HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kovalchuk a UFA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2010, 06:43 PM
  #26
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the vinyl version View Post
Apparently the league decides where the line is but doesn't tell anyone and just voids the contract when it's over it. If you can't read the league's mind it's your own fault.
Sigh

It's pretty simple actually. All other front loaded contracts are different than this one. Front-loading is permitted. It's just common sense that if a player is signed at league minimum for several years after he hits 40, that IT IS to circumvent the CBA. No other players except Pronger go further than 40 years old, and Pronger's contract was accepted because it doesn't circumvent the CBA because he signed it after 35 years old (contract starts when he's 35) so whether he's boughtout or retires, the Flyers will have to deal with the cap, which is not the case for Kovalchuk. On that refused contract, he could've retire at 38 and the Devils wouldn't get any cap hit for the remaining 6 years.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 06:45 PM
  #27
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
I don't think it was front loaded...but you are right, it was way too long...he was much younger when he signed though...
He would finish his contract before he hits 40 years old. I don't see where there is a problem with that contract other than the Isles paying 15 years for an often injured player. The contract doesn't try to circumvent the CBA, that's the whole point.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 06:50 PM
  #28
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,279
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
They should have rejected DiPietro's contract.
DiPietro's contract isn't front loaded. It didn't cheat the CBA.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 06:53 PM
  #29
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
DiPietro's contract isn't front loaded. It didn't cheat the CBA.
Front-loading isn't cheating either. It IS permitted.

Exagerations aren't permitted.

Pronger was an exageration, but he signed it under the 35+ rule, so they can't circumvent the cap with it.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:01 PM
  #30
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,279
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Front-loading isn't cheating either. It IS permitted.

Exagerations aren't permitted.

Pronger was an exageration, but he signed it under the 35+ rule, so they can't circumvent the cap with it.
Front-loading is cheating IMO. Well...not officially, as there's no rule against it, but there's no rule against long term contracts either.

If Kovalchuk was actually paid the average of his contract till 44 years old, would that be cheating? Of course not. It's the fact that it was front loaded that made the difference.

Exaggeration is a vague term. There is no real limit or standard in place. I find all the deals of this nature exaggerated tbh.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:08 PM
  #31
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I don't think this has to do with the decision.

Teams are allowed to fit the contract anyway they want, as long as they follow the rule set (following year can't be less than half the average of the two previous years), and not try to circumvent the CBA. Going further than 40 years old is a clear sign of this, unless the contract is signed over 35 (like Pronger).

In Hossa's case, the contract had to be modified because it didn't follow the half-of-average-of-2-previous-years rule.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he gets league high and league bottom salary. They could've done that and take the contract to max 40 years old, and I'm pretty sure the league would've let him sign it, as long as it follows the rule set.
The question I responded to isn't "why did the league reject the deal?" it was "where do you draw the line?" I AM aware of the rule set you're talking about, though. I submit that any deal long enough to pay someone as one of the best players in the league at one end, and then pay them the league minimum by the time it ends is too long and/or is designed with little besides cap circumvention in mind.

Also (and this is a related tangent), do you see $550K being an acceptable salary in 17 years, or however long that deal was supposed to be? Wouldn't the league accepting a contract with such a salary structure essentially be admission of revenue stagnation if the min. salary 17 years from now is expected to be the same? What could the implications be in the eyes of shareholders and advertisers?

I always thought min/max salaries and salary cap were all tied into revenues. In any event, assuming we have CBA renegotiations every 5 years or so (10 at most), I don't see the NHLPA accepting 2 or 3 consecutive freezes on the min/max salaries, especially if revenues increase. Kovalchuk's proposed contract opens a few cans of worms that the league just doesn't want to think about right now (and how could they, really, given the extent of the prognostication required?) I think they got lucky in that one of the rules you mentioned DID get circumvented, and thus the league had an easy out that the arbitrator couldn't ignore.

