HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Has this CBA put an end to back-loaded cap circumvention contracts in the future?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 03:26 PM
  #26
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
I recall in prior meetings and news from TSN, they had discussed penalties that would be applied to teams that signed Long term back diving deals.

Like Crosby, average salary of $10.5 million over the 12 years, but a cap hit of $8.7 million.

Something along the lines of making the team that signed the original contract having to take a cap hit for the year(s) when a player retires.

For me, I hope there is language in the CBA that just ensures that all salary paid to a player gets applied to the salary cap. So, if Crosby, Luongo, Hossa, Parise, etc. retire with 2-3 years left on their contracts, I hope they simply do something like:

Take all of the salary the player was paid (minus) cap hit for the years he played. Any difference should be applied evenly (average) against that team's salary cap for the years left on the player's deal. All this is based on the player not retiring due to injury (not medically cleared to play)

If a player (say Luongo) is traded, then the Canucks who paid him $10 million and $6.7 million for a total of $16.7 million over 2 years, but took only $10.6 million in cap hit, should get hit with $6.1 million of salary cap hit. for the years he doesn't play out his contract. The other team would do the same thing.

Wait and see if there is any language like this in the CBA.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:34 PM
  #27
Hutz
Classless User
 
Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vujtek View Post
That's what NHLPA wanted. If that's the final number it's another 'win' for the PA.
I thought I'd heard earlier in the week that the NHL had conceded on that point. Can't find a reference now, though, so maybe I'm imagining it.

Hutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:35 PM
  #28
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,092
vCash: 500
Lebrun states that's it's "no year less than 50 percent of the highest year" so we'll have to wait and see..

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...e-nhls-new-cba

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:40 PM
  #29
Gustave
Registered User
 
Gustave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Here
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
Lebrun states that's it's "no year less than 50 percent of the highest year" so we'll have to wait and see..

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...e-nhls-new-cba
Was just going to post this.

So much to learn with a new CBA. I'm curious to see the penalties, if any, for previous frontloading "retirement" contracts.

Gustave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:58 PM
  #30
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
I recall in prior meetings and news from TSN, they had discussed penalties that would be applied to teams that signed Long term back diving deals.

Like Crosby, average salary of $10.5 million over the 12 years, but a cap hit of $8.7 million.

Something along the lines of making the team that signed the original contract having to take a cap hit for the year(s) when a player retires.

For me, I hope there is language in the CBA that just ensures that all salary paid to a player gets applied to the salary cap. So, if Crosby, Luongo, Hossa, Parise, etc. retire with 2-3 years left on their contracts, I hope they simply do something like:

Take all of the salary the player was paid (minus) cap hit for the years he played. Any difference should be applied evenly (average) against that team's salary cap for the years left on the player's deal. All this is based on the player not retiring due to injury (not medically cleared to play)

If a player (say Luongo) is traded, then the Canucks who paid him $10 million and $6.7 million for a total of $16.7 million over 2 years, but took only $10.6 million in cap hit, should get hit with $6.1 million of salary cap hit. for the years he doesn't play out his contract. The other team would do the same thing.

Wait and see if there is any language like this in the CBA.
Yes I remember seeing mention of the 'cap reclamation' provision in one of the NHL proposals. I hope its still in there. No team should be able to pay a player more than cap hit incurred over the course of his playing time.
Example - Kovalchuk's 15 year deal. If he retires after the 19/20 season, just before his 1M years kick in, he will have received 90M over 10 years or what should have been a 9M cap hit. However his team only incurred a 6.67M cap hit. NJ 'owes' 23.33 in cap hit. I assume it would be 'paid' over the remaining 5 years of his contract, so a hit of over 4M for 5 years - ouch.
Might seem harsh, but NJ would have enjoyed saving 2.3M of cap space per year for 10 years.

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:06 PM
  #31
Daz28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
League can ask 3rd party opinion when it comes to injured players, AFAIK this has already been done in the last CBA.

So if league suspects foul play, they can send their own doctors to check up the injury.

