?
More for you...
Apparently the Vancouver Sun is reporting that they are actually looking at Luongo’s contract.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Luongo+year+contract+deal+under+investigation/3378778/story.html
How about that?
please to be exiting my eyebrow parade, son. You appear to be raining on it. - CTGray
Either way, the NHLPA is in tatters right now, with no strong leadership at the helm.
Doesn’t the PA have Donald “I crippled MLB competitiveness and helped cancel the ’94 World Series” Fehr as their interim executive director?
"Playing Detroit in the playoffs is like paying your taxes. You either pay now or pay later." - Suisun Dan
My Twitter
What I am wondering will happen if NHL withdraws its approval of Hossa or Savard contracts. Especially Hossa’s who helped them win a Cup..
Although that may help the Hawks cap trouble.
Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.
I don't think the NHL would go after the Hossa deal now.
It’s a year into the contract, and it was registered by the league. The Luongo and Savard contracts were extensions that haven’t taken effect yet, and in theory could be ripe targets for Creepy Uncle Gary and his Legal Goon Squad.
I'm not superstitious. I'm just a little stitious.
by AirTrafficAJ on Aug 9, 2010 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
So the Hawks skate by because Hossa was a free agent?
No. All or nothing. Legally, Luongo and Savard’s, and Franzen’s , and Datsyuk, and others’ lawyers would have a field day. Hossa’s deal is worse than most anyhow. Last 4 years at one mil?
All or none. And Hossa’s deal was mentioned in the ruling the same as the Luongo, Pronger, and Savard deals were…
I'm fairly certain from a legal standpoint
You can’t axe a contract after a year of it being in effect. If the NHL went after Hossa’s contract after allowing it to roll for a year, no arbitrator in the world would take the case. Lu and Savard contracts haven’t officially started yet, so a case could be made there.
And let me be clear. My being a Hawks fan really doesn’t slant my view on this one way or another. This was a loophole opened up by the Scum Wings 2 years ago, and 3 other teams drove a truck through it. The CBA does not explicitly state that this is illegal, and anyone making a case that it’s “against the spirit” of the CBA is skating on thin legal ice. Do I think it’s right? No, not in the slightest. But is it legal? Yup. I realize that hockey is a bubble, but come on. Betteman is doing this to the owners he is supposedly there to make money for.
It makes less sense than Justin Bieber.
I'm not superstitious. I'm just a little stitious.
by AirTrafficAJ on Aug 10, 2010 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Being a fan has little to do with it friend.
Logic and the language of the CBA do. From the shit storm of stuff I have been reading, the language of the CBA says they can still go after Hossa retroactively.
There is even language of retroactive penalties. If I am Luongo’s lawyer, if you try to use the logic that you are legal and I am illegal based only on a calendar date, I would slay you in court.
The language of the CBA says that you can go after the Hawks and their Cup could be somehow effected.
Legally, the Hawks cheated and won a Cup with an illegal player.
Over at Nucks Misconduct, we asked one of the resident lawyers to give his opinion. Here you go.
The language of the CBA says that you can go after the Hawks and their Cup could be somehow effected.
I think because of this Hossa will be safe from anything. Right now the Devils and their fans are upset. Any other investigation will also affect those teams and fans. But you mess with Hossa, not only will you piss off Hawks, their fans, but you are then potentially making a joke of this last season. NHL is not going to do that.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
Lets not forget Franzen and Zetterberg. Conspiracy theorists should wonder why the two Wings with deals that are like the others are not mentioned.
They are also in affect.
But the fact one contract is in affect and the other is not is irrelevant. All have to be painted with the same brush, which is why nothing will happen.
Making a joke of the spirit of the CBA. They wanted to set a precedent is all…they acheived that!
I think the only precident they set
Is that there is no rhyme or reason to what Betteman does. These are HIS owners tossing out these contracts. I wonder what the next board meeting is going to look like.
I'm not superstitious. I'm just a little stitious.
by AirTrafficAJ on Aug 11, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
He seems to agree with what I'm saying.
I'm not superstitious. I'm just a little stitious.
by AirTrafficAJ on Aug 11, 2010 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m actually really pleased that the contract was disallowed. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to see them take a stand four contracts ago…but at least the NHL got off their ass and did something about it finally. And this one was a BIG jump over the ridiculousness of the others ones. 17 years? And what was it, like 5-6 years of the minimum salary? I mean, that’s really bad. The NHL had to draw a line somewhere…and they decided this was it. And it’s about time.
I do like your ideas for fixing the CBA, though. It’s really a small overall change, but will close the loophole really well. Be interesting to see what actually comes out of the next CBA renegotiation, though, and if its as good an idea as you guys had.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
I’m with you. It was about time for the NHL to make a stand … draw a line … and stand by it. Behind the Net, From the Rink had both shown why this contract went beyond the others. Quisp has shown in detail how the coin could flip either way on who wins out. I’m all for the “enough is enough” line.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
This makes me feel much better about the Marleau signing
I have a strange sort of pride that our team isn’t cheating to try and win. At the same time though, there is that old saying… “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.”
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
While I agree that these contracts are egregious cap circumvention, they gave role players jobs. It’s kind of a double-edged sword here. Keep the cap hit down, have money to sign more players. However, if the cap hit won’t go lower, then fewer players should be making anything north of $5M.
Statistically, you won’t find a decent team willing to pay each player exactly 1/23 of the cap ceiling (or whatever may be imposed by ownership), but I’m sure that the median salary is nowhere near the average for most teams.
I think what was found to be so ludicrous by Bloch was that if you chopped off four of those years at the end, the cap hit would have been around $7.6M. That’s a significant increase from the $6M for 17 years that NJD signed. Also, the fact that the contract has multiple years of both maximum salary and almost minimum salary is clearly an attempt to get around the cap. I’d love to hear Bloch’s rulings on the other contracts out there, but I am not convinced that the punishment is sufficient or fair at this juncture.
I really hope the NHLPA can get their act together in the next two years to protect their interest. I know the NHL doesn’t want another lockout, but there’s no way this isn’t addressed.
Jon Casey fan since '84
Founder of Feel the Teal.
I have a Twitter Thing.
I think the real problem is any player thinking his services are worth 11 million. I don’t care who you are, you aren’t worth 1/5 of the entire team.
There is no player in the NHL who carries a team that much to make his services worth that kind of money.
by skilletboy on Aug 9, 2010 11:16 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Players believe what agents tell them.
The solution would be for professional sports to invest in a virus that only attacks agents.
I'm not superstitious. I'm just a little stitious.
by AirTrafficAJ on Aug 9, 2010 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Another idea...
A scaled inflation. The minimum 17 years from now shouldn’t be equal to the minimum today. A scaled inflation would also help to effectively end these types of contracts, because the savings wouldn’t be as significant.
Fear the Fin: Sharing Joe Thornton's love of wooly mammoths since 2009.
I doubt minimum will be much more than 1 mil in the future and Hossa and the rest use that strategy as well.
My thoughts are on limiting the drop off. I think no year should be able to be less than half of the maximum amount made at any point in the contract.
That will severely cut down the amount they can scale it off.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
I think they should just limit contract lengths. 6 years max. Then it won’t matter nearly as much.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
During the CBA negotiations, the league wanted to limit length of contract to 5 years but the PA wouldn’t budge, Hence we’re here today.
P.S. Savard deal isn’t anywhere as bad as the Luongo or Pronger.
by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 10, 2010 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah it is. Both the Pronger and Savard deals specifically do what the Kovy deal has whole pages written about. Paying the player way is likely to not be the minimum salary in the last years. ( both pay only 525K in the last two years
The only difference is term.
But a case can easily be made for comparing the two to Kovy;s deal. At least the last years of Luongo and Hossa’s deals are a million or over.
Savard’s deal ends when he’s 40, and is 7 years long. Luongo’s and Pronger’s ends when they are older and/or longer term. The reason Savard’s cap hit is lower is that he’s not getting the same pay grade as the other two, even though I think Luongo is becoming vastly overrated.
by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 11, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
No one asked you what you thought of Luongo.
His .918 av % for his career speaks to his quality. He’ll do OK without approval from other team’s fans.
The point you missed is that the Luongo and Hossa deals never go below a mil.
Savard and Pronger are both signed to deals that would pay less than what will be the league minimum then.
That was specifically rooted out by Bloch as a huge deaL
Eh, Luongo is definately overrated, lol…don’t be so sensitive about it.
Your points about the league minimum years are good ones, though. That could definately be looked at and asked to change by the league. We’ll see.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 11, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sensitive.
People that go after Luongo don’t understand. It pisses me off.