I mean, what happens if within the next 17 years the league minimum salary reaches $1 million (don't laugh...), and yet players exist with contracts that pay only half of that? Most (all?) players who are paid the min. aren't on contracts long enough to bother considering this, but Kovy's would be (for at least the time being, Hossa's minimum of $1 million seems safe/"acceptable").

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:12 PM
  #32
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Front-loading is cheating IMO. Well...not officially, as there's no rule against it, but there's no rule against long term contracts either.

If Kovalchuk was actually paid the average of his contract till 44 years old, would that be cheating? Of course not. It's the fact that it was front loaded that made the difference.

Exaggeration is a vague term. There is no real limit or standard in place. I find all the deals of this nature exaggerated tbh.
The exagerations stems from the years 40 to 44, not the front loading per se. The front loading isn't THE reason they nixed it.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding this. All other front-loaded contracts finish at 40 years old, and have only 2-3 years at 1 mil or less (except for Pronger, but it doesn't circumvent the CBA).

Front loading isn't cheating, whether you believe it to be or not. It's written right there in the CBA. Contracts can have different amounts for different years. They have to follow the (y=year) y1 + y2 divided by 4 = y3 as the minimum for a following year.

How many players have played further than 40 years old in the history of the league? Very few.

So any contract with added years after 40 years old that are at league minimum IS an exageration and is an intent to circumvent the CBA.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:35 PM
  #33
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
The question I responded to isn't "why did the league reject the deal?" it was "where do you draw the line?" I AM aware of the rule set you're talking about, though. I submit that any deal long enough to pay someone as one of the best players in the league at one end, and then pay them the league minimum by the time it ends is too long and/or is designed with little besides cap circumvention in mind.
My bad then. Still, we do see former franchise players sign betweem 700k/2m in the last few seasons, so giving league minimum isn't that much of a problem as to circumvention is concerned. IMO, the circumvention happens when the contract is signed for years where it is obvious the player won't play and is only added to thin out the cap hit. That's the nuance that has to be considered.

Quote:
Also (and this is a related tangent), do you see $550K being an acceptable salary in 17 years, or however long that deal was supposed to be? Wouldn't the league accepting a contract with such a salary structure essentially be admission of revenue stagnation if the min. salary 17 years from now is expected to be the same? What could the implications be in the eyes of shareholders and advertisers?
I do see that as a problem and we've touched (posters here) this subject before. Thing is, player compensation is calculated with the players's true salaries, and the total revenues (the 57% share), whereas the cap is counted with cap hits, aka averaged salaries. If he still plays at that time, his averaged salary will still be in league norms, I think that's why they don't see it as a problem, as the league minimum is set as a cap hit measure, and has nothing to do with player compensation. Player compensation is almost always lower than the mid-cap at season's end, that's why it keeps going up. IMO, it's the NHLPA who should have a problem with the 550k salary in 15 years from now, as it would lower player compensation, as it would be counted as a 6/7 mil (+/-) cap hit.

Quote:
I always thought min/max salaries and salary cap were all tied into revenues.
Like I said, it isn't the case. It is tied, but not as normally thought, there's true salaries and player compensation, and then there is cap max, cap min, averaged salaries (cap hit) and cap floor mid and roof. The latter's value is defined by the former's differential at year's end.

Quote:
In any event, assuming we have CBA renegotiations every 5 years or so (10 at most), I don't see the NHLPA accepting 2 or 3 consecutive freezes on the min/max salaries, especially if revenues increase. Kovalchuk's proposed contract opens a few cans of worms that the league just doesn't want to think about right now (and how could they, really, given the extent of the prognostication required?) I think they got lucky in that one of the rules you mentioned DID get circumvented, and thus the league had an easy out that the arbitrator couldn't ignore.
It wasn't a rule that was circumvented, but the "idea" behind a capped league. The NHL showed that Kovy's contract had ALL the earmarks of a circumvention, whereas for all other similar contracts (front-loaded), the players cannot be denied playing the average retirement age for star players which is between 35-40. The validity lies in the fact that those players could play at that age, whereas it is obvious Kovy won't be playing till he's 44.

