View Single Post
08-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
Bird Law's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,831
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Originally Posted by Moose29 View Post
Regardless of what people refer to as "cap circumvention", (and I agree with Schafer on this one) what everyone will agree to is that the Kovalchuk/Hossa....etc. deals and the Pronger deal are two different animals because of the 35+ contract.
The way I personally look at it is this: Kovalchuk would in essence be paid a large chunk of his contract under the table away from the eyes of the NHL and the cap, while Pronger's contract is all accounted for with the NHL and is all on the cap. Period.

Sure I understand that Pronger's cap hit is lower than it would be had it been a five year contract, but that's not circumventing the cap, it's merely spreading out a cap hit over more years. Pronger's contract is a double-edged sword to the Flyers and Kovalchuk's contract is a single-edged sword (no sword?) to the Devils, if that makes sense.

At least that's how I look at it.
They definitely are.

The Kovalchuk contract was just plain cheating. The league took swift and justifiable action against it and won. Thank God.

The Pronger contract is funny. It will severely hamper the team down the road if they need to move picks and prospects to get rid of his cap hit (and if he retires, they can't do jack **** with it other than live with it).

Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
You're missing the point in two ways:

We're stuck with Pronger's entire hit for the duration of his contract. retirement or no. So the attempted circumvention of having him retire at 40 is out the window.
But tell me how this matters? You are getting him at a discount now. It helped you almost win a Cup due to circumventing the cap. Again -- just because you're going to be punished in the future does not mean it is not CURRENTLY *TODAY* cap circumvention.

Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Having a player on a "lower-than-market-value contract" does not in and of itself constitute cap circumvention. I would also argue that we will end up paying about market value for Pronger's services over the course of his contract. We are underpaying now (cap wise), but will likely be overpaying later (cap wise). We just happen to be enjoying the early part of the contract right now.
I agree that just because someone is on a lower-than-market-value contract doesn't mean it's cap circumvention. Players take discounts all the time to play for their teams. But when the contract is artificially lowered in the case of extending it years down the road for minimum dollar value? That constitutes cap circumvention no matter how you slice it. You really cannot say it's not cap circumvention.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Nobody has done anything illegal, not even Kovalchuk's contract was "illegal."
Oh, now you're arguing semantics? Nice!

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
You're right, just because Holmgren screwed up (if he even screwed up at all) doesn't make the contract not circumvent any cap. It's the fact that it doesn't circumvent any cap that makes it not circumvent any cap.

I have news for you: if this contract circumvents cap, then something like 80% of NHL contracts do as well. I know for a fact the majority of Flyers' contracts should be thrown out based on your theory.
Start pointing out all these contracts that circumvent the cap by dipping to near league minimum salaries at the end of the deals. You can skip the Rangers because we don't have any. So that leaves another 29 teams for you to go through and point out.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Circumvention is not paying the entirety of the cap charge created by the total dollar amount paid along with the number of years on the contract.

What you're saying is perfectly legal. In fact, Kovalchuk's contract was perfectly legal. It got thrown out because there was an inherent and almost blatant risk of cap circumvention through retirement.
That is NOT the only thing that cap circumvention is. Cap circumvention is ALSO adding the extended years that are around the minimum salary (or slightly above). These two play hand in hand because, generally, these years start around the age of 40. There is a "blatant risk" that Pronger will retire before the end of his cap. It just so happens that your GM didn't understand the rules when he signed him.

This does not matter. At all. It helped you almost win a Cup this year due to the artificially lowered cap hit. You seem to think that just because you're going to get hurt later, today somehow doesn't matter. Just laughable.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Market value is whatever Pronger is signed at. I don't care if it's a discount or whatever you want to call it. His contract is his contract. Who are you to determine what Pronger deserves? Are we going to go through and arbitrate the entire NHL? If you plan on doing that you might as well remove GMs from the game completely. There's no need for them then.
And we see the market value of Pronger during his first few years. Then it drops to nothing. That's not market value. That's circumventing the cap to artificially lower the cap hit. Try and argue otherwise -- you just will end up looking foolish.

Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
No, what's ridiculous is that you want to throw out the vast majority of contracts in the NHL on the grounds of cap circumvention.
Again -- show me all of these contracts that would violate the cap. There are a few of them, and the majority of these are still under investigation. Just because a contract is front loaded does not mean it's there to circumvent the cap.

Players do tend to want the majority of their money up front. The league and an arbitrator, though, have now shown that placing these minimum wage years at the end of a contract violates the CBA and is cap circumvention. When something is so obvious (as to the Pronger, Hossa, Kovalchuk, etc. deals) like that? Well, it makes it easy for anyone with half a brain to see the cap circumvention.

The quip about Parise is nice and all, but that's all about limiting contract years rather than cap circumvention. Backloading a contract to buy some UFA years of a young player is simply nothing like having LEAGUE MINIMUM SALARY YEARS at the end of a players career WHEN HE WON'T ****ING PLAY. What is so hard about this? The contracts are not comparable. There is no risk of Parise quitting before his contract is up and seeing all the years that the Devils benefitted from having him at a minimal cap hit be questionable.

Apples and oranges. Just because you're trying to paint the apple orange, doesn't mean it suddenly can make delicious, pulpy juice.

Devils fans had the same arguments that you did about frontloading. Guess who was right?

"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote