HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2012, 09:52 AM
  #1
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Interesting article by Damien Cox in the Star today. Basically he is reporting the NHL wants to change the rules so the the cap hit will stay with a team even after a player retires. So even if Kovalchuk were to retire 10 years into the 15 year deal, his 6m+ cap hit would stay on the books all 15 years. And apparently Bettman wants to make this rule retroactive to all contracts that have been signed.

I guess Burke is not such a fool for avoiding these deals after all.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...er-new-cba-cox

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 09:53 AM
  #2
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 70,440
vCash: 500
Burke was a fool.

It's funny how a lot of teams might get burnt quite a bit with the upcoming CBA rules

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 09:59 AM
  #3
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Cox is just reiterating what Lebrun touched upon already. Teams were warned over and over again to stay away from cap circumvention deals because the repercussions are coming to those that did'nt listen.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:05 AM
  #4
darrylsittler27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,038
vCash: 500
Does NJ really care?

They were getting 6,000 fans per game. In other words they were going under.Damned if they do,damned if they don't. Bettman's system were the Leafs pay for players other teams can't afford is broken and if Canadian fans ever catch wind they will never see a cup again,the whole league will crumble.Like it or not,the whole league is in trouble as many Canadian fans get priced out and fed up.

darrylsittler27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:06 AM
  #5
ACC1224
Burke was right.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 27,716
vCash: 500
What new CBA?

ACC1224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:07 AM
  #6
leftwinghockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 92
vCash: 500
Making a rule function retroactively is extremely unfair and unprofessional.

leftwinghockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:16 AM
  #7
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftwinghockey View Post
Making a rule function retroactively is extremely unfair and unprofessional.
Unfair and unprofessional is deliberate cap circumvention.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:22 AM
  #8
Mowerman
Registered User
 
Mowerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftwinghockey View Post
Making a rule function retroactively is extremely unfair and unprofessional.
Are you really daft enough to believe that this magically appeared out of thin air in recent times? GMs were certain to have known about this potentially happening when there's been a long crusade within the league when it comes to stopping these types of contracts and talk of ways to create parity after the fact so teams don't get long term rewards for deliberately abusing the system. Forget any hot air Burke blows to the media about his policy in regards to these contracts solely being philosophical. Burke is very in tune with the league and its goings ons, he's become one of the wily vets at his position and holds a lot of sway (hell, recent times can demonstrate this considering Burke is working with the league with the CBA). Burke, and any competent GM, would see something like this coming a mile away. Some GM's just chose to gamble with the hopes that it wouldn't come into fruition and that the positive aspects of these abusive contracts would outweigh the negatives. Recent times seem to suggest that they made an error of judgement and will likely have to face unsightly consequences as a result.

It's really not like these GM's are being blindsided with this potential alteration to the function of the league. This has to have been kicking around for ages. Why do you think Toronto didn't bite on Luongo? This is the most sensible reason.

Mowerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:28 AM
  #9
Pi
Registered User
 
Pi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,920
vCash: 100
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.

Pi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:30 AM
  #10
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,644
vCash: 50
A number of owners I imagine would be all over that. Get to the floor more easily without actually having to pay the player. Big market owners may also like it since their teams could also then continue to sign players to these contracts knowing eventually they can trade the player to a team that just wants the cap hit, not the player. NHLPA of course wouldn't like it since now teams are doing that instead of paying players more. But that can be made up for by giving the players say 1% more of the revenue. Funny how it all comes back down to that. Everything is probably going to end up being 'We will give you that if you give us 0.4% more'.

Grant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:31 AM
  #11
JackJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Good compromise. Add equal salary throughout the length of the contract. Leave length unlimited (those two rules will keep lengths in check).

JackJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:44 AM
  #12
Suntouchable13
Registered User
 
Suntouchable13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackJ View Post
Good compromise. Add equal salary throughout the length of the contract. Leave length unlimited (those two rules will keep lengths in check).
I agree. In my view, salary should be the same for every year of the contract. None of this back or front loading nonsense.

Suntouchable13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 10:57 AM
  #13
Lebanese Leaf
Registered User
 
Lebanese Leaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 6,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
A number of owners I imagine would be all over that. Get to the floor more easily without actually having to pay the player. Big market owners may also like it since their teams could also then continue to sign players to these contracts knowing eventually they can trade the player to a team that just wants the cap hit, not the player. NHLPA of course wouldn't like it since now teams are doing that instead of paying players more. But that can be made up for by giving the players say 1% more of the revenue. Funny how it all comes back down to that. Everything is probably going to end up being 'We will give you that if you give us 0.4% more'.
Good point, I can only see this system leading to more debate in the future. Phantom Kovalchuk can just be traded to Phoenix or NYI the year he retires, who benefit from having him retire while New Jersey actually get value for a player that essentially doesn't exist anymore. They would have to put in some kind of trade restrictions to limit these kind of scenarios.

Lebanese Leaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:00 AM
  #14
Leafsman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Leaf View Post
Good point, I can only see this system leading to more debate in the future. Phantom Kovalchuk can just be traded to Phoenix or NYI the year he retires, who benefit from having him retire while New Jersey actually get value for a player that essentially doesn't exist anymore. They would have to put in some kind of trade restrictions to limit these kind of scenarios.
I imagine the league will have thought of this and will ensure that other teams don't benefit from the guilty teams escaping reprecussions!

Leafsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:03 AM
  #15
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,644
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Leaf View Post
Good point, I can only see this system leading to more debate in the future. Phantom Kovalchuk can just be traded to Phoenix or NYI the year he retires, who benefit from having him retire while New Jersey actually get value for a player that essentially doesn't exist anymore. They would have to put in some kind of trade restrictions to limit these kind of scenarios.
There was talk of trading cap space too?

Maybe the team trading the player has to also trade half of the cap hit of that player along with it.

Example. Someone with a cap hit of 6m retires but has some time left on his contract. The team trades this player with 6m cap hit + 3m in cap space to this other team (and must keep this cap space until the contract is over). Now the team has been punished a little for it since they have less cap space and would have to trade something of value to get it back.


Only thing for certain it seems is the cap space is going to become a lot more complicated now haha.

Grant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:22 AM
  #16
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
Interesting article by Damien Cox in the Star today. Basically he is reporting the NHL wants to change the rules so the the cap hit will stay with a team even after a player retires. So even if Kovalchuk were to retire 10 years into the 15 year deal, his 6m+ cap hit would stay on the books all 15 years. And apparently Bettman wants to make this rule retroactive to all contracts that have been signed.

I guess Burke is not such a fool for avoiding these deals after all.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...er-new-cba-cox
Hopefully this comes to pass as that would guarantee against the foolishness of acquiring Luongo for Toronto, as he is already 33 and has a 10 year contract at $5.6 mil cap still remaining, but only 5 good years left of serviceability.

This potential rule change also suggests that long-term 10+ year contracts are going to continue to be permitted, only the way they effect the cap throughout appears to be the strategy here.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:36 AM
  #17
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Unfair and unprofessional is deliberate cap circumvention.
Agreed.

If I had to guess, I'm sure most of these GM's probably did know this may hit them in the new CBA but didn't care because they figure they'll be in new jobs by the time year 7 or 8 of the various deals roll around.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:39 AM
  #18
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Hopefully this comes to pass as that would guarantee against the foolishness of acquiring Luongo for Toronto, as he is already 33 and has a 10 year contract at $5.6 mil cap still remaining, but only 5 good years left of serviceability.

This potential rule change also suggests that long-term 10+ year contracts are going to continue to be permitted, only the way they effect the cap throughout appears to be the strategy here.
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.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 11:55 AM
  #19
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Cox is just reiterating what Lebrun touched upon already. Teams were warned over and over again to stay away from cap circumvention deals because the repercussions are coming to those that did'nt listen.
I missed the Lebrun article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrylsittler27 View Post
They were getting 6,000 fans per game. In other words they were going under.Damned if they do,damned if they don't. Bettman's system were the Leafs pay for players other teams can't afford is broken and if Canadian fans ever catch wind they will never see a cup again,the whole league will crumble.Like it or not,the whole league is in trouble as many Canadian fans get priced out and fed up.
It's not about bums in the seats. It's about the ramifications of having a players 6m cap hit count against your books for 5 years after he has retired. That's a lot of money you could use to sign other players and make your team better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
What new CBA?
LOL. Sorry boss. Upcoming CBA. Happy now?

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:02 PM
  #20
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Unfair and unprofessional is deliberate cap circumvention.
What does "deliberate cap circumvention" even mean? It sounds like breaking the rules, and yet these contracts were still given a green light by the league.

Why is it unfair if anyone could do it?

How it it unprofessional if it's allowed in current regulations?

Unfair and unprofessional is allowing contracts, only to turn around and penalize teams for offerring them.

Similarly, it's unfair and unprofessional for teams to give players reduced pay after this new CBA although terms were already agreed to.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:02 PM
  #21
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
I missed the Lebrun article.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ut-back-diving

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:03 PM
  #22
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
Agreed.

If I had to guess, I'm sure most of these GM's probably did know this may hit them in the new CBA but didn't care because they figure they'll be in new jobs by the time year 7 or 8 of the various deals roll around.
Yeah, because owners are never involved in eight or nine digit decisions.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:07 PM
  #23
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,336
vCash: 500
All back-diving is proof of is an unorganized league who doesn't have control of it's owners, and would rather fix issues in dire straits later than deal with them now.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:09 PM
  #24
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
What does "deliberate cap circumvention" even mean? It sounds like breaking the rules, and yet these contracts were still given a green light by the league.

Why is it unfair if anyone could do it?

How it it unprofessional if it's allowed in current regulations?

Unfair and unprofessional is allowing contracts, only to turn around and penalize teams for offerring them.

Similarly, it's unfair and unprofessional for teams to give players reduced pay after this new CBA although terms were already agreed to.
Was it fair and professional when all the rules of the game were changed and when teams had players under contract to play for X amount of years and lost those years?

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:11 PM
  #25
dubplatepressure
Registered User
 
dubplatepressure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
I missed the Lebrun article.



It's not about bums in the seats. It's about the ramifications of having a players 6m cap hit count against your books for 5 years after he has retired. That's a lot of money you could use to sign other players and make your team better.



LOL. Sorry boss. Upcoming CBA. Happy now?
Agreed and like the rule. I also expect teams will now have to adhere to some sort of imposed threshold whereby the cash salary stays within a % of the average over the length of contract. So if it's a 5 year 25 million, cash value can't exceed 25% higher or lower, per year. This should make future contracts more honest.

dubplatepressure 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 01:28 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.