Quote:
I mean, what happens if within the next 17 years the league minimum salary reaches $1 million (don't laugh...), and yet players exist with contracts that pay only half of that? Most (all?) players who are paid the min. aren't on contracts long enough to bother considering this, but Kovy's would be (for at least the time being, Hossa's minimum of $1 million seems safe/"acceptable").
I don't laugh at a 1 mil league minimum. It is quite a possibility. I didn't mention this before in this response, but I'm not sure there is a definite % for the league minimum, like there is for the league max (20% of total cap). If it were the case, the league minimum would be close to 750k right now, and it isn't. The league minimum hasn't gone up, contrarily to the total cap (low, mid, high) and the player max cap. The league minimum at the start of the CBA was 1/80 of a team's max cap. So logically, a 80 mil cap would have a 1 mil minimum for players under a future CBA. We could hit a 80 mil cap in less than 10 years if revenues keep increasing by 5% yearly.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:42 PM
  #34
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,467
vCash: 500
at last, common sense prevails.

Laws work the same way; even if a law it is not written explicitly, intent of the law usually prevails in court.

MrNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 07:55 PM
  #35
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
at last, common sense prevails.

Laws work the same way; even if a law it is not written explicitly, intent of the law usually prevails in court.
Exactly.

Which made me shake my head a whole lot at Denis Poissant's poor article and analysis. The NHL didn't add their trump card rule for nothing.

Can't believe this guy gets paid to write.

Once the league refused the contract, Lamoriello knew full well that an appeal would be useless. The NHLPA did it anyway, as any union would do for one of its members. The NHLPA didn't do it for Kovy though, IMO, they did it for the next CBA negociations.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:05 PM
  #36
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
The question I responded to isn't "why did the league reject the deal?" it was "where do you draw the line?" I AM aware of the rule set you're talking about, though. I submit that any deal long enough to pay someone as one of the best players in the league at one end, and then pay them the league minimum by the time it ends is too long and/or is designed with little besides cap circumvention in mind.
There's no line man. It's as simple of that. The league probably never thought contracts would be abused that much, and they just decided that, for this very player, it's too much. Does it mean they will reject further contracts in the future? Does it means they won't be any more close calls? Who knows. But in the current situation, it made more sense to refuse Kovalchuk contract now instead of risking a slippery slope that wouldn't have benefited anyone.

Now, in a few years, the CBA will probably be modified to handle these extreme contracts (the easiest way would simply be to put a limit to their length) but until then, the league absolute ruling is what we have, and I'm quite happy they decided to use their veto power.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:11 PM
  #37
HABitual Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
The mstake the league made is in the 35+ rule. Rather then it apply only to players signing a contract after age 35, it should have also included a clause that imposes it on all contracts that bring a player into that age group. You want to sign a player till age 45 to cut the cap hit fine, but if he retires you are responsible for the cap hit till the contract is up. A rule like this would make it easy to deal with all the cases in a uniform manner, not on a contract by contract basis.

HABitual Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:19 PM
  #38
HABitual Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Once the league refused the contract, Lamoriello knew full well that an appeal would be useless. The NHLPA did it anyway, as any union would do for one of its members. The NHLPA didn't do it for Kovy though, IMO, they did it for the next CBA negociations.
I don't think the rank and file are really that anxious to defend the rights of a multi million contract player. Sure as a union they have to, at least in public, but individually they know that for each contract like this signed, the guys earning 1-2M a year, either lose their jobs to cheaper players, or need to settle for smaller amounts to remain in the NHL. The number of big ticket players are far outweighed by the lower salary guys.

