HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Speculation: If handing out long term contracts carry over to the new CBA (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1233507)

Twix 07-19-2012 09:02 PM

If handing out long term contracts carry over to the new CBA
 
What will Burke do? There has been a lot of assumption around these parts that those will automatically be gone, but for arguments sake say they survive the negotiations and make it into the next CBA. If those monster contracts survive the negotiations will Burke flip his stance or stand pat? If he refuses to partake in handing out these long contracts it's safe to assume we will be out of the running for the majority of the top tier UFAs as they are mostly signing these deals. I'm not a fan of these monster contracts but unfortunately they might be the only way to get these types of players.

HellasLEAF 07-19-2012 09:06 PM

whatever it takes to make the team better. whatever, I don't care.

iPunch 07-19-2012 09:09 PM

When the new CBA is worked out you reassess the situation. Every GM in the NHL will be doing the same.

calcal798 07-19-2012 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HellasLEAF (Post 52738941)
whatever it takes to make the team better. whatever, I don't care.

To bad Burke doesn't adopt this philosophy.

Richest team in the league, and our GM won't use that to his advantage, nor will he do something that is frowned upon but legal. What kinda lawyer is he.

Community 07-19-2012 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twix (Post 52738775)
What will Burke do? There has been a lot of assumption around these parts that those will automatically be gone, but for arguments sake say they survive the negotiations and make it into the next CBA. If those monster contracts survive the negotiations will Burke flip his stance or stand pat? If he refuses to partake in handing out these long contracts it's safe to assume we will be out of the running for the majority of the top tier UFAs as they are mostly signing these deals. I'm not a fan of these monster contracts but unfortunately they might be the only way to get these types of players.

Not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean if nothing changes with how long a contract can be? or if nothing changes at all?

I think there's a good possibility there is a limit in how long a contract can be, and I'm almost positive there will be some changes, as in no extreme tapering off in salary to make a low caphit or at least something to limit the cap circumvention.

number72 07-19-2012 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twix (Post 52738775)
What will Burke do? There has been a lot of assumption around these parts that those will automatically be gone, but for arguments sake say they survive the negotiations and make it into the next CBA. If those monster contracts survive the negotiations will Burke flip his stance or stand pat? If he refuses to partake in handing out these long contracts it's safe to assume we will be out of the running for the majority of the top tier UFAs as they are mostly signing these deals. I'm not a fan of these monster contracts but unfortunately they might be the only way to get these types of players.

Burke issue has been front loaded contracts that take the player into the 40s.
And the reality is the elite quality UFA will almost always choose bigger money and term.

If a player doesn't agree on contract limits, Burke will need to trade away these players and trade for young cost controlled RFAs.

Looking at the upcoming UFAs for leafs over the next few years (and provided there is no change in CBA)
- a player like Kessel will probably ask his next contract to be a big retirement contract
- a player like Lupul and Phaneuf will probably try to push the envelope

blasted_Sabre 07-19-2012 09:30 PM

Dont like them. name me a forty year old worth 6-7m a year

Hurt 07-19-2012 09:36 PM

Hypothetically, if these career contracts are eradicated and the ones signed this season are forced to be re-negotiated, should be interesting to see what happens. Farfetched I know, but would make for exciting times.

Eb 07-19-2012 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre (Post 52739807)
Dont like them. name me a forty year old worth 6-7m a year

That's the thing, they'll be making a million when they are forty.

These contracts hurt smaller markets, like Nashville has gotten screwed over.

Better Leaf team or better NHL?

Drew75 07-19-2012 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eb (Post 52740103)
That's the thing, they'll be making a million when they are forty.

These contracts hurt smaller markets, like Nashville has gotten screwed over.

Better Leaf team or better NHL?

I think he was asking someone to name a 40 year old who is worth a 6/7 mil cap hit - and there isn't one.

A lot of the same people who complain about Burke not signing these deals are the same people who complain about a Connelly getting too much money for only one more year.

Imagine a player on the decline, providing as much to the team as Connelly did last year, but with a 7 mil cap hit for another 4/5 years!! I don't get why people can't see that Burkes stance on this issue is the better one in the long term for the Maple Leafs.

Hurt 07-19-2012 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eb (Post 52740103)
That's the thing, they'll be making a million when they are forty.