It's not really a loophole unless players go and intentionally break their bones or take hits to the head to allow them LTIR status.
This is a slippery slope anyways. Not quite as simple as measuring the curve of the stick. If there's one thing Vilma and Goodell have taught us is that anything like this "3rd party doctor" thingy will be an absolute mess. The teams will challenge the 3rd party doctors with their own independent doctors, and then lawyers will have to step in. The cap WILL be circumvented in every imaginable way, and brilliant minds are working on it as I type this. Consider it part of the competitive edge if you will. I've never understood why people get their panties in a bunch about it anyways, because the option to circumvent was available to ALL teams(except of course NJ). Small market teams already faced too much of an uphill battle for top free agents anyways. The circumventing was just a way the big shot teams could waste even more money.

Daz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:06 PM
  #32
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustave View Post
Was just going to post this.

So much to learn with a new CBA. I'm curious to see the penalties, if any, for previous frontloading "retirement" contracts.
Wait and see on that. I do recall that the different panels on TSN and Sportsnet had talked about penalizing teams that back-dove contracts.

Is it fair to penalize teams for this? IMO, yes, since all parties involved in the deal, the player, the agent, GM, and team have all come out and said that those deals are valid and negotiated in good faith.

So, barring an injury forced retirement, the player should be expected to fulfill the terms of the deal or get bought out.

As a Canucks fan, I look at the Luongo contract and the final 4 years are at a salary of $3.4, $1.6, $1, $1 million. So if Luongo opts to bypass those years of his 12 year $64 million contract, he leaves $7 million salary and $21.3 million of cap hit on the table. Which means over the first 8 years, he was paid $57 million and took a $42.7 million cap hit. A difference of $14.3 million.

Will the NHL make the Canucks and/or the team that Luongo gets traded to, take a cap hit for the 4 years he didn't play out his contract? Canucks would have paid him $16.7 million and taken a $10.6 cap hit. Other team would have paid him about $40 million in salary and taken $32 million in salary cap hit.

So, would the 2 teams split up the $14.3 million in cap hit so that the Canucks eat $6.1 million (avg. of $1.5 million) over the 4 years, while the other team eats $2 million on average over the same 4 years? Seems fair as both teams benefited from the back diving contract.

See the details of the CBA to find out if there are any penalties like this in the deal.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:22 PM
  #33
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Wait and see on that. I do recall that the different panels on TSN and Sportsnet had talked about penalizing teams that back-dove contracts.

Is it fair to penalize teams for this? IMO, yes, since all parties involved in the deal, the player, the agent, GM, and team have all come out and said that those deals are valid and negotiated in good faith.

So, barring an injury forced retirement, the player should be expected to fulfill the terms of the deal or get bought out.

As a Canucks fan, I look at the Luongo contract and the final 4 years are at a salary of $3.4, $1.6, $1, $1 million. So if Luongo opts to bypass those years of his 12 year $64 million contract, he leaves $7 million salary and $21.3 million of cap hit on the table. Which means over the first 8 years, he was paid $57 million and took a $42.7 million cap hit. A difference of $14.3 million.

Will the NHL make the Canucks and/or the team that Luongo gets traded to, take a cap hit for the 4 years he didn't play out his contract? Canucks would have paid him $16.7 million and taken a $10.6 cap hit. Other team would have paid him about $40 million in salary and taken $32 million in salary cap hit.

So, would the 2 teams split up the $14.3 million in cap hit so that the Canucks eat $6.1 million (avg. of $1.5 million) over the 4 years, while the other team eats $2 million on average over the same 4 years? Seems fair as both teams benefited from the back diving contract.

See the details of the CBA to find out if there are any penalties like this in the deal.
IMO, it shouldn't matter if it was injury induced retirement, or the player doesn't want to get out of bed for a 'paltry' $1M.
If a team received an advantage of enticing a player with more $$ than other teams while not incurring the full corresponding cap hit, then they should incur the penalty if the playing career ends and the full cap hit wasn't paid, regardless of circumstance.
If multiple teams are involved, then the math you suggest makes sense - each team must pay back the cap advantage they received while the player played for them.
No one should whine about this, it is rather simple - money paid to player should = cap hit paid when all is said and done.

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:30 PM
  #34
FadeToBlack
Registered User
 
FadeToBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
This is about the best you can do for circumvention by the rules as I'm reading them...

