The cap is definitely going to shrink some; Homer with a smaller cap has caused problems. Being able to trade for cap space, especially if it could be a cash transaction, could potentially negate Homer's biggest achilles heel.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Likely not. I think it would evolve over time and depend on each teams' circumstances and needs.
I am curious as to how it really would be pulled off, if it as straight forward as I am thinking it is. Unless you're trading your cap space for picks, you will be losing cap space and adding salary. Could be more of a novelty than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg
Wait. We could potentially have PAUL HOLMGREN with MORE cap space? Does Snider have embarrassing pictures of Bettman and Fehr?
Hopefully they have some dirt on Snow and Wang too
Can someone explain to me how having a 5 year max contract length would be a bad thing? As it stands it only benefits the players... the owners and the fans are the ones that suffer. Owners pay for washed up players and fans have to basically turn on crowd favorites when they are no longer good because they have to stick around.
With the max at 5 years, players can't run somewhere else for more years... the Flyers will always offer the max and that will only benefit us. Top end players can't run somewhere else for a 14 year deal. I could see the argument that you can lower a cap hit by extending the years, but realistically I think the price of players drops a bit considering they can't be offered much more elsewhere...
I'm obviously not an expert on this whole thing... this is an honest question.
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.
Wow. Owner's really were ok with that?
EDIT:Nevermind
Quote:
@TSNBobMcKenzie: Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit
__________________
"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Last edited by Hollywood Couturier: 10-16-2012 at 11:10 PM.
Actually this means that if Richards or Carter retire early, the Flyers would be on the hook for their cap hit (Bryz and Pronger as well). I am also trying to clarify if the Flyers would be the creator of the Weber contract and that if Weber retires early his cap hit would count against the Flyers for structuring the contract that way. Still no facts yet, but Bettman is holding true to punishing the teams who tried to circumvent the cap.
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.
So if a modified version of this deal is accepted, does that mean we can still offer sheet PK Subban?
It could essentially be the same thing if the retained salary was not associated with a cap hit.
You can send 50% or $3m with a player, whichever is lower, while all the cap hit goes.
A good example might be Wade Redden (assuming his 1-way contract will now count against the Rangers cap even though they are burying him in the minors). Rangers ring up Islanders and send Redden +$3m to the Islands for 7th round pick. Win-win-win, Rangers win, Islanders win, Redden wins.
It's going to be quite useful as a form of revenue sharing and keep guys in the league instead of the minors, at least until it gets abused and we have a whole new round of complaints to fix. It's not a great way of buying cap so much as redistributing your problems.
Actually this means that if Richards or Carter retire early, the Flyers would be on the hook for their cap hit (Bryz and Pronger as well). I am also trying to clarify if the Flyers would be the creator of the Weber contract and that if Weber retires early his cap hit would count against the Flyers for structuring the contract that way. Still no facts yet, but Bettman is holding true to punishing the teams who tried to circumvent the cap.
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.
Wow, totally not a fan of changing the way long term contracts work against the cap when it applies to things that were signed pre-new CBA. I think it's really unfair to change the way that works.
We could potentially be getting back cap hits on Carter and Richards even though they've been gone for 10 years? I think that's awful.
These new CBA aspects are pretty bad for the Flyers...
It's bad for every team that legally played within the rules before this new idea was proposed by Gary. I just don't see how the new CBA could potentially punish teams for signing deals that were completely legal under the terms of the old CBA.
What's worse is this was something that was probably proposed within the ownership group themselves. I can't imagine the players caring who pays the money on their deals, whether it be their current owner or the original owner who signed the deal. They just want to get paid. This had to be something that was proposed within the group of owners. If I'm Ed Snider, I'm pissed about this, and rightfully so.
It is said in the owners latest proposal, THEY want one way contracts buried in the AHL(Redden) to count against the cap, but the players will fight against it.
What's the reasoning from each side?
Why would the players fight against it? I think they would be happy that there is less incentive to bury players in the minors.
Why would the players fight against it? I think they would be happy that there is less incentive to bury players in the minors.
I'm not sure the NHLPA opposes players being buried. They still get paid. The individual player might hate it, but, as a whole, it means that someone else is getting that money.
Theoretically if Carter retires a year early, the Flyers would be stuck with a 5.2 million dollar cap hit in 2021-22 for a player that the LA Kings (and Jackets for half a season) reaped all of the lower cap hit benefit from, and the Flyers not even a single game out of that contract.
I just really don't see why this is a solution that makes sense
Wow, totally not a fan of changing the way long term contracts work against the cap when it applies to things that were signed pre-new CBA. I think it's really unfair to change the way that works.
We could potentially be getting back cap hits on Carter and Richards even though they've been gone for 10 years? I think that's awful.
Realistically, what is the chance that a player will retire. Pretty low since they won't get paid the remaining salary left on the contract. In theory, it sounds bad, but in practice it will have absolutely little, to no effect.
Realistically, what is the chance that a player will retire. Pretty low since they won't get paid the remaining salary left on the contract. In theory, it sounds bad, but in practice it will have absolutely little, to no effect.
I thought they might want to get rid of the 35+ rule, but it seems they are applying it to every contract currently created over 5 years. Don't forget it is possible that by the time this CBA comes up (in 5 years) they might remove this, if it's included at all, before players like Carter, Richards, etc will have their contract expire/retire. It would make more sense to have this rule for current contracts so the 5 year limit is more of a soft cap than a hard cap.
I thought they might want to get rid of the 35+ rule, but it seems they are applying it to every contract currently created over 5 years. Don't forget it is possible that by the time this CBA comes up (in 5 years) they might remove this, if it's included at all, before players like Carter, Richards, etc will have their contract expire/retire. It would make more sense to have this rule for current contracts so the 5 year limit is more of a soft cap than a hard cap.
The NHL's explanation specifically cites targetting back diving contracts, which would be illegal because of the rules on salary variance of long term deals. What remains to be seen is A. does this make it into the finalized CBA, and B. is this applied to all contracts already moved or is it stipulated to only apply to contracts traded after this CBA was agreed to.
The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.
In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"
- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
