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

If handing out long term contracts carry over to the new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2012, 10:14 AM
  #51
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,526
vCash: 500
The front loaded contracts are brutal to buy out Tonka, the calculation for the cap hit on buy outs punishes front loading to the point where it's basically not an option.

You're bang on about retiring though, that's what is designed to and will happen, completely removing the cap hit.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:23 AM
  #52
LordRamsay
Come out and flay
 
LordRamsay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 905
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 588
Considering his main argument against giving out these contracts was a concern with how they would be handled with the new CBA, if said new CBA has no provision against these contracts, Burkie better get cracking when a worthwhile UFA goes on the market.

LordRamsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:25 AM
  #53
TheOneArmedMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
I don't even like these contracts in any other sport either. Baseball being the most ridiculous with 10+ mill players during a season. Contracts like these are what makes ticket prices soar. I'm kind of glad that Burke doesn't like these long term deals. What happens if a player gets injured and is out for like 2 seasons? It's wasted money.

TheOneArmedMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:30 AM
  #54
LordRamsay
Come out and flay
 
LordRamsay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 905
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 588
Gotta laugh at people that automatically assume the cap will be going up.

Personally, I think the new CBA won't restrict term...the restriction will be the difference between the lowest and highest salary years in the deal. There certainly won't be any more of these "last 3 years at $1M per" contracts.

LordRamsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:37 AM
  #55
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Boy, this forum really likes discussing irrelevant, stupid scenarios that are guaranteed not to happen just to bash Burke.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:42 AM
  #56
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
Boy, this forum really likes discussing irrelevant, stupid scenarios that are guaranteed not to happen just to bash Burke.
Summer. It'll get worse before it gets better, I assure you lol..

Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 10:55 AM
  #57
Tonka
Diggles
 
Tonka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiffy View Post
The front loaded contracts are brutal to buy out Tonka, the calculation for the cap hit on buy outs punishes front loading to the point where it's basically not an option.

You're bang on about retiring though, that's what is designed to and will happen, completely removing the cap hit.
So let's say if a player has 3 years left at 1m per year on his 10-yr deal ...it still takes into account the front loaded part? Never knew that.

Tonka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 11:01 AM
  #58
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka View Post
So let's say if a player has 3 years left on his 10-yr deal at 1m per year...it still takes into account the front loaded part? Never knew that.
Ya, it hammers it. In straight dollars the buy-out is cheap, but the cap hit is brutal.

Quick example, Richards, if you bought out the last 3 years of his contract when it tapers down to 1 million in actual salary..

Brad Richards buyout from CapGeek.com

2017-18: $6,000,000
2018-19: $6,000,000
2019-20: $6,000,000
2020-21: $333,333
2021-22: $333,333
2022-23: $333,333

.. his cap hit if you don't buy him out is 6,666,667.. not much point. For some of the even more absurd contracts it can actually be a higher cap hit by buying a guy out then just letting it ride. You'd only cut a cheque for 2 million dollars to Richards (2/3 of remaining salary) but it doesn't get you off the hook on the cap.

But really, it's all academic, these guys are just going to retire.

Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 11:31 AM
  #59
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka View Post
So let's say if a player has 3 years left at 1m per year on his 10-yr deal ...it still takes into account the front loaded part? Never knew that.
Based on the expiring CBA:

So you remove any NTC/NMC clauses in the last 5 years of these silly contracts and demote them to the AHL. Since it isn't a 35+ contract you can remove it from the cap. How many stars are going to won't to finish their careers in the minors for 1 million per season?

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

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 11:37 AM
  #60
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeIs View Post
If they are not addressed. Burke better change his tune to do whatever it takes to attract the top UFA's. If he's still stubborn in his way and doesn't want to do those contracts then we'll never get a top UFA while he's here.
Who cares. You don't build a champion through the UFA market anyways. You add one piece, maybe two, via UFA to take you over the top. The core of a championship is built through the draft, trades, and development. Let's worry about what kind of UFAs Toronto is attracting once we're good again, I'm sure everyones tune on the matter will change then.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:22 PM
  #61
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatshype View Post
Burke has said time-and-again that he will not sign contracts that circumvent the cap. I would argue that these current negotiations are heavily based on Cap circumventions that have occurred recently. Burke has come out publicly saying that he will NOT go against the CBA, and in doing so he is establishing integrity.


I honestly think Burke has a promotion in mind. I think he wants to be commissioner. And if so, I strongly stand behind him. Fans have hated on his individual decisions as a GM, but you can't deny his integrity in doing so. He has argued against the RFA process and he's never put in an offer sheet. He has argued against front-loaded contracts and he's never signed one. He has integrity.
Sorry, but you can't really argue that these current contracts circumvent the cap, IIRC the league has only ruled that 1 contract attempt so far has crossed the line.

So to hell and back with BBs high and mighty BS stance.

If the league approves the deals and gives them the kosher sign then who are we or BB to say any different?

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:25 PM
  #62
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Boucher View Post
The long-term cap circumventing contracts have not been around long enough to properly assess the damage it can do to a team under a heavy cap system.
Sorry, but you are patently wrong in stateting that these ARE cap circumventing.

They may feel like it to you, but the folks that actually have to make those calls disagree with you.

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:32 PM
  #63
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_Sabre View Post
Well, duh. Thats the issue with it. The caphit. Actual salary means nothing to us as fans. And having salary=caphit wouldnt work either. It would allow teams to backload deals, load up with stars, and deal with the consequences later on (think the reverse of what they do now ~ 1m this year and 12m in 14 years). Presumably they win a few championships in this time, and the current GM is long gone before he has to deal with the problems.

