Also, this scares the **** out of me.
"All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term."
"• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league."
I mean, holy crap that's just vindictive against teams with anyone signed for over 5 years, especially Kovalchuk and Ovechkin with the Russia threat.
I don't know, I feel like this could be bad for the league as a whole with maybe more talented Russians staying in Russia because teams won't want to take the risk of having a KHL salary counting against their cap.
What that means is say Kovalchuk who got his long contract heavily front loaded wont get traded when he's 36 or so to a team scraping to meet the cap floor. If that wasnt in place NJ could dump him off at that age and have him play a couple of years and retire giving that team an inflated cap hit to allow them to go lower than the cap floor. It basically prevents a loophole for the big market teams to get out of their horribly front loaded contracts. It's a good thing.
Well Toews is ripping the proposal and combined with Fehr's letter it just seems like he has bought hook line and sinker what he read from Fehr's letter. Looks like the players BS line of "we just want to play hockey" was all PR crap that idiots bought into. They're more concerned with "winning" than playing hockey and they're just going to repeat the same mistake that the guys in 2004 did. Why do people refuse to learn from history so often? It's not like it was that long ago, it's perfectly relevant and you got guys like Modano, Guerin, and Andrechuk telling them how it wasnt worth it yet they completely disregard it and go full steam ahead over the cliff.
Do they really think sleeping in a gym while playing with the KHL is remotely better than the type of living conditions you get while playing in the NHL? What's the dispute, a little extra shaved off the top end pay that is more than likely to be paid back and if not you're still making an assload of money? It just irks the hell out of me but at least now the public sentiment has shifted and people are seeing what the NHLPA is for basically the first time now.
Well Toews is ripping the proposal and combined with Fehr's letter it just seems like he has bought hook line and sinker what he read from Fehr's letter. Looks like the players BS line of "we just want to play hockey" was all PR crap that idiots bought into. They're more concerned with "winning" than playing hockey and they're just going to repeat the same mistake that the guys in 2004 did. Why do people refuse to learn from history so often? It's not like it was that long ago, it's perfectly relevant and you got guys like Modano, Guerin, and Andrechuk telling them how it wasnt worth it yet they completely disregard it and go full steam ahead over the cliff.
Do they really think sleeping in a gym while playing with the KHL is remotely better than the type of living conditions you get while playing in the NHL? What's the dispute, a little extra shaved off the top end pay that is more than likely to be paid back and if not you're still making an assload of money? It just irks the hell out of me but at least now the public sentiment has shifted and people are seeing what the NHLPA is for basically the first time now.
Today is easily the most important day since these "negotiations" began.
I'm going to stay positive and stick with my "common sense has to prevail" belief. The owners came up 3% so I think the players offer may have a sliding scale and look something like:
54 52 51 50 50 50
If they pushback with an offer from their last proposal, with de-linkage, we may not see hockey this year.
However, I feel like they will be smart about this and use an offer built around the parameters above.
Today is easily the most important day since these "negotiations" began.
I'm going to stay positive and stick with my "common sense has to prevail" belief. The owners came up 3% so I think the players offer may have a sliding scale and look something like:
54 52 51 50 50 50
If they pushback with an offer from their last proposal, with de-linkage, we may not see hockey this year.
However, I feel like they will be smart about this and use an offer built around the parameters above.
I really hope you are right because that's the deal that makes the most sense and the deal I've been pushing for. Then the "make whole" provision won't really be necessary. I'm just not sure the players are ready to show all of their cards yet.
Today is easily the most important day since these "negotiations" began.
I'm going to stay positive and stick with my "common sense has to prevail" belief. The owners came up 3% so I think the players offer may have a sliding scale and look something like:
54 52 51 50 50 50
If they pushback with an offer from their last proposal, with de-linkage, we may not see hockey this year.
However, I feel like they will be smart about this and use an offer built around the parameters above.
I'm with you, I still believe common sense will prevail in the end. That being said, I expect there to be some tough negotiating going on the coming week where it might appear to the public as if they are quite some way apart.
What that means is say Kovalchuk who got his long contract heavily front loaded wont get traded when he's 36 or so to a team scraping to meet the cap floor. If that wasnt in place NJ could dump him off at that age and have him play a couple of years and retire giving that team an inflated cap hit to allow them to go lower than the cap floor. It basically prevents a loophole for the big market teams to get out of their horribly front loaded contracts. It's a good thing.
Yeah but let's say Crosby gets a career ending injury and retires early. Something like that could screw over the Pens just as much as it could screw over the Devils.
If the last CBA didn't work and 80% of the terms were the owners' ideas / in favor of the owners, then isn't that just another form of mismanagement? Any way you cut it the players gave up a lot last time and there are record revenues now yet we still have problems? Sorry but the owners should eat their own dog food this time.
At some point the owners should pay for their own mistakes (some of whom gamed the system right up to the deadline after crying foul -- the ones in trouble pretty much dig themselves into a hole). The players are the more valued commodity here. There are other places for them to go an make millions and potentially other owners to start something new with the good players. But the NHL has no prayer of replacing the players.
If they put an AHL quality product out there / tried that, it would be the end of the NHL. I sure as hell wouldn't watch / wouldn't pay for a collection of rookies + AHL type players. Life's too short. I'm either watching the very best the game has to offer or I'm not watching. That said hopefully the players take LeBrun's advice and use this proposal as the framework for a counter-offer instead of making another new proposal like they did the last time (which was almost as bad as the owners' first proposal).