These contracts hurt smaller markets, like Nashville has gotten screwed over.

Better Leaf team or better NHL?

But cap hit doesn't reduce to one million. It stays at the average. If it was cap hit = salary per year, then I'd be all for that. If Parise was getting paid 12 million and his cap hit was 12 million this coming year, that would be fair.

LeeIs 07-19-2012 09:52 PM

If they are not addressed. Burke better change his tune to do whatever it takes to attract the top UFA's. If he's still stubborn in his way and doesn't want to do those contracts then we'll never get a top UFA while he's here.

blasted_Sabre 07-19-2012 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eb (Post 52740103)
That's the thing, they'll be making a million when they are forty.

These contracts hurt smaller markets, like Nashville has gotten screwed over.

Better Leaf team or better NHL?

Cap hit stays the same until the very end

Pinto 07-19-2012 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeIs (Post 52740513)
If they are not addressed. Burke better change his tune to do whatever it takes to attract the top UFA's. If he's still stubborn in his way and doesn't want to do those contracts then we'll never get a top UFA while he's here.

Came here to post this.

I'm not a fan of these long-term deals either, but if they aren't dealt with, with the new CBA then Burke has to change his stance.

Guy Boucher 07-19-2012 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew75 (Post 52740307)
I think he was asking someone to name a 40 year old who is worth a 6/7 mil cap hit - and there isn't one.

A lot of the same people who complain about Burke not signing these deals are the same people who complain about a Connelly getting too much money for only one more year.

Imagine a player on the decline, providing as much to the team as Connelly did last year, but with a 7 mil cap hit for another 4/5 years!! I don't get why people can't see that Burkes stance on this issue is the better one in the long term for the Maple Leafs.

Exactly. It's easy for all the Carter/Luongo/Suter/Franzen/Parise's of the world to say they'll retire at 34-35 but what happens when they reach that age and decide they really still want to play?

We all saw how Modano/Chelios/Roloson and many other players wanted to continue playing well past 35 years old and well past being dominant or even decent players.

Some of these guys won't want to retire and will just carry these huge cap-hits for their teams.

A separate but related thought: How many times have players looked great for a few years then just fell off completely in terms of their play? I mean, I can completely see a guy like Jeff Carter for example, start playing like crap after 3 or 4 years. What do you do then with him?

number72 07-19-2012 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew75 (Post 52740307)
I think he was asking someone to name a 40 year old who is worth a 6/7 mil cap hit - and there isn't one.

A lot of the same people who complain about Burke not signing these deals are the same people who complain about a Connelly getting too much money for only one more year.

Imagine a player on the decline, providing as much to the team as Connelly did last year, but with a 7 mil cap hit for another 4/5 years!! I don't get why people can't see that Burkes stance on this issue is the better one in the long term for the Maple Leafs.

How do you determine if a player is worth 6/7M? But Selanne this past season was more productive than a few younger players making 6+M.

The strategy of not signing long contracts makes sense if it benefits the leafs with a more successful team. To date it appears a losing strategy. In theory I agree with you but in practice the Rangers competitiveness has not been damaged by offering long contracts (look at Redden and Gomez).

number72 07-19-2012 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Boucher (Post 52740765)
Exactly. It's easy for all the Carter/Luongo/Suter/Franzen/Parise's of the world to say they'll retire at 34-35 but what happens when they reach that age and decide they really still want to play?

We all saw how Modano/Chelios/Roloson and many other players wanted to continue playing well past 35 years old and well past being dominant or even decent players.

Some of these guys won't want to retire and will just carry these huge cap-hits for their teams.

A separate but related thought: How many times have players looked great for a few years then just fell off completely in terms of their play? I mean, I can completely see a guy like Jeff Carter for example, start playing like crap after 3 or 4 years. What do you do then with him?

I think the question is - does the contract size matter if a team wins the cup or is perennial playoff threat?
Also if a team moves the contract to other teams (Roloston, Gomez etc) or to the AHL (Redden, Souray) than it is not a problem.

Question - Has there been a big market team whose competitiveness been impacted by these long contracts? Or are we imagining a problem that may not exist?

