HFBoards

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

Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2012, 03:39 PM
  #51
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Col...ning_Agreement




I'm not sure how many are required to approve from the owners.
The owners who did so all signed contracts believing that the players will be in the league until around the age of 40. Therefore they have nothing to argue about.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 03:46 PM
  #52
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by birddog View Post
Typical Leaf fodder. Count your chickens before they hatch -- Burke is a genius -- for something that hasn't happened and probably never will.
Yeah, clearly the league has been warning teams repeatedly about making these type of deals because they did'nt mean it.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 04:40 PM
  #53
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,476
vCash: 500
Along these same lines perhaps only Entry Level Contracts or two way contracts should be allowed to be demoted off the team.

If you sign any player to a contract that isn't 2-way, perhaps that cap hit should stay on the cap.

Finger's cap hit for example over the past couple of seasons.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 02:06 AM
  #54
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 6,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Yeah, clearly the league has been warning teams repeatedly about making these type of deals because they did'nt mean it.


I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.

So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 04:16 AM
  #55
blueNwhite89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
If this rule goes into effect on current contracts....2/3rds of the league is going to regret a LOT.

I hope to god that this is in the new CBA.

All these GM's circumventing the cap and getting away with it... and making the competition of signing UFA's only limited to only those GM's that circumvent the cap.

Good rule.

blueNwhite89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:01 AM
  #56
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.

So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:06 AM
  #57
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
If you're making a contract that is legal within the rules of the leagues CBA... and the nhl itself signs off on the contract... then it IS NOT cap circumvention.

I'm VERY surprised that I would have to explain this to people. It appeared to me as common sense.

The league CANNOT punish teams for signing contracts that the nhl itself signed off on. It just doesn't make sense.

There is NO WAY that these contracts will be retroactive.
Leaf fans are just clinging to this for the moment because they've been humiliated by the GM they stubbornly defended... and now they're trying to save face.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:09 AM
  #58
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If you're making a contract that is legal within the rules of the leagues CBA... and the nhl itself signs off on the contract... then it IS NOT cap circumvention.

I'm VERY surprised that I would have to explain this to people. It appeared to me as common sense.

The league CANNOT punish teams for signing contracts that the nhl itself signed off on. It just doesn't make sense.

There is NO WAY that these contracts will be retroactive.
Leaf fans are just clinging to this for the moment because they've been humiliated by the GM they stubbornly defended... and now they're trying to save face.
You don't recall the league signing off on many contracts the past several years then retroactively taking action upon them? The Leafs themselves had one.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:10 AM
  #59
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?
Those contracts were reduced 25%...
and even if that was too much, teams had a window to buy them out cap free.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:13 AM
  #60
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
You don't recall the league signing off on many contracts the past several years then retroactively taking action upon them? The Leafs themselves had one.
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.

Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.

You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:24 AM
  #61
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Those contracts were reduced 25%...
and even if that was too much, teams had a window to buy them out cap free.
So you agree, negotiated contracts have been altered in the past.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:25 AM
  #62
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.

Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.

You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
I'm pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument, which you yourself verified.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:30 AM
  #63
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
A lot of pie in the sky in this thread. At most there will be a rollback. Will lose a season just to get that.

Contracts are signed sealed and delivered. Teams will not be penalized for working within the old CBA no matter how much fans want to think so just because Burke refused to use the rules to his advantage. Pie in the sky.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:33 AM
  #64
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?
Which contract was changed? There were buyouts and a roll back. Not a single contract was altered. That is illegal.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:35 AM
  #65
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
So you agree, negotiated contracts have been altered in the past.
Which contract was altered?

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:38 AM
  #66
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.

Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.

You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
This thread is quite funny. The same folks that dump on Cox are now grasping at a fool hearty theory that has no merit. In fact the NHLPA will dump a season to protect their signed sealed and delivered contracts. Not to mention the most powerful teams have those players. Foolish.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 09:09 AM
  #67
Leo Trollmarov
I was in the pool!!
 
Leo Trollmarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.

So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
You don't seem to understand how CBA's work and there effect on current contracts.

Leo Trollmarov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 09:10 AM
  #68
ACC1224
vs. New Orleans
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kessly Snipes View Post
You don't seem to understand how CBA's work and there effect on current contracts.
Honestly, makes you wonder if any of them were old enough to remember the last lockout.

