HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Oshie signs a deal (5 years - $4.175mil/year)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2012, 12:44 AM
  #26
BleedinBlueSince1972
More Cowbell!!!
 
BleedinBlueSince1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 2,783
vCash: 1010
I'm happy it didn't go to arbitration. I will concur that Armey isn't done yet either.

BleedinBlueSince1972 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 01:41 AM
  #27
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,808
vCash: 500
Sounds like Oshie is working really hard again this summer at his Minnesota hockey camp. Pumped about this deal.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 01:55 AM
  #28
Cudi
in the aeroplane...
 
Cudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hamsterdam
Country: Finland
Posts: 52,191
vCash: 50
Good deal, this will be a steal once Oshie reaches his prime.

Cudi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:44 AM
  #29
BleedinBlueSince1972
More Cowbell!!!
 
BleedinBlueSince1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 2,783
vCash: 1010
Now Let's see some more Biscuts in the Basket O'shie!

BleedinBlueSince1972 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:34 AM
  #30
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL fan in IA View Post
It shouldn't make you think anything. The Blues will easily use up enough cap space due to injuries/callups to take care of the rest. Of course, that's even if the cap ceiling/floor stays the same in the next cba...which it very well may not.
Yeah but one key aspect is that some of the bonuses may be credited back. Guys may not reach their bonuses due to any number of factors.

Tarasenko: 850K
Langenbrunner: 250K
Nichol: 50K
Schwartz: 267K
Cole: 425K
Shattenkirk: 425K
Pietrangelo: $2,379,166
Total $4,645,833

If all of these players reach 100% of their bonuses (which they won't unless Petro hits all the schedule B bonuses PLUS the others all max their bonuses), then the Blues are still basically 500K below the floor if they have Schwartz up and Porter down, and 1.017M below the floor if Schwartz goes to Peoria and Porter's the 14th.

I asked this question of JR in chat last week with the premise that Oshie would get ~4M and he noted it for the record but said he'd look into it. You're correct that there will be some callups and for some days the two way contracts will be paid, but think about it, even if they average 2 contracts up with the club for an entire season's worth of days (2 x 183 or whatever it is), those are all very low two-way contracts. So you're talking about a number that might be 1.5M total at most. There's a solid bet that there will be a shortfall in the bonuses equal to or greater than the callup salaries that count toward the cap. Enough so that the Blues can't exactly plan for everything to go right.

As for the CBA, it's somewhat irrelevant. If the Blues are 500K below the cap floor and there's a 7% rollback (so that the floor is ~50M or whatever), then the Blues will be 465K below the cap floor. If there's a 20% rollback the Blues would be at 400K below the cap floor. And so forth.

Bottom line: I think the Blues have to make one more move before all is said and done here.


Last edited by PocketNines: 07-20-2012 at 04:48 AM.
PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:28 AM
  #31
letmesleep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Yeah but one key aspect is that some of the bonuses may be credited back. Guys may not reach their bonuses due to any number of factors.

Tarasenko: 850K
Langenbrunner: 250K
Nichol: 50K
Schwartz: 267K
Cole: 425K
Shattenkirk: 425K
Pietrangelo: $2,379,166
Total $4,645,833

If all of these players reach 100% of their bonuses (which they won't unless Petro hits all the schedule B bonuses PLUS the others all max their bonuses), then the Blues are still basically 500K below the floor if they have Schwartz up and Porter down, and 1.017M below the floor if Schwartz goes to Peoria and Porter's the 14th.

I asked this question of JR in chat last week with the premise that Oshie would get ~4M and he noted it for the record but said he'd look into it. You're correct that there will be some callups and for some days the two way contracts will be paid, but think about it, even if they average 2 contracts up with the club for an entire season's worth of days (2 x 183 or whatever it is), those are all very low two-way contracts. So you're talking about a number that might be 1.5M total at most. There's a solid bet that there will be a shortfall in the bonuses equal to or greater than the callup salaries that count toward the cap. Enough so that the Blues can't exactly plan for everything to go right.

As for the CBA, it's somewhat irrelevant. If the Blues are 500K below the cap floor and there's a 7% rollback (so that the floor is ~50M or whatever), then the Blues will be 465K below the cap floor. If there's a 20% rollback the Blues would be at 400K below the cap floor. And so forth.

Bottom line: I think the Blues have to make one more move before all is said and done here.
Blues sign Brad Winchester to a 3 year, $20 million contract to be Pietrangelo's partner.

Off-season is driving me insane. I won't survive if there is a lockout.

letmesleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:42 AM
  #32
execwrite
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 3,463
vCash: 500
Woo Hoo! Oshie locked up.

Great move Blues.

execwrite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 06:37 AM
  #33
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Great to have Oshie locked up long term, and even better that it is less than I was expecting. Hopefully Army is already working on Pietrangelo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Yeah but one key aspect is that some of the bonuses may be credited back. Guys may not reach their bonuses due to any number of factors.

Tarasenko: 850K
Langenbrunner: 250K
Nichol: 50K
Schwartz: 267K
Cole: 425K
Shattenkirk: 425K
Pietrangelo: $2,379,166
Total $4,645,833

If all of these players reach 100% of their bonuses (which they won't unless Petro hits all the schedule B bonuses PLUS the others all max their bonuses), then the Blues are still basically 500K below the floor if they have Schwartz up and Porter down, and 1.017M below the floor if Schwartz goes to Peoria and Porter's the 14th.
As I understand it, bonuses count towards the cap until they are unattainable. You only receive a credit from the point they become unattainable. So all the bonuses you list there are basically certain to be counting towards the cap (even if Schwartz starts in Peoria), whether or not they are paid. This is another reason why it is strange we didn't give Tarasenko a larger ELC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
As for the CBA, it's somewhat irrelevant. If the Blues are 500K below the cap floor and there's a 7% rollback (so that the floor is ~50M or whatever), then the Blues will be 465K below the cap floor. If there's a 20% rollback the Blues would be at 400K below the cap floor. And so forth.

Bottom line: I think the Blues have to make one more move before all is said and done here.
IMO, there is a better chance of the owners agreeing to give the players a 60% share than the players agreeing to another rollback.

The NHLPA are going to have to move on a lot of things to get a new deal in place, but agreeing to another rollback would be bending over to the owners. They've pleaded poverty and continued to hand out big money, long term deals.

Also, we don't know what the rules will be when it comes to the cap floor. I wouldn't be surprised if the cap is moved back to $67m-$68m and remain there until the new terms exceed that total and then for it to start to rise again. It would allow the teams to continue to operate with current deals and not have issues with rollbacks etc.


Last edited by Alklha: 07-20-2012 at 06:43 AM.
Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:40 AM
  #34
stlweir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,516
vCash: 500
The Blues are really doing a great job of locking this young nucleus together with long term contracts. Looking good for the present and future.

stlweir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 09:44 AM
  #35
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
 
Multimoodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Range
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlweir View Post
The Blues are really doing a great job of locking this young nucleus together with long term contracts. Looking good for the present and future.
The only thing which concerns me is if they spend too much of their pot on 2nd/1st line talent and do not have the funds to go after game-breaking should it become available.
Not that such a player would likely come here unless drafted, but you get what I mean.


That said, I do like this contract. Not a complete steal but definitely under market value during the UFA period.

Multimoodia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 12:09 PM
  #36
STL fan in IA
Registered User
 
STL fan in IA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Bottom line: I think the Blues have to make one more move before all is said and done here.
I would agree with that depending on the timing. My point is just that the Blues don't have to make a move prior to the season starting. They could easily make one mid-season, when more trade opportunities might open up.

With the CBA getting renegotiated though, so much is up in the air that I'm not really going to bother trying to calculate exact numbers. You make a good point about potential roll-backs but just like everything in the CBA negotiations, it's possible but currently still very much an unknown. I'll certainly be looking forward to the NHLPA's counter proposal to the one the NHL proposed last week.

STL fan in IA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 12:42 PM
  #37
MattyMo35
Moderator
Schwartz Be With You
 
MattyMo35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 5,828
vCash: 1598
This is great. Avoiding the potential problems that come along with arbitration, and still getting a long term contract that is fair for both the player and the team. I'm sure Oshie and his agent are happy, Army's happy, and the fans are happy. Excellent job Mr. Armstrong and Oshie.

MattyMo35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 01:05 PM
  #38
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Great to have Oshie locked up long term, and even better that it is less than I was expecting. Hopefully Army is already working on Pietrangelo.



As I understand it, bonuses count towards the cap until they are unattainable. You only receive a credit from the point they become unattainable. So all the bonuses you list there are basically certain to be counting towards the cap (even if Schwartz starts in Peoria), whether or not they are paid. This is another reason why it is strange we didn't give Tarasenko a larger ELC.



IMO, there is a better chance of the owners agreeing to give the players a 60% share than the players agreeing to another rollback.

The NHLPA are going to have to move on a lot of things to get a new deal in place, but agreeing to another rollback would be bending over to the owners. They've pleaded poverty and continued to hand out big money, long term deals.