Took three random dollar values, listed the initial years, then added the high and low variances per year. So the goal is to drop it as fast as possible and raise it back up so you hit exactly 50% in that last year. I'm in a rush so I didn't get it to exactly 50%, just real close, you should get an idea of the AAV from there.
Code:
Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$15,000,000.00	$9,750,000.00	$20,250,000.00
$9,750,000.00	$6,337,500.00	$13,162,500.00
$6,337,500.00	$4,119,375.00	$8,555,625.00
$4,119,375.00	$2,677,593.75	$5,561,156.25
$3,050,000.00	$1,982,500.00	$4,117,500.00
$4,117,500.00	$2,676,375.00	$5,558,625.00
$5,558,625.00	$3,613,106.25	$7,504,143.75
$7,504,143.75	$4,877,693.44	$10,130,594.06
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$47,933,000.00	$5,991,625.00	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$20,000,000.00	$13,000,000.00	$27,000,000.00
$13,000,000.00	$8,450,000.00	$17,550,000.00
$8,450,000.00	$5,492,500.00	$11,407,500.00
$5,492,500.00	$3,570,125.00	$7,414,875.00
$4,067,500.00	$2,643,875.00	$5,491,125.00
$5,491,125.00	$3,569,231.25	$7,413,018.75
$7,413,018.75	$4,818,462.19	$10,007,575.31
$10,007,575.31	$6,504,923.95	$13,510,226.67
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$63,914,143.75	$7,989,267.97	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$25,000,000.00	$16,250,000.00	$33,750,000.00
$16,250,000.00	$10,562,500.00	$21,937,500.00
$10,562,500.00	$6,865,625.00	$14,259,375.00
$6,865,625.00	$4,462,656.25	$9,268,593.75
$5,082,000.00	$3,303,300.00	$6,860,700.00
$6,860,700.00	$4,459,455.00	$9,261,945.00
$9,261,945.00	$6,020,264.25	$12,503,625.75
$12,503,625.75	$8,127,356.74	$16,879,894.76
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$79,882,770.00	$9,985,346.25

FadeToBlack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:31 PM
  #35
Daz28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
IMO, it shouldn't matter if it was injury induced retirement, or the player doesn't want to get out of bed for a 'paltry' $1M.
If a team received an advantage of enticing a player with more $$ than other teams while not incurring the full corresponding cap hit, then they should incur the penalty if the playing career ends and the full cap hit wasn't paid, regardless of circumstance.
If multiple teams are involved, then the math you suggest makes sense - each team must pay back the cap advantage they received while the player played for them.
No one should whine about this, it is rather simple - money paid to player should = cap hit paid when all is said and done.
Ya, except teams have already gotten away with it(see Rangers-Redden). Should they be back-punished. If what you say sounds fair, then so does punishing previous offenders? Right, or do we just let a few of em slide??? The loopholes were the leagues fault, not the people who exploited them. They had an opportunity to disallow the contracts at the time, and balked. Trying to provide some justice now would just make them look even dumber.

Daz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:33 PM
  #36
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
IMO, it shouldn't matter if it was injury induced retirement, or the player doesn't want to get out of bed for a 'paltry' $1M.
If a team received an advantage of enticing a player with more $$ than other teams while not incurring the full corresponding cap hit, then they should incur the penalty if the playing career ends and the full cap hit wasn't paid, regardless of circumstance.
If multiple teams are involved, then the math you suggest makes sense - each team must pay back the cap advantage they received while the player played for them.
No one should whine about this, it is rather simple - money paid to player should = cap hit paid when all is said and done.
Whole heartedly agree with you on this one. All salary paid to a player must be applied against the salary cap at some point in time.

As for injury forced retirement, actually, the team would be able to place the player on LTIR so that wouldn't matter anyways.

If the team(s) don't like it, too darn bad. These contracts were signed in "Good Faith" remember.... So, if the player 10 years later decides that he doesn't want to play years 11 and 12 of the contract, someone has to take the cap hit for the years in which the salary paid was higher than the cap hit.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:36 PM
  #37
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
IMO, it shouldn't matter if it was injury induced retirement, or the player doesn't want to get out of bed for a 'paltry' $1M.
If a team received an advantage of enticing a player with more $$ than other teams while not incurring the full corresponding cap hit, then they should incur the penalty if the playing career ends and the full cap hit wasn't paid, regardless of circumstance.
If multiple teams are involved, then the math you suggest makes sense - each team must pay back the cap advantage they received while the player played for them.
No one should whine about this, it is rather simple - money paid to player should = cap hit paid when all is said and done.
There is no way they retroactively go after contracts that were legal under the old CBA. All new contracts will have to abide by the new variance rules, but just as the existing long term contracts that exceed the new length limit will be grandfathered, so will the existing front loaded contracts.

