HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

LTI and the CBA for players 35+

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-03-2006, 07:02 PM
  #1
Hoss
Registered User
 
Hoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,033
vCash: 500
LTI and the CBA for players 35+

This is not specifically about the NJ Devils. I have no axe to grind. I don't have a problem with the Devils trading Malakhov's contract. My questions relate to the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McKenzie
The new CBA included a clause that basically said any 35 and over player who signs a multi-year contract will count against the team's salary cap even if he retires or plays in the minors. It is why the Tampa Bay Lightning have to account for retired Dave Andreychuk's salary. Ditto for the New York Islanders with retired goalie *** GM Garth Snow and the Toronto Maple Leafs with the retired Tie Domi.

Why would Mogilny be any different?

That's the question a lot of GMs want answered.

There are a number of issues here.

The first is whether a 35 and over player is eligible for LTI status. The CBA clearly spells out that a 35 and over player has to count against the cap even if he's retired, playing in the minors or on injured reserve, but it doesn't specifically say anything about Long-Term Injury status. Conversely, the CBA clause on Long-Term Injury doesn't say anything about precluding 35 and over players from getting LTI.

It is that interpretation that sources say will get the Devils' their relief on Mogilny
.
from: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=179719&hubname=nhl

Was this an intential clause in the CBA? Did the drafters intend for players over 35 with multi-year contracts be eligible for LTI? Or was it a loophole that New Jersey was the first to take advantage of? It seems to me to be a bit of a golden parachute.

Hoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 07:04 PM
  #2
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
*sigh*

For the 167th time ... players who are injured still count against the cap. This is mentioned ...

Ah, I'll let our CBA guru handle this. He'll be along shortly to give the fine details.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 07:13 PM
  #3
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Ah, I'll let our CBA guru handle this. He'll be along shortly to give the fine details.
Isn't that you?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 07:15 PM
  #4
Hoss
Registered User
 
Hoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
*sigh*

For the 167th time ... players who are injured still count against the cap. This is mentioned ...

Ah, I'll let our CBA guru handle this. He'll be along shortly to give the fine details.
Sigh. Semantics. A player on LTI's salary is on the cap, replacement salary is not. More specifically LTI allows a team to spend over the $44 million salary cap by the amount of the injured players contract for as long as he remains on LTI.

Hoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 07:21 PM
  #5
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Isn't that you?
No, I'm the resident capologist who knows how the CBA works where the cap is concerned. kdb209 is HF's CBA guru.

Besides, Veronica Mars is on in 40 minutes.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 07:58 PM
  #6
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post
This is not specifically about the NJ Devils. I have no axe to grind. I don't have a problem with the Devils trading Malakhov's contract. My questions relate to the following:
from: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=179719&hubname=nhl

Was this an intential clause in the CBA? Did the drafters intend for players over 35 with multi-year contracts be eligible for LTI? Or was it a loophole that New Jersey was the first to take advantage of? It seems to me to be a bit of a golden parachute.
The 35+ yo clause was put in to avoid the case of a team giving an aging vet a front loaded multi-year contract, that neither the team nor the player expected the player to complete. He retires after a year or two and the team gets him at a cap discount for those years due to the averaging of salary for cap hits.

One could argue that neither the Mogilny of Malakhov contracts meet the intent of the clause, but they do meet the letter of the clause, so Mogilny's and Malakhov's salaries do count against the Upper Limit under Article 50.5(d)(i)(B):

Quote:
(B) From the day following the last day of Training Camp until
and including June 30 of each League Year, "Averaged
Club Salary" for each Club shall be calculated as the sum
of the following amounts:
(1) The Averaged Amount of the Player Salary and
Bonuses for that League Year for each Player on the
Club's Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non
Roster and Non Roster
; plus
...
(5) All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League
Year by a Player who is in the second or later year
of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the
Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 prior to
the League Year in which the SPC is to be
effective), but which Player is not on the Club's
Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster
or Non Roster,
and regardless of whether, or where,
the Player is playing, except to the extent the Player
is playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in
which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in
excess of $100,000 shall count towards the
calculation of Averaged Club Salary; plus
...
Mogilny counts against the cap under 50.5(d)(i)(B)(1) since he is now on the Injured Non Roster list (since he failed his initial camp physical). Note that in that case, the 35+ yo clause no longer even applies to Mogilny.

Malakhov counts against the cap under 50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) - the 35+ yo rule.

I beleive that the drafters of the CBA did intend to allow the LTI exception for 35+ yo players - the intent of the 35+ yo rule was not to screw over teams/players with legitimate injuries. Nowhere in the Bone Fide Long Term Injury Exeption clause 50.10(d) does it state that the clause does not apply to the 35+ yo players.

Quote:
(d) Bona-Fide Long-TermInjury/Illness Exception to the Upper Limit. In
the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play (i.e., is injured, ill or disabled and
unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player) such that the Club's physician believes,
in his or her opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit
to play for at least (i) twenty-four (24) calendar days and (ii) ten (10) NHL Regular
Season games, and such Club desires to replace such Player, the Club may add an
additional Player or Players to its Active Roster, and the replacement Player Salary and
Bonuses of such additional Player(s) may increase the Club's Averaged Club Salary to an
amount up to and exceeding the Upper Limit, solely as, and to the extent and for the
duration, set forth below. If, however, the League wishes to challenge the determination
of a Club physician that a Player is unfit to play for purposes of the Bona-Fide Long-
Term Injury/Illness Exception, the League and the NHLPA shall promptly confer and
jointly select a neutral physician, who shall review the Club physician's determination
regarding the Player's fitness to play.
And again note that the salary of the injured player counts against the cap not because he is 35+ yo, but because he is on Injured Reserve or Injured Non Roster. As such, he should be eligible to have his salary replaced under 50.10(d), just like any other player.

The determination by the league had nothing to do with Mogilny being 35+, but was purely based on the "unfit to play" criteria of 50.10(d).

As soon as Mogilny reported to camp, he was going to end up on the active roster, injured reserve, or injured non roster. At that point the 35+ yo clause became a moot point - it no longer applied. The only question then for the league was did Mogilny qualify as Unfit to Play under 50.10(d) - and the league's neutral physician gave the second opinion that it did. Case Closed.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2006, 08:14 PM
  #7
Hoss
Registered User
 
Hoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Case Closed.
Thanks, you convinced me.

Hoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 10:42 PM
  #8
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,292
vCash: 500
A little off topic, but no worth making a new thread.

What is the scenario for players that retire due to injury that are younger than 35. For instance, if Connolly can't return from his concussion problems and announces his retirement, will his contract still count against the salary cap? He signed it after the injury occured.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2006, 11:51 PM
  #9
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallagher View Post
A little off topic, but no worth making a new thread.

What is the scenario for players that retire due to injury that are younger than 35. For instance, if Connolly can't return from his concussion problems and announces his retirement, will his contract still count against the salary cap? He signed it after the injury occured.
If he's under 35 when he signed the contract than no his contract won't count if he retires for whatever reason.

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2006, 01:49 AM
  #10
crashlanding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 7,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
*sigh*

For the 167th time ... players who are injured still count against the cap. This is mentioned ...

Ah, I'll let our CBA guru handle this. He'll be along shortly to give the fine details.
Man, IB just when you think it's over...

Thanks again for all your work in a very annoying subject that you could have easily just washed your hands to.

crashlanding 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 03:59 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.