HABitual Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:38 PM
  #39
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABitual Fan View Post
I don't think the rank and file are really that anxious to defend the rights of a multi million contract player. Sure as a union they have to, at least in public, but individually they know that for each contract like this signed, the guys earning 1-2M a year, either lose their jobs to cheaper players, or need to settle for smaller amounts to remain in the NHL. The number of big ticket players are far outweighed by the lower salary guys.
That's actually why I said they didn't do it for Kovy.

I'm fully aware that the lower salary players are in much higher number, it's just common sense. They are the reason why Goodenow and his no-cap hard stance was put aside in the first place, to leave way to a capped league.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:43 PM
  #40
Jmac1160*
Gomez-"Sorry Coach"
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
I thought Hossa's deal should have been nixed also... Glad the league won this one, otherwise the madness would have never ended...
I feel the same but the NHL's ego is too big to admit they are wrong, so I think the line to draw is at Hossa's contract.

Jmac1160* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 08:52 PM
  #41
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
My bad then. Still, we do see former franchise players sign betweem 700k/2m in the last few seasons, so giving league minimum isn't that much of a problem as to circumvention is concerned. IMO, the circumvention happens when the contract is signed for years where it is obvious the player won't play and is only added to thin out the cap hit. That's the nuance that has to be considered.
Completely agreed. As for the 700K/2M, that isn't the ABSOLUTE minimum though, is it? That's a tiny difference that I think is kind of a big deal, even if it borders on semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I do see that as a problem and we've touched (posters here) this subject before. Thing is, player compensation is calculated with the players's true salaries, and the total revenues (the 57% share), whereas the cap is counted with cap hits, aka averaged salaries. If he still plays at that time, his averaged salary will still be in league norms, I think that's why they don't see it as a problem, as the league minimum is set as a cap hit measure, and has nothing to do with player compensation. Player compensation is almost always lower than the mid-cap at season's end, that's why it keeps going up. IMO, it's the NHLPA who should have a problem with the 550k salary in 15 years from now, as it would lower player compensation, as it would be counted as a 6/7 mil (+/-) cap hit.
Wait a second. I understand what you're saying, but the wording here implies that you can (for example) sign a player to a contract that pays a salary of $300K one year, and $800K because the "average" (cap hit) is at or above the minimum threshold. I think we both know this isn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Like I said, it isn't the case. It is tied, but not as normally thought, there's true salaries and player compensation, and then there is cap max, cap min, averaged salaries (cap hit) and cap floor mid and roof. The latter's value is defined by the former's differential at year's end.
My point isn't HOW they're tied, though. It's about the fact that admitting that the minimum now may be the same as the minimum 15 or 17 years from now in some way suggests the possibility of revenue stagnation. You've highlighted the other major factor concerning 35+ contracts and 40 year old players. I think Bettman is just as concerned with anything that possibly reflects poorly on or suggests negatively about revenues, the "state of the game", and/or the possible feasibility of future expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
It wasn't a rule that was circumvented, but the "idea" behind a capped league. The NHL showed that Kovy's contract had ALL the earmarks of a circumvention, whereas for all other similar contracts (front-loaded), the players cannot be denied playing the average retirement age for star players which is between 35-40. The validity lies in the fact that those players could play at that age, whereas it is obvious Kovy won't be playing till he's 44.
It's a good thing that they can use this kind of interpretation without having to directly say: "Sorry Kovy, we don't believe you'll be able to play at age 40/42/44, so this is bupkiss."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I don't laugh at a 1 mil league minimum. It is quite a possibility. I didn't mention this before in this response, but I'm not sure there is a definite % for the league minimum, like there is for the league max (20% of total cap). If it were the case, the league minimum would be close to 750k right now, and it isn't. The league minimum hasn't gone up, contrarily to the total cap (low, mid, high) and the player max cap. The league minimum at the start of the CBA was 1/80 of a team's max cap. So logically, a 80 mil cap would have a 1 mil minimum for players under a future CBA. We could hit a 80 mil cap in less than 10 years if revenues keep increasing by 5% yearly.
All the more reason that the league would want to avoid sore thumbs like 500K contracts sticking out in the future if this, indeed, becomes the case. Again, I'm not really concerned with where the mins/maxes come from. I'm pretty sure that the league min HAS gone up, though in consecutive CBAs. I want to say in my lifetime on the internet, the min has gone from about $450K to about $500K to the $550K it is today. That may not be linearly tied to the cap, but it shows (to Bettman's pleasure almost as much as the NHLPA and its clients, I'm sure) that the trend is upwards, not downwards or horizontal.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 09:01 PM
  #42
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
There's no line man. It's as simple of that. The league probably never thought contracts would be abused that much, and they just decided that, for this very player, it's too much. Does it mean they will reject further contracts in the future? Does it means they won't be any more close calls? Who knows. But in the current situation, it made more sense to refuse Kovalchuk contract now instead of risking a slippery slope that wouldn't have benefited anyone.

