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
09-22-2012, 10:59 AM
  #76
Faltorvo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If you're making a contract that is legal within the rules of the leagues CBA... and the nhl itself signs off on the contract... then it IS NOT cap circumvention.

I'm VERY surprised that I would have to explain this to people. It appeared to me as common sense.

The league CANNOT punish teams for signing contracts that the nhl itself signed off on. It just doesn't make sense.

There is NO WAY that these contracts will be retroactive.
Leaf fans are just clinging to this for the moment because they've been humiliated by the GM they stubbornly defended... and now they're trying to save face.
The league would not be punishing any team if they made this retroactive and they surely would not be in anyway shape or form, altering in any way these existing contracts.

They would be altering how the league administrates these contracts inregards to the cap.


Last edited by Faltorvo: 09-22-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Faltorvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:09 AM
  #77
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.

Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.

You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
Ugh. Please stop.

Those contracts were signed on the premise of the players actually playing until the very end of the deals. Both the player and teams had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they told the league this would be the case. We all know that the teams and players have nudge nudge wink wink agreements in place for said players to retire early.

You just can't stand the thought of Burke looking good in any way shape or form.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:11 AM
  #78
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Which contract was changed? There were buyouts and a roll back. Not a single contract was altered. That is illegal.
A roll back is ALTERING the contract!! Please stop!

If the owners decide they want to retroactively close the loophole in these retirement deals and the players accept it as part of collective bargaining then IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:19 AM
  #79
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
So the NHL and NHLPA come up with Kovalchuk amendment on how to deal with long term contracts and now the NHL is going to punish those teams which followed the Kovalchuk amendment in negotiating the contract? Some of those contracts came after the Kovalchuk amendment. They are going to go after teams for following the guidelines negotiated between the NHL and the PA? That's funny. The NHLPA will have a say in any changes in how cap hits are calculated. Why would the PA agree to punish those teams and take away cap space from those teams affecting other players? I heard Bill Daly say they never thought teams would hand out long term contracts when they wrote the CBA in 2005. They missed out on many things.
What Kovalchuk amendment? You make it sound like it was an official change to the CBA at the time. The point of changing that contract was to make it less blatant than the original deal.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 11:21 AM
  #80
Wendel17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
Not exactly Wendel, i can already see a HUGE loophole is this system.

The rich team trades the aged player to a poor team when the contract is close to winding down.

The poor team gets a boost of 6 million toward reaching the cap floor without paying a dime in salary.

Can't see anyway to restrict the trading of said player if they do it before any retirement announcement.

Also can't see how they could structure any penalty either direction if it is done before a retirement call.
This is possible. Though I am sure the league has thought of this already and will put provisions in place to stop it.

Wendel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:09 PM
  #81
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Which contract was changed? There were buyouts and a roll back. Not a single contract was altered. That is illegal.
Actually, they rollback the amounts on the contracts.

I'd suggest every contract was altered ... salary is part of the contract, and it was reduced.

It is possible some were increased, can't recall minimum contract prior to last lock-out, but it might have been less than 500k.

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

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:13 PM
  #82
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,861
vCash: 500
Last time they provided some outs for teams, and they'll likely do the same this time.

Why wouldn't they?

Some people are confusing the issues here, it is about keeping more money in the owners pockets not punishing teams for complying to the last CBA rules.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:17 PM
  #83
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Having a rule that says that the cap hit goes to the end of the contract does not involve changing the contract.

Hope that clears things up for some of you.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:27 PM
  #84
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Having a rule that says that the cap hit goes to the end of the contract does not involve changing the contract.

Hope that clears things up for some of you.
If they limit the length of contracts (which has been suggested) that would involve changing the contracts.

Unless you already know the next CBA it is all speculation.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:47 PM
  #85
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Having a rule that says that the cap hit goes to the end of the contract does not involve changing the contract.

Hope that clears things up for some of you.
That would be a good rule to put in the CBA, it would certainly derail the cap circumvention and make teams think twice about giving out those kind of contracts.

It may be hard to do, say if a player was injured and could no longer play, something would have to be worked around that and insurance would have to kick in however ones that go until the player is say 43 (as in Luongo's contract), it should go until termination and retirement shouldn't be a factor.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:51 PM
  #86
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
That would be a good rule to put in the CBA, it would certainly derail the cap circumvention and make teams think twice about giving out those kind of contracts.

It may be hard to do, say if a player was injured and could no longer play, something would have to be worked around that and insurance would have to kick in however ones that go until the player is say 43 (as in Luongo's contract), it should go until termination and retirement shouldn't be a factor.
Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

What players would you be allowed to demote to the minors?

If a player can be demoted to the minors do you keep his cap hit even when he's playing in the minors?

If Luongo refuses to accept demotion when it is part of the agreement how do you punish a team if a player refuses?

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 12:58 PM
  #87
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
That would be a good rule to put in the CBA, it would certainly derail the cap circumvention and make teams think twice about giving out those kind of contracts.

