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, 12:18 PM
  #26
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,587
vCash: 500
Some of the owners won't like it but a restriction like this is absolutely necessary.

The teams that have players signed to these types of contracts currently have the advantage of an artificially low cap hit for some of the game's top players. They will continue to have that advantage throughout the duration of the contract. There needs to be a counter-weight; a disadvantage to having these contracts. Forcing the teams to carry the cap hit past the player's (presumptive) retirement is good though I'd like to see it taken even further. What's a $5 million cap hit in ten years from now? Make it a percentage of the cap instead and be sure put in trade restrictions as well.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:21 PM
  #27
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Good

I don't think it's unfair at all to make the rule retroactive. Every GM that has signed deals like this has gotten hesitation and questioning from the league because there is obviously some concern as to how reasonable these kind of contracts are. When you have a contract that runs into a player's early forties, it doesn't seem likely that he will play all of that out but it can hardly be said that such a thing is unheard of. These GMs have been warned about this and for those who choose to persist onward and offer these kind of contracts, they can't say that they couldn't see this coming.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:25 PM
  #28
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
Yeah, because owners are never involved in eight or nine digit decisions.
Who said they don't get involved? At the end of the day it isn't a financial issue. The owner in the Kovalchuk example won't have to pay a penny in the last 5 years of the deal. They will just have the cap hit count against them. This impacts the competitiveness of the franchise not the financials. It actually helps some of the cheap owners reach the cap floor without spending the money.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:33 PM
  #29
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
It isn't even a punishment. All it does is says that the team and the player signed a contract where it was agreed that a player would play for a specified amount of years at a specified cap hit and that they should stick to that agreement to make things fair for everyone.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:38 PM
  #30
Pi
Registered User
 
Pi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,714
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
It isn't even a punishment. All it does is says that the team and the player signed a contract where it was agreed that a player would play for a specified amount of years at a specified cap hit and that they should stick to that agreement to make things fair for everyone.
Exactly.

A team signs a player for 15 years for a 100 million dollars. Why is it a punishment if the team if the team has to stick to that agreement that they themselves made with a player.

Why should a player get to retire after he's made 90M of the 100M and walk out of the contract with no harm to the team?

It's only leveling the playing field.

Pi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:47 PM
  #31
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,632
vCash: 500
I think they should remain on the cap, unless the player is demoted to the AHL, or is placed on LTIR.

If you can't demote a cap hit you can't demote a cap hit.

__________________
http://kuklaskorner.com/index.php/ps...e_corsi_issues

Desjardins estimates that about 40% of the game is captured by Corsi analysis.

Babs - short for Barbara
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:11 PM
  #32
The Magic Man
With God given hands
 
The Magic Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,924
vCash: 500
GMs will find loopholes, like Grant said, trading the soon retiring player to a team desperate to make the floor. It'll be interesting what type of retirement ceremony that will be for the stars.

They have to have term limits and $ for $ cap trading like in the NBA. There should be no circumvention allowed. LTIR should be approved by the league. We don't need Luongo et al claiming a hangnail and getting off the cap.

Cap hits over a certain mark should not be wiped out in the AHL like Redden. Buy outs should cost more but have less a hit on the cap.

The Magic Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:11 PM
  #33
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
Exactly.

A team signs a player for 15 years for a 100 million dollars. Why is it a punishment if the team if the team has to stick to that agreement that they themselves made with a player.

Why should a player get to retire after he's made 90M of the 100M and walk out of the contract with no harm to the team?

It's only leveling the playing field.
There should be no harm to the team because that's the way the league previously allowed it to be structured.

I will credit Burke for his foresight if this happens, but it's foresight on how stupid the league is and how ridiculous the owners trade focuses between self and the league as if the two are unrelated.

I'm not sure why everyone feels that the GM's that "should have known" better should be blamed. How about we blame the league that seemingly changes the rules whenever they want? Why doesn't the league have responsibility for business continuity?

It's a joke, through and through. I feel like Bettman and Daly are additicted to litigation and fine print, rather than long term success, and this is another opportunity to get into both.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:15 PM
  #34
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
It isn't even a punishment. All it does is says that the team and the player signed a contract where it was agreed that a player would play for a specified amount of years at a specified cap hit and that they should stick to that agreement to make things fair for everyone.
The specified cap hit is what's changing though, no?

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:16 PM
  #35
blasted_Sabre
Global Moderator
Warden of the North
 
blasted_Sabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Muskoka
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,579
vCash: 500
Oh I hope it happens!


blasted_Sabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:18 PM
  #36
pigpen65
Registered User
 
pigpen65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,552
vCash: 500
the rule makes total sense, but there's no way to make it retroactive.

pigpen65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:22 PM
  #37
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigpen65 View Post
the rule makes total sense, but there's no way to make it retroactive.
With the last lock-out they allowed some freebies.

I'm guessing something similar would have to be there.

Don't forget the owners have to agree, this is not Bettman's NHL, he's just a front man.

There are quite a few owners who have these contracts, so don't go off fantasizing about how much power is in the hands of the frontman.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:24 PM
  #38
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
The specified cap hit is what's changing though, no?
I have no idea what that means.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:26 PM
  #39
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
I have no idea what that means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
It isn't even a punishment. All it does is says that the team and the player signed a contract where it was agreed that a player would play for a specified amount of years at a specified cap hit and that they should stick to that agreement to make things fair for everyone.
There was a specified cap hit prior to the expiration of the CBA, you're creating a new cap hit.