Also, we don't know what the rules will be when it comes to the cap floor. I wouldn't be surprised if the cap is moved back to $67m-$68m and remain there until the new terms exceed that total and then for it to start to rise again. It would allow the teams to continue to operate with current deals and not have issues with rollbacks etc.
It's correct that the bonuses count until unattainable. So they'll count all year as the full 4.646M but then some will get credited back.

But they can't just lower the floor without it being connected to salaries. It won't likely be some 24% rollback but the formula under the current CBA that run thru Sept 15 is 54.2-70.2 and the NHL told teams to rely on this number for the offseason. Some teams will be right up against the cap ceiling. They can't lower the range and have teams in violation. The point is that any lowering (if it happens) will have to be connected to salaries, which will keep the Blues under.

IA makes the point about adding someone midseason. Not that I think they'll do this but let's just use a hypothetical: they acquire Iginla at the deadline. He gets 7M this year, so the portion the Blues would have would be ~2M, that would account for the makeup in getting to the floor.

That could work, provided there's no clause that says teams must start the season between the floor and ceiling. I don't think teams are allowed to start the season over the cap but I'm less clear on this aspect than some others. Ultimately, the point is they're going to need to add some salary (not a ton, but some) at some point or they're going to be under the cap floor even if it goes down.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:00 PM
  #39
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
It's correct that the bonuses count until unattainable. So they'll count all year as the full 4.646M but then some will get credited back.
Yes, but you only get the credit from the point they became unattainable. So even though Pietrangelo won't hit all his schedule B bonuses, they will all count against the cap and we won't be getting any credits for them because the point they officially become unattainable is after the season is finished.

Just look at the Islanders last season, they barely finished above the cap, and that included the full $3.75m Tavares caphit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
But they can't just lower the floor without it being connected to salaries. It won't likely be some 24% rollback but the formula under the current CBA that run thru Sept 15 is 54.2-70.2 and the NHL told teams to rely on this number for the offseason. Some teams will be right up against the cap ceiling. They can't lower the range and have teams in violation. The point is that any lowering (if it happens) will have to be connected to salaries, which will keep the Blues under.
As long as the drop in the cap isn't too drastic, then there is nothing stopping them dropping the cap and giving the teams who aren't in compliance a grace period to sort themselves out.

For example... an agreement is reached to drop the players share to 50% or revenue and lower the cap to $67m until a point in time that the 50% share is greater than $67m. 3 teams would be over the new cap, get 2 weeks to work out what they are going to do. The salary cap floor remains at $16m below what the actual cap should be (so the cap floor would be $45.6m). Players get a slightly inflated cap for a couple of years, while not suffering any salary loss and the owners get the split they want.

By law the current CBA is valid until a new one is agreed, so the NHL had to say $70.2m was the cap for next season. However, owners made a choice to spend that while knowing the CBA situation. Just because they did isn't an argument for a rollback.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:02 PM
  #40
BluesBrother
Registered User
 
BluesBrother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 157
vCash: 500
FANtastic! Everybody wins, Armstrong and Blues are on their way to be maybe the best organisation in NHL ( IMO ).

And I feel that every player in the roster wants to be part of it!! Don't want to rise expectations too much, but Damn... How cool it is to be a BLUES fan, watching many other teams to struggle with money, losing players, chemistry, pressure etc.


BluesBrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:28 PM
  #41
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Country: United States
Posts: 6,656
vCash: 50
What's the penalty for failing to reach the salary floor?

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:43 PM
  #42
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Yes, but you only get the credit from the point they became unattainable. So even though Pietrangelo won't hit all his schedule B bonuses, they will all count against the cap and we won't be getting any credits for them because the point they officially become unattainable is after the season is finished.

Just look at the Islanders last season, they barely finished above the cap, and that included the full $3.75m Tavares caphit.



As long as the drop in the cap isn't too drastic, then there is nothing stopping them dropping the cap and giving the teams who aren't in compliance a grace period to sort themselves out.

For example... an agreement is reached to drop the players share to 50% or revenue and lower the cap to $67m until a point in time that the 50% share is greater than $67m. 3 teams would be over the new cap, get 2 weeks to work out what they are going to do. The salary cap floor remains at $16m below what the actual cap should be (so the cap floor would be $45.6m). Players get a slightly inflated cap for a couple of years, while not suffering any salary loss and the owners get the split they want.

By law the current CBA is valid until a new one is agreed, so the NHL had to say $70.2m was the cap for next season. However, owners made a choice to spend that while knowing the CBA situation. Just because they did isn't an argument for a rollback.
Right, but then at the end of the season when the bonuses aren't reached if it brings the Blues under the floor they'll be in a penalty situation. It doesn't matter when the Blues would violate the cap floor, all I'm saying is that given that the status quo has them under the floor, they will have to make one additional move at some point.