It may be hard to do, say if a player was injured and could no longer play, something would have to be worked around that and insurance would have to kick in however ones that go until the player is say 43 (as in Luongo's contract), it should go until termination and retirement shouldn't be a factor.
The longer these deals are the greater chance for a career ending injury before the expiry so teams shouldn't really get a break for that, IMO.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 01:03 PM
  #88
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
If they limit the length of contracts (which has been suggested) that would involve changing the contracts.

Unless you already know the next CBA it is all speculation.
This is what I would like to see, 5 years max contract length and player salary cap and the revenue sharing more in favour of the players.

I still think there are too many teams in venues losing money and possibly moving to areas that can better support a franchise as many as 4 teams can be moved to Canada and have a better fan base IMO, Hamilton, Markham, Quebec City and one on the East Coast (Halifax, Fredricton)

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 01:38 PM
  #89
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
We'll see if this happens. I have my doubts. The NHL isn't going to get everything they want. Players will fight this.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 01:45 PM
  #90
SuperJayMann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
This is what I would like to see, 5 years max contract length and player salary cap and the revenue sharing more in favour of the players.

I still think there are too many teams in venues losing money and possibly moving to areas that can better support a franchise as many as 4 teams can be moved to Canada and have a better fan base IMO, Hamilton, Markham, Quebec City and one on the East Coast (Halifax, Fredricton)
Saskatoon / Regina, I'd like one in Red Deer, but that'd never happen.

SuperJayMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 02:05 PM
  #91
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJayMann View Post
Saskatoon / Regina, I'd like one in Red Deer, but that'd never happen.
Absolutely, if a Canadian city can support a team and has a large enough fan base, why not.

Hockey is our National Winter Sport and Canadians tend to support it, some of the cities in the US have a large fan base but hockey is regarded as maybe 4th or 5th in the pecking order behind MLB, NBA, NFL and even Golf in some places.

The League may want to promote hockey in the US but when things are tough, like they are now south of the border, there are only so many dollars spent, on going to these sports events.

Budsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 02:29 PM
  #92
JAMmer124
Independent Living
 
JAMmer124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Welland, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faltorvo View Post
Not exactly Wendel, i can already see a HUGE loophole is this system.

The rich team trades the aged player to a poor team when the contract is close to winding down.

The poor team gets a boost of 6 million toward reaching the cap floor without paying a dime in salary.

Can't see anyway to restrict the trading of said player if they do it before any retirement announcement.

Also can't see how they could structure any penalty either direction if it is done before a retirement call.
Solution: when a player is traded, make their cap hit the average of their remaining years on their deal (if more than 5 yrs, then avg of 5 highest salary years).

That eliminates the possibility of that happening (it already does happen I bet, but not as grand scale).

JAMmer124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 03:40 PM
  #93
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulf_55 View Post
actually, they rollback the amounts on the contracts.

i'd suggest every contract was altered ... Salary is part of the contract, and it was reduced.

It is possible some were increased, can't recall minimum contract prior to last lock-out, but it might have been less than 500k.
ding ding ding

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 03:47 PM
  #94
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Which contract was changed? There were buyouts and a roll back. Not a single contract was altered. That is illegal.
When player agents negotiate a contract, what's the primary thing they negotiate?

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:45 PM
  #95
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Actually, they rollback the amounts on the contracts.

I'd suggest every contract was altered ... salary is part of the contract, and it was reduced.

It is possible some were increased, can't recall minimum contract prior to last lock-out, but it might have been less than 500k.
Global change in compensation. No contracts were altered no signing bonus, term, no trade clauses etc were altered.

There will be another lost season to protect term etc. No player is losing years in his deal. If the owners decide to change cap hits that Is their problem. The players contracts may be rolled back but they are guaranteed w/respect to term.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:46 PM
  #96
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
When player agents negotiate a contract, what's the primary thing they negotiate?
Term.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:10 PM
  #97
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 6,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendel17 View Post
A roll back is ALTERING the contract!! Please stop!

If the owners decide they want to retroactively close the loophole in these retirement deals and the players accept it as part of collective bargaining then IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.

The terms are very different then agreeing to a salary roll back.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:14 PM
  #98
Gatorade*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.
Exactly. Just a bunch of wishful thinking here to somehow bail out Brian Burke. Players are not giving up their contracts. Therefore we lose another season.

Gatorade* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:23 PM
  #99
stanleyorbust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Most owners would LOVE making teams honor these cap circumventing contracts. And, yes the NHL can make it retroactive... Assuming both sides agree to it in the cba.

Just think.. Kovy retires at 40, and no longer gets paid. However his 6 million (ish) cap hit stays for another 5 years. Hinders the team slightly but a team looking for a phantom cap hit would love it! Cap hit with no salary

stanleyorbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:27 PM
  #100
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.

The terms are very different then agreeing to a salary roll back.
The teams signed the contracts with the players for a specified number of years. Why would they be concerned about this new rule?

mooseOAK* 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 07:14 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.