Now, in a few years, the CBA will probably be modified to handle these extreme contracts (the easiest way would simply be to put a limit to their length) but until then, the league absolute ruling is what we have, and I'm quite happy they decided to use their veto power.
Again, I know dude. But instead of answering the question from the "technical" or "letter of the law" side of things, I shared something that seems obviously ridiculous to me. I mean, is someone really trying to say that they are competent enough to predict how long it will take a player to go from marquee status (i.e. "worthy" of the league max salary) to retirement, and work out how much he is supposed to be worth at each step along the way? I don't think so.

I'm surprised they even let players/teams sign deals that assess a value to a player each year for up to a 10 year "snap shot". I think the "average" player seems to go from ELC to prime to leaving the NHL in about that time frame (maybe slightly longer, and getting longer due to all the modern factors we're all aware of), so how can you even try to predict and assess a value of something like that (even if you're mostly just concerned about the "average", or "cap hit")?

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2010, 09:23 PM
  #43
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Completely agreed. As for the 700K/2M, that isn't the ABSOLUTE minimum though, is it? That's a tiny difference that I think is kind of a big deal, even if it borders on semantics.



Wait a second. I understand what you're saying, but the wording here implies that you can (for example) sign a player to a contract that pays a salary of $300K one year, and $800K because the "average" (cap hit) is at or above the minimum threshold. I think we both know this isn't the case.



My point isn't HOW they're tied, though. It's about the fact that admitting that the minimum now may be the same as the minimum 15 or 17 years from now in some way suggests the possibility of revenue stagnation. You've highlighted the other major factor concerning 35+ contracts and 40 year old players. I think Bettman is just as concerned with anything that possibly reflects poorly on or suggests negatively about revenues, the "state of the game", and/or the possible feasibility of future expansion.



It's a good thing that they can use this kind of interpretation without having to directly say: "Sorry Kovy, we don't believe you'll be able to play at age 40/42/44, so this is bupkiss."



All the more reason that the league would want to avoid sore thumbs like 500K contracts sticking out in the future if this, indeed, becomes the case. Again, I'm not really concerned with where the mins/maxes come from. I'm pretty sure that the league min HAS gone up, though in consecutive CBAs. I want to say in my lifetime on the internet, the min has gone from about $450K to about $500K to the $550K it is today. That may not be linearly tied to the cap, but it shows (to Bettman's pleasure almost as much as the NHLPA and its clients, I'm sure) that the trend is upwards, not downwards or horizontal.
I finally got a bit busy and found the damn thing...