He wins a friggen Gold medal and we have to hear guys like this Bruin fan tell us it is in spite of him.
Or a bunch of bangwagon Hawks fans. The Canucks lost to a better team is all. We can accept that. But all this crap this offseason about Lui just gets to the point of being annoying. Especially when it comes from an Eastern wag that never sees the team play anyhow!
There…had to get it out! Thx for putting up with it! I know you are joking. Luongo had a bad year, but he is most definitely not overrated…
It was worth a whole section in the Bloch ruling, the minimum salary thing…
Peace!
I’m not too worried about the Pronger deal since the whole thing will count against the cap anyways because of his age.
I still think the League should look at limiting contract lengths again this time around. Maybe 7 years instead of 5…that’s still a pretty long contract. I think it would help a lot.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 11, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Pronger
Although Pronger’s deal is different since its an over-35 contract, we should remember one really important thing… The Flyers didn’t think it was when they signed him to it. There was a whole issue with the league and Holmgren took some heat for not knowing the deal would count as an over-35 one.
Disagree with you guys here
The NHL had to wait for a contract to come along that they felt was very likely to be shot down by an arbiter. They might have won against those other contracts, but it was too close to call. This is no different than the US Supreme Court waiting years to take on a perfect case for a particular legal issue.
IMHO, the NHL played this perfect. In exchange for allowing a handful of cap circumventing contracts (a few of which are screwing teams anyways) the NHL pushed their starting bargaining position further for the next negotiations.
by ruben398 on Aug 10, 2010 7:44 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Good point. While there have been other contracts that COULD have been proven to be attempts at circumvention, this one was so blatant that it had to be challenged. The line has been drawn and now everyone can move forward knowing where a definite line exists.
Everybody already knows about it, but if you want great perspective and analysis about why Kovalchuck’s contract needed to be stopped, read Quisp at the SB Nation Kings blog.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
Quisp has some good stuff
This contract was, as he said “all knobs turned to 11.” Im not sure that I agree that the NHL won’t win if they challenged those other contracts as well (this contract is different because it raised the bar higher, not because it is a different bar), but I definitely agree with Quisp that the NHL would be very unlikely to win, not to mention they would have little to gain by challenging those contracts. Nearly every one of those teams would love to get out of its contract with the player, and that is exactly what Bettman and Co. are going to say at the negotiations table with this ruling as a fence to keep the NHLPA in their place.
Shuttle
Isn’t shuttling a player(s) to the minors a deliberate attempt to manipulate, if not circumvent the salary cap?
Why are contracts averaged?…this contract makes perfect sense if his hit is taken at each year’s face value. As a player ages past his prime his contribution declines; see Modano 1 mil(ish) this year.
Wasn’t there a post on KHL contracts having a clause that a percent of the value is only paid if playoffs are made (or some other team based clause)? That may be my favorite contract setup in addition to the Entry Level – 2 year Bridge – Veteran type contracts the sharks are employing.
'It's amazing the clarity that comes with psychotic jealousy.'
I agree to a point....
Obviously with 2way players it isn’t.
But with Huet and Campbell I think it is. It isn’t fair to the players either. Then teams could sign good players to keep them away from other teams and just park them in the minors… I guess the waivers systems limits that.
But with Huet… The Hawks made that bed intentionally and I think they need to lie in it.
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 10:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Agreed
With players that don’t have to pass through waivers, they are usually minor leaguers and injury fillers.
But situations like Huet (and perhaps even Kyle McLaren) are mistakes by an organization. Though it makes me wonder why the Hawks haven’t gone ahead and sent him down already…
Another possible solution
just make a player’s cap hit his annual salary. If his cap hit is $5 M, he gets paid $5 M each season.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
You can cheat the cap if that’s the case as well. The average was put in to prevent people mucking with the total hit.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
“How about I pay you 1M for a great chance at the cup this year, and then next year I make up for it and pay you 10 when some of our other contracts come off the book”.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
That would require 2 different contracts. a 1 year $1M dollar contract and then he’d have to be resigned to a 1 year $10M contract for the following year.
And what player is going to trust a GM to do that?
“So if I play for super cheap this year you PROMISE to sign me for big bucks next year?”
I suppose they could sign a 1 year contract for $1M and then immediately sign an extension for 1 year and $10M, but that would still rely upon the trust of the player after signing the first contract unless they also signed some sort of meta secondary contract that stipulated that the contract had to be extended under those terms.