That's what is changing, and that is what in my opinion is unfair and is a punishment.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:29 PM
  #40
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
With the last lock-out they allowed some freebies.

I'm guessing something similar would have to be there.

Don't forget the owners have to agree, this is not Bettman's NHL, he's just a front man.

There are quite a few owners who have these contracts, so don't go off fantasizing about how much power is in the hands of the frontman.
Last week on Sportsnet Doug Maclean was telling the panel that during the last lockout he represented his owner in the meetings, and found out about the details of the new CBA when the fans and media found out. He said only the bargaining committee of 7 teams knew the details beforehand. He said Bettman doesn't have to deal with all the owners in this situation, which makes it easier for him. Point being, if the bargaining committee for this round of negotiations is not vehemently opposed to this new rule then the others in the group have no real choice.

I do agree that their probably will be some type of amnesty period. I'm sure Burke is counting on this as an opportunity to bid on prime FA's on reasonable contracts.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:33 PM
  #41
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
Last week on Sportsnet Doug Maclean was telling the panel that during the last lockout he represented his owner in the meetings, and found out about the details of the new CBA when the fans and media found out. He said only the bargaining committee of 7 teams knew the details beforehand. He said Bettman doesn't have to deal with all the owners in this situation, which makes it easier for him. Point being, if the bargaining committee for this round of negotiations is not vehemently opposed to this new rule then the others in the group have no real choice.

I do agree that their probably will be some type of amnesty period. I'm sure Burke is counting on this as an opportunity to bid on prime FA's on reasonable contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Col...ning_Agreement

Quote:
The NHL collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is the basic contract between the National Hockey League (NHL) team owners and the NHL Players Association (NHLPA), designed to be arrived at through the typical labor-management negotiations of collective bargaining. The most recent agreement, tentatively reached on July 13, 2005 after a labor dispute which caused the cancellation of the 2004–05 season, was ratified by the NHLPA membership on July 21 and by the league's Board of Governors the following day on July 22.

I'm not sure how many are required to approve from the owners.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:37 PM
  #42
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
There was a specified cap hit prior to the expiration of the CBA, you're creating a new cap hit.

That's what is changing, and that is what in my opinion is unfair and is a punishment.
The cap hit will change if the players agree to a rollback, I would imagine. Can't think of why that has anything to do with this thread discussion.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:41 PM
  #43
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,304
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.
2/3rds sticks in my mind. That may just be for rule changes though. Assuming it is, then Bettman would need another 13 teams to approve. I see it as doable, especially if the lockout drags on for a long time and the rest of the deal is favourable to them.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:52 PM
  #44
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
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
Typical Leaf fodder. Count your chickens before they hatch -- Burke is a genius -- for something that hasn't happened and probably never will.

birddog* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:54 PM
  #45
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,531
vCash: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
2/3rds sticks in my mind. That may just be for rule changes though. Assuming it is, then Bettman would need another 13 teams to approve. I see it as doable, especially if the lockout drags on for a long time and the rest of the deal is favourable to them.
I've heard 2/3 for other things, can't remember what though.

Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 01:59 PM
  #46
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
With the last lock-out they allowed some freebies.

I'm guessing something similar would have to be there.

Don't forget the owners have to agree, this is not Bettman's NHL, he's just a front man.

There are quite a few owners who have these contracts, so don't go off fantasizing about how much power is in the hands of the frontman.
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.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:00 PM
  #47
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
2/3rds sticks in my mind. That may just be for rule changes though. Assuming it is, then Bettman would need another 13 teams to approve. I see it as doable, especially if the lockout drags on for a long time and the rest of the deal is favourable to them.
There are sounds that some of the owners aren't completely onboard but they aren't allowed to talk anyway. Almost sounded like Molson's is not happy, but can't say anything on the record.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:16 PM
  #48
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,304
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.
You know it won't happen as much as I know it will.

But if were a betting man, I would definitely put money down on something being done to these contracts that will favour the Leafs. There is a reason Burke didn't partake in these deals and it's not because he's dumb.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:22 PM
  #49
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,752
vCash: 500
Any of these long term contracts were accepted on the good faith that both sides (the signing team and the UFA player) were both agreeing that the player would be playing until the contractual age, whether that was 40, 41, 42, 43, or even 44.

If the league forces teams to honor that commitment through salary cap, they are only really enforcing deals that teams have already said were signed in good old fashioned honest intentions, that isn't a punishment is it?

Any team that fights valiantly against it (say NJ with Kovy, or Van wit Lu) would be admitting they were only trying to sign cap circumventing contracts...

TOGuy14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:33 PM
  #50
CellarDweller0
Registered User
 
CellarDweller0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontalLombardomy View Post
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.
This on it's own is not the reason why I think Burke is in tune with the coming change in the NHL. I would like to add a few other players that teams overpaid for that Burke did not breaking the bank on:

B.Richards
R.Suter
Z.Parise
Kovalchuk (sp? & at work so don't want to check)

With Luongo that is AT LEAST 5 players and I am sure there are some I have forgotten at this time. Some of these Burke took some considerable heat for not signing.

I'll make some popcorn and watch this gong show now.

CellarDweller0 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 12:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.