The new CBA does allow front loading of contracts, but has much tighter limits on overall term and variance from year to year. I think this is a reasonable compromise as it allows teams some leeway in how they structure their contracts.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:39 PM
  #38
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz28 View Post
Ya, except teams have already gotten away with it(see Rangers-Redden). Should they be back-punished. If what you say sounds fair, then so does punishing previous offenders? Right, or do we just let a few of em slide??? The loopholes were the leagues fault, not the people who exploited them. They had an opportunity to disallow the contracts at the time, and balked. Trying to provide some justice now would just make them look even dumber.
No one has 'got away with it' yet. No one has retired early yet from one of those contracts. Any punishement (if any) won't even apply until somebody does.

Wade Redden is not an example of a backdiving contract where a team was able to secure the services of a premiere player by paying them more money that cap hit.
Redden simply wasn't playing up to his salary so the Rangers buried him in the minors. Redden has to report to receive his money. Being able to bury mistakes in the AHL is a different issue.

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:44 PM
  #39
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
There is no way they retroactively go after contracts that were legal under the old CBA. All new contracts will have to abide by the new variance rules, but just as the existing long term contracts that exceed the new length limit will be grandfathered, so will the existing front loaded contracts.

The new CBA does allow front loading of contracts, but has much tighter limits on overall term and variance from year to year. I think this is a reasonable compromise as it allows teams some leeway in how they structure their contracts.
I doubt they would 'go after' contracts to void them, just ensuring that money paid = cap paid when a player's career is over.
That just ensures the level playing field that the cap was supposed to bring and no team had an advantage over another financially.

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:49 PM
  #40
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
One other point I would like to make...

It shouldn't be considered 'punishment' if the new CBA has provisions for those previous contracts. The team would only be paying the cap hit that they should have anyways.

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:05 PM
  #41
Daz28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
No one has 'got away with it' yet. No one has retired early yet from one of those contracts. Any punishement (if any) won't even apply until somebody does.

Wade Redden is not an example of a backdiving contract where a team was able to secure the services of a premiere player by paying them more money that cap hit.
Redden simply wasn't playing up to his salary so the Rangers buried him in the minors. Redden has to report to receive his money. Being able to bury mistakes in the AHL is a different issue.
Different issue, yes. Issue in the same spirit of cap circumvention, certainly. Everyone knows teams were burying salaries in the A just as much as they know they were front-loading deals. Not sure why you want to demonize one more than the other?

Another issue I want to address is when is a retirement legit, and when should a team be responsible for the players decision to retire? Suppose a team signs a player under current rules to a 7 year, $70M deal, and he decides he wants to retire the following year to take care of his sick child? Is it only fair the team takes the $60m cap hit for the next 6 years??? See, fans look at things in black and white, and the truth is matters are VERY, VERY complicated. That's why they pay lawyers millions of dollars to sort it out.

Daz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 05:18 PM
  #42
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz28 View Post
Different issue, yes. Issue in the same spirit of cap circumvention, certainly. Everyone knows teams were burying salaries in the A just as much as they know they were front-loading deals. Not sure why you want to demonize one more than the other?

Another issue I want to address is when is a retirement legit, and when should a team be responsible for the players decision to retire? Suppose a team signs a player under current rules to a 7 year, $70M deal, and he decides he wants to retire the following year to take care of his sick child? Is it only fair the team takes the $60m cap hit for the next 6 years??? See, fans look at things in black and white, and the truth is matters are VERY, VERY complicated. That's why they pay lawyers millions of dollars to sort it out.
First off, I am not demonizing one and not the other, this thread topic is dealing with back diving contracts, not sending guys to the AHL to avoid cap hit.