But even so, is there anything really wrong with that? I mean they’re still stuck with the $10M cap hit the next year. So he takes a discount to win the cup the first year, lots of players do that, I don’t necessarily see that as cap circumvention under these terms.
Why not just sign all your player’s to the league minimum and pay them under the table with big sacks of cash with dollar signs on them?
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
I agree...
If a player is willing to take less salary to play with a contender, that is his choice. It’s not cheating the cap because the player is actually getting paid less… If the team is actually paying that player 10m the next year then that would be the consequence for that type of deal…
And ad PNK said… There is nothing to stop a team from doing that now… So how is that a problem?
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 1:02 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Sorry
I misunderstood the original proposal. I thought it was the cap hit was whatever his salary was, not that the salary had to be the same year to year.
I don’t like that, and neither will players. Sliding scales are very common in sports and I see no reason to take them out, just be a bit more restrictive on how much they can slide.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
I guess I'm missing the evilness here...
…why exactly should the cap hit for the year not equal exactly what the player is paid for that same year? If they have a 2yr where 1st year is $1m, and the second is $9m, the cap hit (today) is $5m/yr. Seems like that’s gaming the numbers, IMO. cap hit should be $1m and $9m, respectively.
"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey
by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 10:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Think of how much worse the Kovalchuck contract would have been...
If it only counted 500k against the cap at the end.
Fear the Fin: Sharing Joe Thornton's love of wooly mammoths since 2009.
by Matthew_Taylor on Aug 10, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I see your point...
But if a player is willing to take less money than that is his choice.
I guess I dont follow either. I admit I don’t understand so maybe you all can educate me here…
But if a player negotiates a deal where his salary decreases over time with his expected production.. Why can’t the cap hit for that year be what he is getting paid for that year??
If Kovy agrees to earn 500k when he is in his forties… Why not?
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 11:03 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
And think of how screwed the Devils would be if his cap hit from 2012-2016 was 11.6 million. It’s definately one solution to the whole long contracts to avoid a big cap hit, thing.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, I get it now
I meant something different. The cap hit doesn’t change every year.
What I meant is just have player’s make the same amount every year of their contract. You sign a $20 M contract for 4 years. Your cap hit is $5M and you make $5M each season. You sign a $102 M contract for 17 years your cap hit is $6M and you make $6M each season. None of this $12M for the first 4 seasons then $10M then $9M and then $7.5M and then $550 K or whatever. You make the same amount every year.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
That’s what I’m trying to say too.
"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey
by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 10:57 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the issue here
Is that this is crossing the line drawn by the Hossa, Pronger, and Zetterberg contracts. This is definitely circumventing the cap with 17 years. When he gets paid only 550 k for the last 5 to 7 years, that’s just ridiculous.
Waiting for the cup in San Jose
I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx
by sanjosesharksfan on Aug 10, 2010 10:19 AM PDT reply actions
It doesn’t matter what he gets paid in his final years. It’s that he supposedly would get that through his forties. Clearly after when everyone knows he wouldn’t be playing. Thus incorrectly and falsely lowering the average of salary over the length of the contract. Because the contract will never be lived through 17 years. His actual average would be something around 7-8 million a year.
My contention is that if a players salary each year is the same as the cap hit… How can that circumnavigate the cap?? If Kovy wants 11m for the next five years then any team willing to pay that should have to shoulder a 11m cap hit for those years. If he wants to extend into a time where his production would be less then whatever salary he is willing to take should also be the cap hit for that year…
Someone please explain how I’m wrong…
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 12:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
No, I don’t think you are wrong, and its definately one good idea in how to fix the current loophole in the CBA. The cap hit for a player that year is the salary he is being paid that year. A cap hit will fluctuate over the life of the contract, if you set it up that way, but that’s just something teams would have to work around if they wanted to do that. It might work.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Why not keep the cap hit static
and just have players earn the same amount each year of their contract?
Why do they have to make different amounts each year?
Why can’t all contracts be structured like DiPietro’s for example?