I also disagree that they'll give teams a grace period to sort things out. No. They can't just say to teams, well, you're over, you have to get rid of a few contracts. That's just not how it'll be done. That's punitive toward teams who relied on the existing formula in good faith. You can't just say well they should have been aware of the uncertainty. You don't tell teams, ok spend up to the cap of 70.2M but beware, if you actually do this you could be screwing yourselves when we lower it because we'll turn around and say you should have known the risk. No way does it happen like that.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 03:43 PM
  #43
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
What's the penalty for failing to reach the salary floor?
Pretty sure it's forfeiting revenue sharing.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 05:21 PM
  #44
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Right, but then at the end of the season when the bonuses aren't reached if it brings the Blues under the floor they'll be in a penalty situation. It doesn't matter when the Blues would violate the cap floor, all I'm saying is that given that the status quo has them under the floor, they will have to make one additional move at some point.

I also disagree that they'll give teams a grace period to sort things out. No. They can't just say to teams, well, you're over, you have to get rid of a few contracts. That's just not how it'll be done. That's punitive toward teams who relied on the existing formula in good faith. You can't just say well they should have been aware of the uncertainty. You don't tell teams, ok spend up to the cap of 70.2M but beware, if you actually do this you could be screwing yourselves when we lower it because we'll turn around and say you should have known the risk. No way does it happen like that.
They 100% can drop the cap and tell teams to sort their house out. The fact is that the current CBA is valid until a new one is signed. That means the NHL had to tell teams the cap for next season under the current CBA, because the entire 2012/13 season could be played under the current deal. Of course, it is likely that there would be a lockout instead, but that is not up to the NHL to predict. Every single team was given the facts, knew the situation and acted accordingly.

If some were to end up over a new, lower cap then tough ****. They gambled, they lost and every single team knew that it was possible for the cap to fall and there not to be a rollback. As long as the drop isn't significant, then it is easily dealt with by every team over the new cap (particularly Boston).

To use the term "good faith" is just bizarre. Players signed their contracts in good faith. Some teams offered deals with the intention of going to plead poverty and wanting them rolled back just a few days later. Yet you think it is fair to have player contracts rolled back because the teams acted in good faith in when playing by the cap rules?

I say all this, and I'm not really on the players side in this battle!

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 06:43 PM
  #45
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
They 100% can drop the cap and tell teams to sort their house out. The fact is that the current CBA is valid until a new one is signed. That means the NHL had to tell teams the cap for next season under the current CBA, because the entire 2012/13 season could be played under the current deal. Of course, it is likely that there would be a lockout instead, but that is not up to the NHL to predict. Every single team was given the facts, knew the situation and acted accordingly.

If some were to end up over a new, lower cap then tough ****. They gambled, they lost and every single team knew that it was possible for the cap to fall and there not to be a rollback. As long as the drop isn't significant, then it is easily dealt with by every team over the new cap (particularly Boston).

To use the term "good faith" is just bizarre. Players signed their contracts in good faith. Some teams offered deals with the intention of going to plead poverty and wanting them rolled back just a few days later. Yet you think it is fair to have player contracts rolled back because the teams acted in good faith in when playing by the cap rules?

I say all this, and I'm not really on the players side in this battle!
There is just no way it happens that way. It screws the players over too. So some guys have to lose an NHL career and get stuffed in the minors by a rich team because they happened to sign a contract with a team that later pushed against the cap and wound up above it? No way. You're suggesting a scheme where all teams are completely guessing about what the new cap will be. What about the teams that count on revenue sharing and spend to an amount below the midpoint? Suddenly the midpoint is above their cap hit and now they're feeding into revenue sharing? No way. Not a chance they don't tether a rollback of the salary cap (if there is one) to player salaries.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2012, 06:57 AM
  #46
Nab77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
There is just no way it happens that way. It screws the players over too. So some guys have to lose an NHL career and get stuffed in the minors by a rich team because they happened to sign a contract with a team that later pushed against the cap and wound up above it? No way. You're suggesting a scheme where all teams are completely guessing about what the new cap will be. What about the teams that count on revenue sharing and spend to an amount below the midpoint? Suddenly the midpoint is above their cap hit and now they're feeding into revenue sharing? No way. Not a chance they don't tether a rollback of the salary cap (if there is one) to player salaries.
There will be no rollback of salaries, just not going to happen with Fehr in charge. The Nhl actually said when the new cap was announced that it should'nt be counted upon as staying in that number for the season.

Nab77 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 02:09 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.