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:08 AM
  #69
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?
Impossibru, that never happened and the league hasn't been warning teams for the last few years about cap circumvention deals either. Nothing to see here, clearly it's just a made up story by Lebrun, Custance, numerous GM's and the board of the NHL so only the Leafs can pinch players from the bad guys.


Quote:
Well, you get the drift. Soon, other teams and agents got into the act and the next thing you knew, back-diving deals were in vogue. The league was furious. It warned owners and GMs over and over again to stop doing them and, in fact, according to various sources over the past few years, made it clear in board of governors meetings that teams doing these types of deals could be penalized in some shape or form in the new CBA.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:22 AM
  #70
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
If this does come to pass, then I agree, I hope we stay far away from Luongo.

Regarding the 10+ year contracts continuing, I am not sure they will be as popular if this new rule takes effect. The whole idea behind them was to take advantage of the cap circumvention. Now, they have to be legit 10-15 year deals, and the only players that you can realistically sign to those types of contracts will be the 20-25 year olds.
Not exactly Wendel, i can already see a HUGE loophole is this system.

The rich team trades the aged player to a poor team when the contract is close to winding down.

The poor team gets a boost of 6 million toward reaching the cap floor without paying a dime in salary.

Can't see anyway to restrict the trading of said player if they do it before any retirement announcement.

Also can't see how they could structure any penalty either direction if it is done before a retirement call.

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:33 AM
  #71
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Which contract was changed? There were buyouts and a roll back. Not a single contract was altered. That is illegal.
The contracts don't have to be changed. The rules about how the cap hit is calculated on the contract can be changed via collective bargaining.

egd27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:34 AM
  #72
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
So the NHL and NHLPA come up with Kovalchuk amendment on how to deal with long term contracts and now the NHL is going to punish those teams which followed the Kovalchuk amendment in negotiating the contract? Some of those contracts came after the Kovalchuk amendment. They are going to go after teams for following the guidelines negotiated between the NHL and the PA? That's funny. The NHLPA will have a say in any changes in how cap hits are calculated. Why would the PA agree to punish those teams and take away cap space from those teams affecting other players? I heard Bill Daly say they never thought teams would hand out long term contracts when they wrote the CBA in 2005. They missed out on many things.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:40 AM
  #73
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
But they are still in the minority. Minnesota (Parise, Suter), Vancouver (Luongo), Philadelphia (Bryzgalov), Chicago (Hossa, Keith), Buffalo (Ehrhoff), New York (Richards), Detroit (Franzen, Zetterberg), New Jersey (Kovalchuk), and Nashville (Weber) are the teams that have signed players to cap circumventing deals. Los Angeles (Richards, Carter, Quick) and Pittsburgh (Crosby) also have deals that see significant drop in salary in the later years but are no where near as blatant.

9 teams (11 if you count the Pens and Kings) or just under (/over) 1/3 of the league have these deals, 21 (or 19) do not. A CBA needs a simple majority to be put in place (16 teams), meaning that Bettman should have more than enough support to push such a provision through the Board of Governors.
Simple majority ONLY if Bettmen approves of the CBA being voted on, i believe they need 8 ish more votes over the top to override Bettmens objection.

Don't fool yourselves kids, Bettmen is a little bit more then JUST a front man for the owners.

It matters little if it is perceived as cap circumvention or not, a retired player (before his contract expires) is a retired player.

DiPietro is signed till he is 40 , there are more examples of long term contracts where it aids the team if the player retires in his waning years, regardless if there was any perceived circumvention involved.

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:42 AM
  #74
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by egd27 View Post
The contracts don't have to be changed. The rules about how the cap hit is calculated on the contract can be changed via collective bargaining.
Bingo, crazy that people still don't understand this. These contracts won't get touched, it's how these contracts will reflect under the new CBA. And there isn't any doubt the new CBA will be changed after the last one has been taken advantage of by some very guilty people.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 10:54 AM
  #75
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.

So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
This rule can absolutely be made retroactive.

There is nothing in the proposal that affects the legitimate contract between the player and the team, none what so ever.

This rule is a administrated rule between the league and the owners(teams).

Faltorvo 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 08:46 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.