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
Well, that may end up being the end result of this change…if the cap hit is whatever you are paying the player that specific year, more teams may opt to have less fluctuating contract values from year to year. But I think dictating that teams have to pay a player a certain amount based on the entire total of the contract is a bit much. Say I have player A who is making 8 million a year over the next two years and then the contract is over. Then Player B is due for a raise within the system right now. Teams should be allowed to say, ok, for the first two years, you will make 4 million, and then when player A is off the books, your salary/cap hit will raise to 8 million. It allows teams flexibility to plan for the future that way, while also preventing teams from circumventing the cap with the long term, cap averaged deals.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
They could just sign player B to a 2 year deal worth $4M/per and then renegotiate when player A leaves. Or sign player B to that deal and immediately sign a contract extension for more money that won’t take effect until the first contract is over.
Both ways work really. Having a fluctuating cap hit just seems more complicated to me.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
In the second case though the Player isn’t guaranteed that it will work out that way. What if his production slips or he is hurt? Players are less willing to take the risk when the outcome isn’t guaranteed. With guaranteed contracts the players know that they’re getting paid, it’s set in stone.
Sure, you could get around it like you said, but the number of takers on that is going to be much less.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Exactly. Why would a player even consider signing a two year deal when he sure as shit could get a better offer on the open market. He may want to stay with his original team, but he definately wants to secure his financial future more. PNK’s solution would just cause more players to leave their teams, I believe.
Having the cap hit be what the player is making that year really isn’t complicated at all. Team’s will know exactly what a player is making from year to year, and will work around that.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the argument against that is it deters players from staying with one team for the whole career.
And there is a legitimate claim that a players production, which decreases after a certain age, should dictate their salary. Good players should get paid less in their waining years than their prime.
I think requiring players to sign static contracts only for one amount might cause other problems.
Example… If Jumbo wanted to contract with the Sharks for the remainder of his career. Give him a greater amount for the remaining prime years then less for the latter years. He can retire as a Sharks and tabulate the cap based on what his actual salary would be.
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 1:16 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think requiring players to sign static contracts only for one amount might cause other problems.
Another problem would be that it’s not particularly player friendly to for team’s to sign them to a static amount over the life of a contract. And the NHLPA will have to agree to changes to the CBA as well. The fix to the loophole has to be something both sides can live with.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
just sign shorter contracts. do we really need to be signing these 10, 12, and 17 year long contracts?
if you like playing for a team and they like you you can just keep reupping the contract every few years according to the level the player is playing.
if you sign these long term deals with a fluctuating cap hit you’re basically guessing how much that player is gonna be worth X years down the line.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
What if they suffer injuries and won’t be able to make much in the later years? Sure that works in a perfect world, but players want the stability, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to get it.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Don’t teams still have the cap open for them if players get hurt under contract?
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 3:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Huh?
I’m arguing that teams won’t sign players that have suffered serious injuries through their previous contract (look at Willie Mitchell). A player, more often than not, would prefer to sign a long term deal for guaranteed money.
That’s why the NHLPA will fight against short limits on contract length.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
You are putting way too much faith into a player’s attachment to a team. If I’m a player of Marleau’s caliber, and I play for the Sharks, and I like it here, and they come to me when it’s time to renegotiate and say, hey, we only have 3 mil right now to sign you for the next two years. But after that we’ll reup you for more. And then another team comes in and says, hey, we’ll give you 6 mil a year for the next 5 years…where do you think I’m going to go?
Injuries, changing ownership or front office personnel…why would a player take that risk?
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems to me that if a player is a priority for the team then they will have the room to sign him. If they don’t have the room to sign him for what he’s worth then they either aren’t serious about signing him or made some mistakes and sometimes when you make mistakes you pay for, like one of your star players leaving.
however, you guys make good points, and maybe it’s not all that complicated to have a fluctuating cap hit after all. and if the players would rather have it that way, it doesn’t really make much of a difference to me.
both ways are fine with me and if one way suits people better than the other then I’m all for it. so i guess i’m in favor of that structure most then.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
I agree I think a player should be paid each year what his cap hit is, which would avoid this whole problem.
However, the current CBA doe snot structure salaries and contracts like that. The contract determines how much a player gets over the course of the contract allowing them to get different amounts for different seasons. The cap hit is simply the mean average, the total dollar amount divided by the years of the contract. For example, if a player gets $10M the first year, $8M the second year, $4M the third year, $2M the fourth year and $1M the fifth and final year, his cap hit will be $5M each year of the contract.