Restricting term is the best was to curb this.
HAHAHA!!!! umm no sorry your not thinking this through.

Sure a GM might want to play it that way but i assure you that players and agents wants to get paid now, not 5/7/14 years from now.

12m now and the % paid to the agent is worth more to them now then in 7/14 years time.

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:34 PM
  #64
Swervin81
Disgruntled Leaf Fan
 
Swervin81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,956
vCash: 500
Methinks Burke would want to become commish one day. I'd strongly support him as commish if that were the case.

Swervin81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:40 PM
  #65
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,812
vCash: 500
Wouldn't be suprised to see an amnesty clause in the new CBA. Teams will likely have to pare down their overall cap hits, in conjunction with players taking a hit as well. Would like to see a "luxury tax" introduced.

New Liskeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:44 PM
  #66
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enixer View Post
... except that the contract isn't between the NHL and the team/player, the contract is between the player and the team, subject to whatever is set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Kovalchuk and the Devils signed a contract that the League didn't like, too bad for Kovalchuk and the Devils. The League didn't just have the authority to shoot down the deal, they had the authority to nail the Devils to the tune of $3M and 2 draft picks for signing it. So much for commercial law, right?

The new collective agreement can absolutely come up with rules to deal with these long term agreements. The agreement between the NHLPA and the NHL makes the rules, not the individual contracts between players and teams.
If the collective agreement says, "all deals will be limited to 5 years," and then says "this rule shall also be applied to existing contracts, so that all existing player-team contracts are deemed to last a maximum of 5 years," what prevents this?

We'll see, but I wouldn't be surprised if all current agreements would be honoured, and the limit will only apply to future contracts.
Ahhh don't think you have this correct.

The NHL was able to block the Kov deal because they saw it as a violation of wording that was already in the CBA.

As for a new CBA and being able to alter existing contracts, my gut tells me you are correct that if both sides agree (much like the roll backs that happened after the last CBA).

But good luck on NHLPA agreeing to that and turning all those top, high profile players and agents agents them.

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 02:48 PM
  #67
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Mack View Post
Well for one players wouldn't care how big a cap hit is, they will still be getting the same money at the end of the day. It has considerably less impact on them than the teams, so I can't see them fighting against cap hits when they have bigger issues like revenue, ELCs, RFA years and the length of the deals themselves to worry about.

But still it seems very unlikely at this point, and I think it is a gamble Burke took and lost (not that there are ton of players I would've signed to those deals anyways outside of Weber) as at this point even if they had carte blanche to change it on the CBA it would completely sink several teams. It isn't just 2 or 3 anymore. Most teams have this kind of deal.

Can you imagine if all of a sudden Christian Ehrhoff had a $10M cap hit? Pretty much half the league would be in serious cap trouble. I know they were warned but the NHL can't do it now.
Players won't care about the cap hit???

What about the star players that have yet to sign one of these retirement deals?

Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:32 AM
  #68
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by calcal798 View Post
To bad Burke doesn't adopt this philosophy.

Richest team in the league, and our GM won't use that to his advantage, nor will he do something that is frowned upon but legal. What kinda lawyer is he.
The kind who want to be commish one day.

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:40 AM
  #69
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
We haven't even seen the affects of these horrible cap-circumvention contracts.

How bad will Luongo/Hossa/Lecavalier/Suter/Parise/Carter look in a few more years?

The new GM's of those teams will have to deal with those insane contracts.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:43 AM
  #70
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
It makes me laugh so hard how Craig Leipold was one of the most vocal people crying poor about outrageous contracts and then he goes and signs Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to those jokes of contracts.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:50 AM
  #71
The Shrike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
We haven't even seen the affects of these horrible cap-circumvention contracts.

How bad will Luongo/Hossa/Lecavalier/Suter/Parise/Carter look in a few more years?

The new GM's of those teams will have to deal with those insane contracts.
The players will retire, or they will be sent down to the minors. Either way, their cap hit will be zero.

The Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:55 AM
  #72
ChuckWoods
Registered User
 
ChuckWoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,563
vCash: 500
If the new CBA permits these contracts to continue, then Burke is going to have to accept them and start throwing them out there as well.

He's going to lose out on some significant players IF they do indeed continue and he doesnt accept that.

ChuckWoods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:57 AM
  #73
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
The players will retire, or they will be sent down to the minors. Either way, their cap hit will be zero.
I hate these comments. You have no idea if that are true.

Lecavalier already is past his prime but is still pretty young. You think he'll retire anytime soon?

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 08:59 AM
  #74
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckWoods View Post
If the new CBA permits these contracts to continue, then Burke is going to have to accept them and start throwing them out there as well.

He's going to lose out on some significant players IF they do indeed continue.
I'm willing to give Burke one last pass on this, pending the outcome of CBA negotiations. If, when a new CBA is in place, these types of contracts are allowed to continue, then Burke either has to incorporate them into his arsenal for attracting free agents, or be fired. There is no room on this team for a GM who is not absolutely 100% committed to doing whatever is legally allowed to make this team into a winner.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 09:05 AM
  #75
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
I'm willing to give Burke one last pass on this, pending the outcome of CBA negotiations. If, when a new CBA is in place, these types of contracts are allowed to continue, then Burke either has to incorporate them into his arsenal for attracting free agents, or be fired. There is no room on this team for a GM who is not absolutely 100% committed to doing whatever is legally allowed to make this team into a winner.
Burke would not do that. He represents the NHL first and foremost.

Gatorade* 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 12:04 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.