Disagree. They're clearly adding years to the end that the players don't intend to play for the express purpose of lowering the cap hit. It's just a phenomenon they didn't foresee when drafting the last CBA.
Yep. The new CBA should set some sort of limit on the percentage by which a player's can vary within the term of a single contract. So if the limit's 10% and the top year's pay is $6M, the bottom year can't be lower than $5.4M. Would make GM's think real hard about 14-year deals for anyone, let alone guys with injury issues like Crosby or guys older than 25 like Weber.
Yep. The new CBA should set some sort of limit on the percentage by which a player's can vary within the term of a single contract. So if the limit's 10% and the top year's pay is $6M, the bottom year can't be lower than $5.4M. Would make GM's think real hard about 14-year deals for anyone, let alone guys with injury issues like Crosby or guys older than 25 like Weber.
They already functionally have that rule in place (can't drop more than 50% of the average of the first two years, can't rise more than 100(?)% of that average).
Now, if those numbers are too lax, fine. But the framework is already in place.
That said, I'm wary of putting too strong a limit on a team's ability to frontload or backload a deal, because I think that gets too much into meddling with their internal finances. I realize that in practical terms it becomes a question of dead years at the end, but I think the better way to deal with that is to address players who actually do end up retiring.
I think those contracts violate the spirit of the rules, if not the letter of the rules.
To me that's circumvention, and should have been addressed with punishment of the Wings for the Franzen deal.
I would have had little problem with them nipping it initially, but I think once they allowed it to start they have no "ethical" right to stop them, if only for the sake of impartiality.
Then again, I don't care about the spirit of the rules. I dislike how much leeway the league has to work with the spirit of the rules, in fact, because again I think it goes back to impartiality. If you stick to the letter of the rules then you always know where you stand.
They should have just made each year count as paid ex bonus and moved on. The AAV thing is stupid and tool of nhlpa and rich teams. But it's just full retard.
They already functionally have that rule in place (can't drop more than 50% of the average of the first two years, can't rise more than 100(?)% of that average).
Now, if those numbers are too lax, fine. But the framework is already in place.
That said, I'm wary of putting too strong a limit on a team's ability to frontload or backload a deal, because I think that gets too much into meddling with their internal finances. I realize that in practical terms it becomes a question of dead years at the end, but I think the better way to deal with that is to address players who actually do end up retiring.
There needs to be control for more than just retirement. I agree with NBTW that the teams don't expect a guy to play 'til he's 40, but what if he does? He may be worth what he's getting paid in those last years, but the team still built the contract to avoid the cap hit in the early years. That's the larger issue for me.
They should have just made each year count as paid ex bonus and moved on. The AAV thing is stupid and tool of nhlpa and rich teams. But it's just full retard.
There needs to be control for more than just retirement. I agree with NBTW that the teams don't expect a guy to play 'til he's 40, but what if he does? He may be worth what he's getting paid in those last years, but the team still built the contract to avoid the cap hit in the early years. That's the larger issue for me.
It's a tradeoff. Lower cap hit in the early years, higher in the later years. I have no real issues with that (although if you want to compartmentalize it into smaller chunks that might be an interesting way to do it... they already do that after the Kovy rule change in some cases, right?) There's no free lunch unless the guy retires early. If you want to tighten it a bit though that's certainly an option.
I think cap hit changing year-to-year is never going to happen so I never really think it worth consideration. Neither side wants it enough.
I always can't help but sympathize with the circumventors...but, yeah, these contracts are ridiculous. I want teams to be able to keep their homegrown players, whose rights they already have, but the contracts guys like Parise and Suter are getting are ridiculous. The front-loading eliminates a decent number of teams automatically. Obviously a lot of the same teams would probably still be considered top destinations, but where a player signs shouldn't be half determined by who can afford $25M in a year, or whatever.
They should have just made each year count as paid ex bonus and moved on. The AAV thing is stupid and tool of nhlpa and rich teams. But it's just full retard.
They could also establish a standard discount rate and set the cap hit as NPV/# of years signed. The discount rate could be recalculated each year based on the salary cap delta (discount rate would be set for the life of the contract based on the year one delta). Maybe that's more complicated than it needs to be. I feel like an actuary could come up with a fair formula pretty easily. AAV is definitely idiotic though. We can all agree there.
They could also establish a standard discount rate and set the cap hit as NPV/# of years signed. The discount rate could be recalculated each year based on the salary cap delta (discount rate would be set for the life of the contract based on the year one delta). Maybe that's more complicated than it needs to be. I feel like an actuary could come up with a fair formula pretty easily. AAV is definitely idiotic though. We can all agree there.
It's a tradeoff. Lower cap hit in the early years, higher in the later years. I have no real issues with that (although if you want to compartmentalize it into smaller chunks that might be an interesting way to do it... they already do that after the Kovy rule change in some cases, right?) There's no free lunch unless the guy retires early. If you want to tighten it a bit though that's certainly an option.
I think cap hit changing year-to-year is never going to happen so I never really think it worth consideration. Neither side wants it enough.
