HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

If handing out long term contracts carry over to the new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-19-2012, 10:39 PM
  #26
Guy Boucher
Registered User
 
Guy Boucher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
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?
The long-term cap circumventing contracts have not been around long enough to properly assess the damage it can do to a team under a heavy cap system.

Guy Boucher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 10:52 PM
  #27
number72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Boucher View Post
The long-term cap circumventing contracts have not been around long enough to properly assess the damage it can do to a team under a heavy cap system.
So these long contracts are guilty until proven innocent?

I don't know the answer I'm just questioning how real the issue is. Even Gomez's contract that is a Burke approved 7 year contract is a failure. Gomez is currently 32 and will be 34 when the contract expires but this contract is terrible.

number72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 11:06 PM
  #28
JackJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,290
vCash: 500
It shouldn't have mattered this entire time.

JackJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 11:13 PM
  #29
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre View Post
Dont like them. name me a forty year old worth 6-7m a year
They are not being paid that at 40 years of age....at this point they are being paid 1 million....Their cap hit is still the average amount of their salary over the term of their contract.

Going to the yearly paid amount as the cap hit would correct this....if the player gets 20 million his first year then that is his cap hit for that year.

Or maybe something like: Only 10 percent max of a contract can be a signing bonus....so a 10 year 100 million contract would be max of 10 million signing bonus and it could be spread over the length of the contract in any way.


Last edited by diceman934: 07-19-2012 at 11:19 PM.
diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 11:25 PM
  #30
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,513
vCash: 500
I've actually had this threads topic rolling around in my head the past week. Whatever the outcome of the new CBA is, I have no doubt Burke operates full tilt under it. The issues with the current one have been identified, there will be a resolution, and that's going to be that. Burke will embrace the new system, whatever it is, he's not stupid, this will be how it's gonna be.

No worries.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:16 AM
  #31
blasted_Sabre
Global Moderator
Warden of the North
 
blasted_Sabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Muskoka
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
They are not being paid that at 40 years of age....at this point they are being paid 1 million....Their cap hit is still the average amount of their salary over the term of their contract.

Going to the yearly paid amount as the cap hit would correct this....if the player gets 20 million his first year then that is his cap hit for that year.

Or maybe something like: Only 10 percent max of a contract can be a signing bonus....so a 10 year 100 million contract would be max of 10 million signing bonus and it could be spread over the length of the contract in any way.
Well, duh. Thats the issue with it. The caphit. Actual salary means nothing to us as fans. And having salary=caphit wouldnt work either. It would allow teams to backload deals, load up with stars, and deal with the consequences later on (think the reverse of what they do now ~ 1m this year and 12m in 14 years). Presumably they win a few championships in this time, and the current GM is long gone before he has to deal with the problems.

Restricting term is the best was to curb this.

blasted_Sabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:06 AM
  #32
StuckOutHere
Registered User
 
StuckOutHere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre View Post
Dont like them. name me a forty year old worth 6-7m a year
The only players around that age I would even consider paying that kind of money for are a healthy Chris Pronger and Teemu Selanne.

StuckOutHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:34 AM
  #33
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by calcal798 View Post
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.
It's embarassing how badly we spend money. We refuse to give out long term contracts so we're losing out on big time free agents so we go and use that money to sign second line/third line players first line money. Burke is treating his contract philosophy like AA does..like a small market team. The Leafs shouldn't be worrying how long contracts are! just pay up! richest team in the league and as an organization Burke is allowing his moral righteousness get ahead of the success of the hockey team. When teams like Minnesota are outbidding you for players it definitely raises eye brows. I'll say this again, the way the Flyers do business is awesome, they don't f around with philosophies and what's good for the game they worry about their team and getting better all the time. Burke and co. should stop worrying about cap cirvcumvention when every team has at least one contract that does that. The rest of the league is taking advantage of a loop hole and our GM is worried about how it looks legally..screw that!! get some high end players on this team Burke!

Stats01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:37 AM
  #34
calcal798
Registered User
 
calcal798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
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.
But almost half the teams in the league have one player on their team that has one, if it was only a few teams sure, but when its that many, it'll be hard to eradicate any of them.