You're missing the way I am suggesting the cap be 'repaid'
No one is suggesting a team is on the hook for the REST of the contract if a player retires early, they are only responsible for paying the delta between money paid to player while on the team versus cap hit incurred while on the team. (because cheap, dummy years were added on to the end to lower the average)

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:32 PM
  #43
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
I doubt they would 'go after' contracts to void them, just ensuring that money paid = cap paid when a player's career is over.
That just ensures the level playing field that the cap was supposed to bring and no team had an advantage over another financially.
There is very little chance of this. You can't penalize teams for writing league approved, legal contracts under the last CBA. The rules governing front loaded contracts will be forward looking, not retroactive. Existing contract will be grandfathered.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 07:09 PM
  #44
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
There is very little chance of this. You can't penalize teams for writing league approved, legal contracts under the last CBA. The rules governing front loaded contracts will be forward looking, not retroactive. Existing contract will be grandfathered.
There is no 'penalizing' if you are just ensuring something that should be done anyway - that the fundamental goal of a salary cap is being enforced. (salary paid for NHL service = NHL cap hit)

Either way, we will have to wait for the new CBA details to emerge.
The NHL had it in a previous proposal so it wouldn't be a surprise if the provisions to address previous contracts are in there.

If you think about it, even if there are provisions for teams to have to pay back cap space if a player retires just before the cheap years, it doesn't affect the players, they still get their money, so why would they care? it affects very few players and it would have been an easy point to concede to the league in order to get their way on an issue more meaningful to the players. (64.3 cap instead of 60? or many others)

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:07 PM
  #45
ti-vite
Registered User
 
ti-vite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FadeToBlack View Post
This is about the best you can do for circumvention by the rules as I'm reading them...

Took three random dollar values, listed the initial years, then added the high and low variances per year. So the goal is to drop it as fast as possible and raise it back up so you hit exactly 50% in that last year. I'm in a rush so I didn't get it to exactly 50%, just real close, you should get an idea of the AAV from there.
Code:
Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$15,000,000.00	$9,750,000.00	$20,250,000.00
$9,750,000.00	$6,337,500.00	$13,162,500.00
$6,337,500.00	$4,119,375.00	$8,555,625.00
$4,119,375.00	$2,677,593.75	$5,561,156.25
$3,050,000.00	$1,982,500.00	$4,117,500.00
$4,117,500.00	$2,676,375.00	$5,558,625.00
$5,558,625.00	$3,613,106.25	$7,504,143.75
$7,504,143.75	$4,877,693.44	$10,130,594.06
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$47,933,000.00	$5,991,625.00	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$20,000,000.00	$13,000,000.00	$27,000,000.00
$13,000,000.00	$8,450,000.00	$17,550,000.00
$8,450,000.00	$5,492,500.00	$11,407,500.00
$5,492,500.00	$3,570,125.00	$7,414,875.00
$4,067,500.00	$2,643,875.00	$5,491,125.00
$5,491,125.00	$3,569,231.25	$7,413,018.75
$7,413,018.75	$4,818,462.19	$10,007,575.31
$10,007,575.31	$6,504,923.95	$13,510,226.67
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$63,914,143.75	$7,989,267.97	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$25,000,000.00	$16,250,000.00	$33,750,000.00
$16,250,000.00	$10,562,500.00	$21,937,500.00
$10,562,500.00	$6,865,625.00	$14,259,375.00
$6,865,625.00	$4,462,656.25	$9,268,593.75
$5,082,000.00	$3,303,300.00	$6,860,700.00
$6,860,700.00	$4,459,455.00	$9,261,945.00
$9,261,945.00	$6,020,264.25	$12,503,625.75
$12,503,625.75	$8,127,356.74	$16,879,894.76
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$79,882,770.00	$9,985,346.25
Thanks for that. One item is the time value of money. If I am an agent I know full well the value of money over time and that the 4 M$ given out in year 8 has less value than in years 1-3. I dont think we will see those 'high' vlaue years pop up.

ti-vite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:27 PM
  #46
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,967
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
There is very little chance of this. You can't penalize teams for writing league approved, legal contracts under the last CBA. The rules governing front loaded contracts will be forward looking, not retroactive. Existing contract will be grandfathered.
Teams signed those deals with the "intention" of them being played out. The league is going to call them on it.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:29 PM
  #47
mackaveli
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FadeToBlack View Post
This is about the best you can do for circumvention by the rules as I'm reading them...