The minimum salary was set for every year in the CBA, from the start. It isn't linked in anyway with the increasing revenues. The max player cap hit is, as it is based on 20% of the team's cap limit, which in turn is based on 57% of total revenues.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366

Quote:
The minimum NHL player salary in 2005-06 and 2006-07 will be $450,000; $475,000 in 2007-08 and 2008-09; $500,000 in 2009-10 and 2010-11, and $525,000 in 2011-12 (to the extent the CBA is extended by the Union).
Also, I never implied that a player could sign for 300k and 800k on an averaged salary contract of two years. What I was saying is that the 500k in 15 years will be his true salary, but the minimum is CBA based, not cap specific in Kovy's case, and in 15 years probably won't matter except for player compensation.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:22 AM
  #44
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABitual Fan View Post
The mistake the league made is in the 35+ rule. Rather then it apply only to players signing a contract after age 35, it should have also included a clause that imposes it on all contracts that bring a player into that age group.
The league didn't think the owners would start signing 20-something free agents to these kind of contracts or they just might have. I think Yashin's contract was the first 10-year contract the league had seen and everyone came to regard it as a stupid mistake. Jagr's wasn't as long but it equally handcuffed the Capitals for a while.

I'd be shocked if it doesn't get explicitly written into the next CBA; perhaps a maximum contract length of 5-7 years even (grandfathering in the existing ones, assuming the league doesn't now take on Hossa's deal to get a finer line drawn).

optimus2861 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:31 AM
  #45
ClasslessGuy
Registered User
 
ClasslessGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: St-Jean, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
I don't understand Kovalchuk, if i was him, i would sign with a really good team for like 4-5m and do that for like 2-3 years to get a cup. After that i would sign a 10y deal for a lot of cash!

ClasslessGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:45 AM
  #46
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp10 View Post
I don't understand Kovalchuk, if i was him, i would sign with a really good team for like 4-5m and do that for like 2-3 years to get a cup. After that i would sign a 10y deal for a lot of cash!
But what would he do to feed his family with only 4-5 mil per year? Poor fella.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:46 AM
  #47
shamrun
Registered User
 
shamrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp10 View Post
I don't understand Kovalchuk, if i was him, i would sign with a really good team for like 4-5m and do that for like 2-3 years to get a cup. After that i would sign a 10y deal for a lot of cash!
so what would happen if in that span of time you got an injury that forced you to retire early before you can rack in all that cash?

shamrun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:47 AM
  #48
Bilgerat10
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
The league didn't think the owners would start signing 20-something free agents to these kind of contracts or they just might have. I think Yashin's contract was the first 10-year contract the league had seen and everyone came to regard it as a stupid mistake. Jagr's wasn't as long but it equally handcuffed the Capitals for a while.

I'd be shocked if it doesn't get explicitly written into the next CBA; perhaps a maximum contract length of 5-7 years even (grandfathering in the existing ones, assuming the league doesn't now take on Hossa's deal to get a finer line drawn).
Longtimer lurker and almost never poster--but I did want to add something here. Guy Lafleur was signed to a 10-year 1 million dollar contract just prior to his breakout season and glory years with the Habs. The prevailing fear at the time was that he (like a number of Hab prospects--Marc Tardif and Rejean Houle) could be lured away by the WHA. I remember that at one point later on in his career there was a renegotiation of the dollar amount when Lafleur threatened to not dress for a game with the Leafs and holdout if the contract wasn't revisited. Either way, this is one of the those times where a long term deal was a steal for an NHL team.


Last edited by Bilgerat10: 08-10-2010 at 08:52 AM.
Bilgerat10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 08:57 AM
  #49
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
According to the Globe previous deals may be revisited:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1667233/


Quote:
Bloch also noted that several other long-term contracts are under investigation for circumvention, listing deals given to Vancouver Canucks netminder Roberto Luongo, Boston Bruins centre Marc Savard, Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Chris Pronger and Chicago Blackhawks winger Marian Hossa as raising similar red flags to Kovalchuk’s rejected contract.

“While the contracts have in fact been registered, their structure has not escaped league notice,” the decision reads. “Those players’ contracts are being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration.”
-----

If Hossa became a free agent it would be great if he signed with Montreal.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2010, 10:10 AM
  #50
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
I'd laugh if just to be a dick he signed in Chicago/Detroit/etc for 1 million but got like 20 million in endorsements just to go grab a cup.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.