I would restructure things so players cannot receive different amounts each year for the same contract, they would receive the mean average of the dollar amount divided by the total number of years of the contract each year, which is their cap hit.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
I would restructure things so players cannot receive different amounts each year for the same contract, they would receive the mean average of the dollar amount divided by the total number of years of the contract each year, which is their cap hit.
Well, this is a different potential fix to the one skilletboy is proposing. Obviously any changes to close the loophole will come the next time the CBA is negotiated, so it really doesn’t matter what they’re doing now…they can try to change it however they want.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Semi quasi interesting sidenote I learned today
The arbitrator for this whole mess, Richard Bloch, is the same guy who arbitrated for the NFL and NFLPA during the TO controversy in Philly. I believe the NFLPA decided that was the last time he’d ever arbitrate for/with them or whatever.
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club
The NHL gets all of the other major sports sloppy seconds
Bettman
Fehr
That one dude who did that thing. You know the guy.
Perhaps all these teams that signed these ridiculous contracts wouldnt mind
having them reviewed. How bad would the Blackhawks like to have a mulligan with the Campbell or Hossa contracts?
Likewise, I’m sure given the current trend in cheap goalies, the ’Nucks wouldnt be against having a second chance at signing Luongo.
The knock on effect would be shorter contracts, more trades, more player movement in general which would really help these awfully slow summer months! Also, it would stop that disgusting habit of dumping guys in the minors because you signed them for more than they were worth, and longer than they were useful.
Exactly....
They would be letting the Hawks off the hook in my mind.
Chicago made that bed with Hossa and Campbell and even Huet fit that matter. Let them lie in it.
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 1:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The Hossa contract is actually a great deal for them, they're fine with it
Campbell wouldn’t fall into this category.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
So far my 2 favorite solutions are:
1. Contracts that go past the age of 35 of the player stick with the team associated with the contract until the very end of the deal. They can trade the player (and contract) to another team, but that contract will always count against the cap even in the event the player retires.
2. Contract cap hits remain the average of the total salary over the length of the contract, but the minimum you can pay a player is 50% of the maximum amount paid in any given year.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
The only real way that is going to be exploited is by floor teams
But with the minimum amount paid rule, it won’t be nearly as drastic as it is now.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
I like #1. I also like the idea of just setting a player’s cap hit at whatever they are paying him for that season.
My solution is just to limit the length of contracts. The NBA does it, and it seems to work just fine. The NBA also has a max salary, which I would also be interested in seeing in the NHL. Most of the NBA’s cap stuff confuses the hell out of me, but having a Max Contract (6 years, 8 million a year would be a decent max deal in the NHL, IMO), seems like an easy way to keep teams in line and make sure contracts don’t get out of control.
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe that there is a max salary for players in the NHL – 20% of the salary cap, meaning $11.88M per year. It’s a little too high for my taste, IMO, but it is there.
American Heroes: Joe Pavelski, Buster Posey, David Backes
Proud member of the "Doug Wilson for Governor" Club
Fools and Sages
Wow, that’s so high it means literally nothing…
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Neither are my top choice...
But I think both would certainly be reasonable options that would fix the problem.
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 3:20 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Omg!!
A reasonable and sane discussion has broken out on FTF….
by skilletboy on Aug 10, 2010 3:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wait so there’s actually a chance that NHL might go around and force teams to redo all of their long term frontloaded contracts??
PRONGER TO THE SHARKS??
(e5).
Don't let the name deceive you, I'm not just a Sharks fan but a Lakers, 49ers, Angels, Giants (and to a lesser extent) Capitals, and Titans fan.
by SharksFanEst.1994 on Aug 11, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
ROFL
Waiting for the cup in San Jose
I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx
by sanjosesharksfan on Aug 11, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Previews: Blackhawks reeling; Sabres streaking; Holmstrom’s 1000th game
- Will Teemu Selanne remain with the Anaheim Ducks through the trade deadline?
- Nikolai Zherdev takes stick to crotch, elbow drop in KHL game (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Accused coach Pravilov dead; more Tim Thomas heat; Junior team goes nuts post-shootout
- After Scott Gomez scored, other candidates for NHL goal drought obsessions
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Blue Jackets place Lebda, Methot on injured reserve, add Prout, York on emergency recalls
- Blue Jackets put Lebda, Methot on injured reserve
- Lightning's Dominic Moore fined $2,500
- Detroit goalie Howard sidelined by broken index finger, hopes to practise soon
- Howard misses 4th game because of broken finger
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