I could see an amnesty clause coming into play.

calcal798 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:41 AM
  #35
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
I've actually had this threads topic rolling around in my head the past week. Whatever the outcome of the new CBA is, I have no doubt Burke operates full tilt under it. The issues with the current one have been identified, there will be a resolution, and that's going to be that. Burke will embrace the new system, whatever it is, he's not stupid, this will be how it's gonna be.

No worries.
We'll see, he's a blowhard. He talks out of his ass more than half the time. One minute he wants an experienced goalie the next his reported interest in Bernier goes up. At other times he says something but does the other. It's getting rediculous. I'm fine with him being the President of the team but when it comes to being the GM he's done a mediocre job overall. Only real thing that's improved since he's arrived is the farm system, other than that we've done jack squat with him here. I don't think a new CBA system changes his philosophy at all. He's a hard ass and will always be a hard ass. I'm starting to see what Canuck fans were saying about him when he first got here.

Stats01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:48 AM
  #36
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
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.
I know that you are saying hypothetically. Still, these contracts cannot possibly be re-negotiated. In the world of commercial law, a contract is a contract. Both sides have to live up to the contract. At the same time, is it possible for the new collective bargaining agreement to stipulate a new process of dealing with old front-loaded contracts? I highly doubt it. In the world of law, you cannot act retroactively. Too bad though, the new contracts are just retarded.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 06:38 AM
  #37
S2S
Come at me bros
 
S2S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,849
vCash: 500
People forget that Burke has adapted with previous situations and made changes. If these new contracts become the norm, he will dish them out. Things change and so does Burke. In 2011, his rebuilding wasn't going as planned, so he adapted and dealt Kaberle and Versteeg for two 1sts and a previous 1st. Burke extended Ron Wilson. When Wilson blew it not too long after, Burke adapted and fired him.

If these contracts become disallowed, Burke's patience should be applauded, if they become allowed, let's hope to see him adapt, which I'm sure he can.

S2S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 06:46 AM
  #38
enixer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I know that you are saying hypothetically. Still, these contracts cannot possibly be re-negotiated. In the world of commercial law, a contract is a contract. Both sides have to live up to the contract. At the same time, is it possible for the new collective bargaining agreement to stipulate a new process of dealing with old front-loaded contracts? I highly doubt it. In the world of law, you cannot act retroactively. Too bad though, the new contracts are just retarded.
... except that the contract isn't between the NHL and the team/player, the contract is between the player and the team, subject to whatever is set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Kovalchuk and the Devils signed a contract that the League didn't like, too bad for Kovalchuk and the Devils. The League didn't just have the authority to shoot down the deal, they had the authority to nail the Devils to the tune of $3M and 2 draft picks for signing it. So much for commercial law, right?

The new collective agreement can absolutely come up with rules to deal with these long term agreements. The agreement between the NHLPA and the NHL makes the rules, not the individual contracts between players and teams.
If the collective agreement says, "all deals will be limited to 5 years," and then says "this rule shall also be applied to existing contracts, so that all existing player-team contracts are deemed to last a maximum of 5 years," what prevents this?

We'll see, but I wouldn't be surprised if all current agreements would be honoured, and the limit will only apply to future contracts.

enixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 06:51 AM
  #39
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
It's embarassing how badly we spend money. We refuse to give out long term contracts so we're losing out on big time free agents so we go and use that money to sign second line/third line players first line money. Burke is treating his contract philosophy like AA does..like a small market team. The Leafs shouldn't be worrying how long contracts are! just pay up! richest team in the league and as an organization Burke is allowing his moral righteousness get ahead of the success of the hockey team. When teams like Minnesota are outbidding you for players it definitely raises eye brows. I'll say this again, the way the Flyers do business is awesome, they don't f around with philosophies and what's good for the game they worry about their team and getting better all the time. Burke and co. should stop worrying about cap cirvcumvention when every team has at least one contract that does that. The rest of the league is taking advantage of a loop hole and our GM is worried about how it looks legally..screw that!! get some high end players on this team Burke!
Brian Burke has the NHL best interests at heart. His first priority is supporting the NHL.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 07:09 AM
  #40
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
We'll see, he's a blowhard. He talks out of his ass more than half the time. One minute he wants an experienced goalie the next his reported interest in Bernier goes up. At other times he says something but does the other. It's getting rediculous. I'm fine with him being the President of the team but when it comes to being the GM he's done a mediocre job overall. Only real thing that's improved since he's arrived is the farm system, other than that we've done jack squat with him here. I don't think a new CBA system changes his philosophy at all. He's a hard ass and will always be a hard ass. I'm starting to see what Canuck fans were saying about him when he first got here.
You have very little understanding of strategy. Burke uses media for misdirection purposes. He is trying to pry a goalie for cheap and is using the media as leverage. Hate him if you like but I would rather he kept his intentions internal.

Rinzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 07:25 AM
  #41
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Seems as though a lot of you are missing the point. It is not long term contracts, it's cap circumventing ones that are at issue. It also appears likely that they will be addressed in the upcoming cba.

Would any one really want Kovy's contract?

Richards wasn't going anywhere but new york. Parise and Suter were not coming here. So who are all these top tier ufs's that we have lost out on due to Burke's philosophy.

egd27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 08:34 AM
  #42
Andrew Mack
Registered User
 
Andrew Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Niagara Region, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,157
vCash: 500
If the contracts remain the same then Burke will start signing them. One of the major reasons he hasn't is Bill Daly came out and warned GMs not to sign these deals and that there could be major restructuring to how the cap is calculated, making the players on these deals worth much more on the cap.

For instance, if the cap changes and Shea Weber's cap hit is now $12M a year, Philadelphia can't cry foul because they have been warned by the NHL not to sign these deals and that there will be changes. This is why Burke does not sign them.

However, I think there are now simply too many of them to not grandfather them in. The NHL simply has to change their rhetoric and allow them to be calculated the same way, otherwise it will destroy the competitive landscape of the league. Sure, they warned the teams and a few listened, but it has gone too far now so you can't follow through with those threats.

I think Burke thought they would and that he would be in the catbird seat, but now it has just gotten too out of control for the NHL to follow through with that kind of punitive change.

Andrew Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 08:41 AM
  #43
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Mack View Post
If the contracts remain the same then Burke will start signing them. One of the major reasons he hasn't is Bill Daly came out and warned GMs not to sign these deals and that there could be major restructuring to how the cap is calculated, making the players on these deals worth much more on the cap.

For instance, if the cap changes and Shea Weber's cap hit is now $12M a year, Philadelphia can't cry foul because they have been warned by the NHL not to sign these deals and that there will be changes. This is why Burke does not sign them.

However, I think there are now simply too many of them to not grandfather them in. The NHL simply has to change their rhetoric and allow them to be calculated the same way, otherwise it will destroy the competitive landscape of the league. Sure, they warned the teams and a few listened, but it has gone too far now so you can't follow through with those threats.

I think Burke thought they would and that he would be in the catbird seat, but now it has just gotten too out of control for the NHL to follow through with that kind of punitive change.
Such a change has to be collectively bargained anyway. The League can make all the threats it wants. They cannot unilaterally make changes.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 08:49 AM
  #44
ForSpareParts*
agreement
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by calcal798 View Post
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.
hahaha

it's funny. before he came to the leafs he had a reputation for being ruthless. what happened to that?


ForSpareParts* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 08:52 AM
  #45
Andrew Mack
Registered User
 
Andrew Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Niagara Region, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Such a change has to be collectively bargained anyway. The League can make all the threats it wants. They cannot unilaterally make changes.
Well for one players wouldn't care how big a cap hit is, they will still be getting the same money at the end of the day. It has considerably less impact on them than the teams, so I can't see them fighting against cap hits when they have bigger issues like revenue, ELCs, RFA years and the length of the deals themselves to worry about.

But still it seems very unlikely at this point, and I think it is a gamble Burke took and lost (not that there are ton of players I would've signed to those deals anyways outside of Weber) as at this point even if they had carte blanche to change it on the CBA it would completely sink several teams. It isn't just 2 or 3 anymore. Most teams have this kind of deal.

Can you imagine if all of a sudden Christian Ehrhoff had a $10M cap hit? Pretty much half the league would be in serious cap trouble. I know they were warned but the NHL can't do it now.

Andrew Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:02 AM
  #46
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Mack View Post
Well for one players wouldn't care how big a cap hit is, they will still be getting the same money at the end of the day. It has considerably less impact on them than the teams, so I can't see them fighting against cap hits when they have bigger issues like revenue, ELCs, RFA years and the length of the deals themselves to worry about.