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER 07-19-2012 10:06 PM

If they still have those contracts which are 10 years or more it will be interesting to see what Phil Kessel is going to want if he reaches UFA staus. My guess Burke is banking on that those types of long term deals will be history, because if they are still around he might have to change his thinking.

Mess 07-19-2012 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew75 (Post 52740307)
I think he was asking someone to name a 40 year old who is worth a 6/7 mil cap hit - and there isn't one.

A lot of the same people who complain about Burke not signing these deals are the same people who complain about a Connelly getting too much money for only one more year.

Imagine a player on the decline, providing as much to the team as Connelly did last year, but with a 7 mil cap hit for another 4/5 years!! I don't get why people can't see that Burkes stance on this issue is the better one in the long term for the Maple Leafs.

Luongo is 33 and has a 10 year balance left taking him to age 43 at $5.3 mil cap hit in his later years.

If/when Burke acquires him it will be interesting to see how that is reconciled after taking such a strong stance opposing these deals.

There is a long list of Leaf fans just waiting for Lou's arrival.

stanleyorbust 07-19-2012 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew75 (Post 52740307)
I think he was asking someone to name a 40 year old who is worth a 6/7 mil cap hit - and there isn't one.
.

I disagree. If you consider how much the cap will increase... Many of these contracts will seem like bargains..... Yet, many will also be horrid for the teams carrying them.

The problem is with a player at 25 to 30... You have no way of predicting what their impact will be at 40. So very talented players burn out in their early 30s and keep playing as shells of their former self.

4evaBlue 07-19-2012 10:20 PM

Wouldn't it be funny if these contracts would get restructured to reflect their cap hits more accurately? Should the Preds not match the offersheet, Weber's contract would consist of 2 or 3 subcontracts (depending on the maximum term the CBA decides), the first say 7 year portion would come at a cap hit of $12.29M, while the next 7 years would have a cap hit of $3.43M.

thatshype 07-19-2012 10:25 PM

Burke has said time-and-again that he will not sign contracts that circumvent the cap. I would argue that these current negotiations are heavily based on Cap circumventions that have occurred recently. Burke has come out publicly saying that he will NOT go against the CBA, and in doing so he is establishing integrity.


I honestly think Burke has a promotion in mind. I think he wants to be commissioner. And if so, I strongly stand behind him. Fans have hated on his individual decisions as a GM, but you can't deny his integrity in doing so. He has argued against the RFA process and he's never put in an offer sheet. He has argued against front-loaded contracts and he's never signed one. He has integrity.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER 07-19-2012 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatshype (Post 52741769)
He has argued against the RFA process and he's never put in an offer sheet.

He's not against offer sheets, if the GM giving one tells the other one in advance they are planning on doing that. Chances are he was planning on originally giving one to Kessel based on the moves he did prior to the trade. What he didn't like is the way Kevin Lowe came out of now where when he signed Vanek and Penner to their offer sheets.

Rare Jewel 07-19-2012 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre (Post 52740577)
Cap hit stays the same until the very end

Yup, But the thing is they retire a few years before those years of the contract kick in anyway.

Circumvention at it's best.

I have no problem at all with Burke not handing out ludicrous contracts. In fact I'd encourage him to do it in the coming years even if there isn't a limit on term of contracts in the new CBA.

number72 07-19-2012 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatshype (Post 52741769)
Burke has said time-and-again that he will not sign contracts that circumvent the cap. I would argue that these current negotiations are heavily based on Cap circumventions that have occurred recently. Burke has come out publicly saying that he will NOT go against the CBA, and in doing so he is establishing integrity.


I honestly think Burke has a promotion in mind. I think he wants to be commissioner. And if so, I strongly stand behind him. Fans have hated on his individual decisions as a GM, but you can't deny his integrity in doing so. He has argued against the RFA process and he's never put in an offer sheet. He has argued against front-loaded contracts and he's never signed one. He has integrity.

This is a bit selective view of integrity isn't? He also promised truculence, accelerated rebuild, #1C and he builds team from the net out and failed to keep his word. He even said he wasn't looking at replacing Wilson and Caryle becomes leafs coach in a week under heavy fan pressure. That is not integrity and sticking to your what beliefs. And the list goes on.

Also, I'm not sure why people are happy if Burke is running the leafs by what is good for his future career rather than what is good for the team. There is no integrity in that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.