That's something the owners really need to think of. Losing Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Datsyuk, etc to the KHL would be horrible for the NHL.
I'm hoping the players come back with a counter proposal of it still being 50/50, but with a 26 year old UFA age instead of 28 & no contract limits. If the NHL wants the players to take 50/50 the owners need to make some concessions to them.
Yeah but let's say Crosby gets a career ending injury and retires early. Something like that could screw over the Pens just as much as it could screw over the Devils.
I assume he would do as Savard is doing with Boston and just stay on LTIR. That way he would get paid while the Pens would still be able to use (most of) his cap space. This is of course assuming LTIR continues to work s it did in the last CBA.
Yeah but let's say Crosby gets a career ending injury and retires early. Something like that could screw over the Pens just as much as it could screw over the Devils.
Yes, but that's a risk you take when signing a guy to such a long contract.
That said, there's always the LTIR, if you can still do that in the new CBA.
Yeah but let's say Crosby gets a career ending injury and retires early. Something like that could screw over the Pens just as much as it could screw over the Devils.
I am not sure it applies to situations where the IR applies which is the situation you're talking about. But say for instance if Crosby just decides to up and quit in a non injury way down the line of his current contract, we'd be liable for the cap hit under the old CBA anyways. This was purely targeted at those teams that tried to sign players in their late 20's early 30's to 10 year + type deals that were clearly designed to tack on additional years to lower the cap hit knowing that the player could retire after 35 and the cap hit disappears due to the contract being signed prior to age 35. The fact that those contracts were structured so as the player is making a tiny % of their cap hit in those final years all but openly encourages the player to retire. It's purely a loophole closer and frankly our GM has not really signed anyone to a deal that took advantage of that loophole so we're really not going to have nearly as tough of a time as say the Redwings, Devils, or even Vancouver if they decide to keep Luongo.
I am not sure it applies to situations where the IR applies which is the situation you're talking about. But say for instance if Crosby just decides to up and quit in a non injury way down the line of his current contract, we'd be liable for the cap hit under the old CBA anyways. This was purely targeted at those teams that tried to sign players in their late 20's early 30's to 10 year + type deals that were clearly designed to tack on additional years to lower the cap hit knowing that the player could retire after 35 and the cap hit disappears due to the contract being signed prior to age 35. The fact that those contracts were structured so as the player is making a tiny % of their cap hit in those final years all but openly encourages the player to retire. It's purely a loophole closer and frankly our GM has not really signed anyone to a deal that took advantage of that loophole so we're really not going to have nearly as tough of a time as say the Redwings, Devils, or even Vancouver if they decide to keep Luongo.
To the bolded, is that true? I thought under the old CBA that if a player retired, so long as it wasn't a 35+ contract, that the team wasn't liable for the cap hit.
To the bolded, is that true? I thought under the old CBA that if a player retired, so long as it wasn't a 35+ contract, that the team wasn't liable for the cap hit.
No the bolded part is not true. You're quite right in your interpretation.
No the bolded part is not true. You're quite right in your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine
Yeah that's what I thought. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
I havent seen too many situations where that played out but I guess I took the Alexi Yashin thing and saw how Long Island was still on the hook for his cap hit and assumed that it applied to players who retire before age 35.
Even with me wrong on that point, I still feel teams should be held accountable for the contracts they sign players to. We all knew of Crosby's health risks before he was signed and if things don't work out then we need to be on the hook for his cap hit, thats the risk that comes with the reward. The reward is that we frankly got him at a discount because of that.
I havent seen too many situations where that played out but I guess I took the Alexi Yashin thing and saw how Long Island was still on the hook for his cap hit and assumed that it applied to players who retire before age 35.
Even with me wrong on that point, I still feel teams should be held accountable for the contracts they sign players to. We all knew of Crosby's health risks before he was signed and if things don't work out then we need to be on the hook for his cap hit, thats the risk that comes with the reward. The reward is that we frankly got him at a discount because of that.
Oh I absolutely agree with you and the new proposal in the CBA regarding contracts.
I havent seen too many situations where that played out but I guess I took the Alexi Yashin thing and saw how Long Island was still on the hook for his cap hit and assumed that it applied to players who retire before age 35.
Yashin didn't retire, he was bought out of his contract.
But I thought the Players just wanna play hockey? They're finally showing their true colors with this.
I'll be honest, I sort of was already expecting the season to be lost so I am not too torn up about this. I will say though I did get a little caught up in the false optimism the last couple of days. In the end I knew that Fehr will never settle for something fair and losing a season or tarnishing the players image never matter to him. This is a guy who took players on strike right before the playoffs happened in baseball. If you want to look at all time d-bag moves, thats up there.
For all of us fans though, he needs to lose [Fehr] and he needs to lose bad. I don't want him ever poisoning any other sport like he did to baseball and he's trying to do with our sport.
we should get the title of this thread to thank Fehr and the players for losing the season.
The players got an unfairly biased towards them deal the last time around. Yes they will lose money on the next deal. Get over it.
Anyone have a link that details the players offers? As soon as Rossi was tweeting that the Union was going to offer up multiple offers I had a bad feeling.
Fehr has to go. I get some of the concerns that the players have on the last offer from the NHL, but over all it was a pretty damn reasonable basis for meaningful negotiations. Fehr and the players are risking alienating the hard core fans. Our only hope is this is all posturing and a deal gets done in the near term, otherwise kiss the season good bye.