But still it seems very unlikely at this point, and I think it is a gamble Burke took and lost (not that there are ton of players I would've signed to those deals anyways outside of Weber) as at this point even if they had carte blanche to change it on the CBA it would completely sink several teams. It isn't just 2 or 3 anymore. Most teams have this kind of deal.

Can you imagine if all of a sudden Christian Ehrhoff had a $10M cap hit? Pretty much half the league would be in serious cap trouble. I know they were warned but the NHL can't do it now.
The NHLPA certainly does care about cap hits. It is the cap hit that directly affects how much money can be in the system at a given time.

I don't get thus warning part. The CBA was amended. That was it.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:06 AM
  #47
Andrew Mack
Registered User
 
Andrew Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Niagara Region, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
The NHLPA certainly does care about cap hits. It is the cap hit that directly affects how much money can be in the system at a given time.

I don't get thus warning part. The CBA was amended. That was it.
The NHL told teams that they way cap-hits are structured was going to be reviewed and changed. Bill Daly warned teams publicly not to sign these circumvention deals because it could bite them when they changed it.

Elliote Friedman touched on this after the Suter and Parise deals. I forgot all about it too.

Andrew Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:23 AM
  #48
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Mack View Post
The NHL told teams that they way cap-hits are structured was going to be reviewed and changed. Bill Daly warned teams publicly not to sign these circumvention deals because it could bite them when they changed it.

Elliote Friedman touched on this after the Suter and Parise deals. I forgot all about it too.

Like I said earlier. Warnings are useless. It's not a unilateral system. It has to be bargained. If the NHL insists on getting their way we look forward to a lockout.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:45 AM
  #49
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
If, and I think it's unlikely, the new CBA doesn't restrict max term, then I think BB probably has to change it up, but if you don't like Burke's management of the Leafs you should still be happy he hasn't done these long deals. If you don't trust his judgement, why would you trust him to sign guys that would handcuff the next GM? So if you like BB, it's probably partially because he avoided these kinds of deals and if you dislike him, why would you be confident he would've been better if he'd used these kinds of potentially severly restricting deals for future GMs?

And while I don't expect it anymore (by my count there are 15 teams already affected with NSH potentially being a 16th), I would certainly love to see a provision that ensures the discrepancy between salary paid and cap hit be applied post retirement for these clubs. I don't understand how or why the NHL could set caps based on revenues and then let 15-20m escape all that calculation for each big name player signing. The problem is far too many teams would end up with either short-term mega hits or very long-term smaller ones (for instance if Luongo played to the end of those 6.7 annual salaries with 5.3 hits, and then retired, there'd over 14m in cap hit (57m paid, 42.6m capped). So let him retire and they can avoid 4 years of 5.33, but make them eat that 14.3m in whatever way that can be agreed upon (same time period makes it a tad over 3.5 for 4 years).

BTW, this is also why I don't expect TOR to trade for RL before a new CBA. He might end up here, but I don't see BB committing without knowing whether he's picking up a very very big extra cap hit.


Last edited by satyr9: 07-20-2012 at 09:52 AM.
satyr9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:50 AM
  #50
Tonka
Diggles
 
Tonka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre View Post
Dont like them. name me a forty year old worth 6-7m a year
1. Players will be making around 1m in those years, only their cap hit will be around 6-7m.
2. The cap by then will be much higher (already closing in on close to 70m).
3. The way these contracts are designed, it makes it very easy to buy the players out.
4. The player themselves would probably retire around 36-38.

In actuality, these contracts being used by Philli, Pittsburgh, NYR, Detroit, etc. are perfect for teams that want to acquire and retain star talent and to make them the elite teams of the league. Star talent/elite teams are the ones that win the cup.

LA: Kopitar, Doughty, Richards, Carter
BOS: Chara, Thomas
CHI: Toews, Keith, Kane
Pitts: Crosby, Malkin
DET: Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Zetterberg

Teams close to:
NYR: Richards, Gaborik, Lundqvist
NJ: Kovalchuk, Parise
VAN: Sedins
PHI: Richards, Carter, Pronger
.................................................. ........

TOR: Kessel (to a lesser extent)
Could have attempted to get: Stamkos, Weber.


Last edited by Tonka: 07-20-2012 at 09:56 AM.
Tonka 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 07:44 AM.

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.