Took three random dollar values, listed the initial years, then added the high and low variances per year. So the goal is to drop it as fast as possible and raise it back up so you hit exactly 50% in that last year. I'm in a rush so I didn't get it to exactly 50%, just real close, you should get an idea of the AAV from there.
Code:
Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$15,000,000.00	$9,750,000.00	$20,250,000.00
$9,750,000.00	$6,337,500.00	$13,162,500.00
$6,337,500.00	$4,119,375.00	$8,555,625.00
$4,119,375.00	$2,677,593.75	$5,561,156.25
$3,050,000.00	$1,982,500.00	$4,117,500.00
$4,117,500.00	$2,676,375.00	$5,558,625.00
$5,558,625.00	$3,613,106.25	$7,504,143.75
$7,504,143.75	$4,877,693.44	$10,130,594.06
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$47,933,000.00	$5,991,625.00	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$20,000,000.00	$13,000,000.00	$27,000,000.00
$13,000,000.00	$8,450,000.00	$17,550,000.00
$8,450,000.00	$5,492,500.00	$11,407,500.00
$5,492,500.00	$3,570,125.00	$7,414,875.00
$4,067,500.00	$2,643,875.00	$5,491,125.00
$5,491,125.00	$3,569,231.25	$7,413,018.75
$7,413,018.75	$4,818,462.19	$10,007,575.31
$10,007,575.31	$6,504,923.95	$13,510,226.67
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$63,914,143.75	$7,989,267.97	



Salary	Low Variance	High Variance
$25,000,000.00	$16,250,000.00	$33,750,000.00
$16,250,000.00	$10,562,500.00	$21,937,500.00
$10,562,500.00	$6,865,625.00	$14,259,375.00
$6,865,625.00	$4,462,656.25	$9,268,593.75
$5,082,000.00	$3,303,300.00	$6,860,700.00
$6,860,700.00	$4,459,455.00	$9,261,945.00
$9,261,945.00	$6,020,264.25	$12,503,625.75
$12,503,625.75	$8,127,356.74	$16,879,894.76
		
		
		
Total Salary	AAV	
$79,882,770.00	$9,985,346.25
I think the lowest the salary can ever drop is 50% no matter what year it is per the confirmed details of the CBA.

Therefore if you make $10 million in any year, that means that $5 million is the lowest. I'm perfectly fine with this.

mackaveli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:43 PM
  #48
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,967
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackaveli View Post
I think the lowest the salary can ever drop is 50% no matter what year it is per the confirmed details of the CBA.

Therefore if you make $10 million in any year, that means that $5 million is the lowest. I'm perfectly fine with this.
It should be fine. It makes it a little bit harder to mount a front loaded assault on RFAs like we saw on Weber due to only 7 years for outside teams and 50% max difference. It'll still be done but at least the defending team has a chance. 14 14 14 10 7 7 7 results in a 10.4m cap hit that could put off the attacking team.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:26 PM
  #49
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz28 View Post
Different issue, yes. Issue in the same spirit of cap circumvention, certainly. Everyone knows teams were burying salaries in the A just as much as they know they were front-loading deals. Not sure why you want to demonize one more than the other?

Another issue I want to address is when is a retirement legit, and when should a team be responsible for the players decision to retire? Suppose a team signs a player under current rules to a 7 year, $70M deal, and he decides he wants to retire the following year to take care of his sick child? Is it only fair the team takes the $60m cap hit for the next 6 years??? See, fans look at things in black and white, and the truth is matters are VERY, VERY complicated. That's why they pay lawyers millions of dollars to sort it out.
In your hypothetical example the player wouldn't retire.

At most he would take a leave of absence and not get paid, most likely with team approval. Retirement is essentially saying "i'll never play in the NHL again".

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:36 PM
  #50
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
I'm not really worried about players faking injuries to go on LTIR, abruptly retiring after signing a massive contract, or heading off to Europe to give his team a cap break. Those are far-fetched scenarios that would require cooperation from the player, and would certainly not become an epidemic even if someone somehow pulled it off one time.

The major problem, circumvention by putting a "tail" of several underpaid seasons at the end of a contract, is effectively gone. That's the major step that was needed here and it appears to be resolved.

tarheelhockey 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 04:22 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.