This misses the point, tho. The lower cap hit in the player's prime allows a team to surround that guy with teammates they shouldn't be able to afford. When he's 40, they're likely restocking with young cheap guys and don't care about the extra hit. It's just unfair, especially to small-market teams that are priced out of not only the top-end FAs but also the supporting players teams like Philly shouldn't be able to fit under the cap.
Katie: Update, 5:11 p.m.: According to a person with knowledge of the situation, the Capitals have not made an offer to Semin.
Well actually I am pretty sure they are talking. Why does Gandler alsways talk about the Caps. Probably because he knows that is where his client will probably end up.
If he wanted to go somewhere else he would have done, maybe I am ignoring the Nash sweepstakes.
In my eyes it is Russia or caps unless some other team comes with a surprising offer.
This misses the point, tho. The lower cap hit in the player's prime allows a team to surround that guy with teammates they shouldn't be able to afford. When he's 40, they're likely restocking with young cheap guys and don't care about the extra hit. It's just unfair, especially to small-market teams that are priced out of not only the top-end FAs but also the supporting players teams like Philly shouldn't be able to fit under the cap.
But the salary cap's not there to ensure the fair distribution of talent. If it were, there'd be *significantly* stronger revenue sharing and/or a lower/nonexistent floor.
If you want a cap system that does work to distribute talent evenly, then pool all revenues and distribute them evenly (I know this will never happen). Other than localized issues like taxes and quality of life that would put everyone on a level playing field. Anything less is just half-measures at best because the have-nots really can't even afford to spend to the floor. Until you address that issue worrying about how the top talent is distributed is putting the cart before the horse, I think.
If a team is willing to take the hit later and is willing to put themself in a position where they have to retool because they've got aging guys with a bigger hit than they warrant (due to getting them cheaper early), I have no problem with that. They got a benefit earlier by being able to load up and, presumably, have better success early. They took a hit later by having to retool and, presumably, have less success later. Trading bad years for good years, if that's what they want to do, I can totally live with. Of course the really good GMs will try to keep consistently good by managing these deals more carefully, perhaps staggering them a bit.
There's no free lunch unless the guy retires early.
Which I think these kinds of contracts virtually guarantee. Nobody is making say $90 mil over say the first 10 years to then play for a mil a season when they are 38, 39, and 40.
The work needed to be able to play NHL hockey at that age is tremendous and after making what they made it just isn't worth doing for 'only' a mil a year.
That is my problem with these kinds of deals, those last seasons at very little money are never going to get played for the most part.
Which I think these kinds of contracts virtually guarantee. Nobody is making say $90 mil over say the first 10 years to then play for a mil a season when they are 38, 39, and 40.
The work needed to be able to play NHL hockey at that age is tremendous and after making what they made it just isn't worth doing for 'only' a mil a year.
That is my problem with these kinds of deals, those last seasons at very little money are never going to get played for the most part.
I think players are only going to keep player longer and longer as time goes on, so making it to 40 will become less and less of a barrier (and at that point it's rarely about the money).
That said, I think it shouldn't be very difficult to change the rules to put penalties in place on those kinds of deals that get triggered if the player retires. If that's the issue with those kinds of deals it can likely be addressed. I can't see parity as the issue with those types of deals because true parity isn't possible while the financial landscape of is so varied.
I don't think Lidstrom plays as long as he did for a mil a season. If it wasn't at least partially about money he would have taken very little so they could have brought in another top player. But he didn't and this is Lidstrom a guy who has won everything that can be won for the most part.
i really wonder what happens with these players who give up so much income in the later years.
mike knuble was getting twice what weber will be getting.
I suspect we'll see guys retiring early rather than playing for $1 mil a season. Either than or just mail it in the last few years.
__________________
George McPhee....The Teflon GM. 15 years of failure and counting....
6 - Number of playoff series the Capitals have won since George McPhee took over as General Manager in 1997 (which makes him the third-longest-tenured GM in the League), three of which came in McPhee's first season on the job.
i really wonder what happens with these players who give up so much income in the later years.
mike knuble was getting twice what weber will be getting.
They're not giving up income in later years. They're getting the money they'd normally get in later years earlier, thus bypassing inflation and having more cash on hand to invest instantly and whatnot. Weber's contract has the value of a 120-130 million contract if he were paid equally per annum. He will probably be making a couple million a year off off interest alone by the time he's 37, even if he doesn't invest. If they're getting 7 million a year then they're not getting 14 million a year now.
At worst he retires at 37 and goes to the KHL and double his money that way.
you honestly think that in a situation like lidstrom was in on a cup contender that suter and weber and parise retire because the bucks are small? you honestly think taht if they game is viable and their team not so, that they dont leverage the low salary into a trade to a contender?
frankly when these guys are getting the $6m and $3m salaries, they are going to be vastly underpaid.
I think that's a risk (I guess a character one, and also a health one) you take when you sign the guy to that deal. You hope he's the type that will stick it out until the end like a pro... or at least you would if they penalized him/you for retiring.
