HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Cap circumventing contracts NOT grandfathered in?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 02:11 PM
  #1
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,059
vCash: 500
Cap circumventing contracts NOT grandfathered in?

Based on this quote from Mirtle, it seems that the old cap circumventing won't be grandfathered in. And by that, I mean there will be penalties if the player retires...whereas before, there were no penalties)

Quote:
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years"
https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

I think this means that teams are on the hook for the contracts even if the player retires.

So from my count the teams that could be hit are:

Chicago
Detroit
Minnesota
Nashville
New Jersey
Vancouver

Thoughts?

Edit - I missed Philly in this. Would they be on the hook for the Carter/Richards contract or would LA?


Last edited by ItsAllPartOfThePlan: 01-07-2013 at 02:23 PM.
ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:14 PM
  #2
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Thoughts?
If it screws them up they deserve it.

Personally I think the league should come up with a structure though that every dollar a team pays a player will count against their cap at some point(even if they trade them) during the life of the deal

Using an example

A Team pays a player

10,10,5,5,3,1,1

That is 35M over 7 years(or a 5M caphit) Say the team trades that player after the 5th year that means in 5 years they paid 33M but only been charged 25M towards there cap, in that case they would be dinged 4M for the last 2 years against their cap(while the team that trades for the player only gets dinged 1M a year)

In the case of somebody who gets injured say like Marc Savard, anything Boston paid him while he was playing should go against their cap, while anything he makes while he is on injured reserve shouldn't(or can get the Long term injury discount)

Putting those 2 rules in will make teams thing twice about front loading deals. Personally I think the league would have been better off making a rule whatever a player gets paid in any given year is his caphit.


Last edited by boredmale: 01-07-2013 at 02:20 PM.
boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:14 PM
  #3
DopeyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 997
vCash: 50
they are grandfathered in

however if the player retires, before the back-dive or during it, the team will be nailed as a result of missing the back dived years

it's to make sure that there is penalties if the contracts weren't legitimate.

DopeyFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:16 PM
  #4
roach9
Registered User
 
roach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,564
vCash: 500
Philosophically speaking, teams signing players to contracts that abided by the previous CBA, ought not to be reprimanded in the new CBA.

Philly is shaking in its boots, that's for sure.

Richards/Carter/Bryz/Pronger/Hartnell go down (one of which already had), they are in some deep ****.

roach9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:20 PM
  #5
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,000
vCash: 500
Dont forget good ol' Dipietro...still signed for another 8 years!

isles31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:22 PM
  #6
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roach9 View Post
Philosophically speaking, teams signing players to contracts that abided by the previous CBA, ought not to be reprimanded in the new CBA.

Philly is shaking in its boots, that's for sure.

Richards/Carter/Bryz/Pronger/Hartnell go down (one of which already had), they are in some deep ****.
Hartnell, Richards, nor Carter for that matter are really in the league of cap circumvention contracts though they will be included since they have 6 or more years left. If Carter retired with two years left his cap hit to Philly would be 1.2 million for those two years. Having said that I don't see why Richards, Hartnell or Carter wouldn't play until they're 35,36 and 37 respectively.

Pronger full hit counts against the cap no matter since it was an over 35 contract (assuming he wasn't going to LTIR until the end). Bryz is the only real circumvention contract.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:24 PM
  #7
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4850
Quote:
Originally Posted by roach9 View Post
Philosophically speaking, teams signing players to contracts that abided by the previous CBA, ought not to be reprimanded in the new CBA.
No they shouldn't be. The NHL allowed those contracts and that should be the end of the story.

leaflover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:25 PM
  #8
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,809
vCash: 500
The new contract max is 7 years (8 if re-signing with prior club) so the fact that the cap benefit recapture program applies only to 7+ year contracts makes it pretty clear that the good number of owners want to slap down those clubs who took advantage of the previous CBA's loophole.

Whether it's "fair" to retroactively punish clubs for operating within the rules (but clearly not spirit or expressed intent) of the last CBA is a completely different discussion that frankly I don't care to get into.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:25 PM
  #9
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover View Post
No they shouldn't be. The NHL allowed those contracts and that should be the end of the story.
The Brian Burke cap recapture clause will make him feel better when you guys trade for Luongo though.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:28 PM
  #10
New Liskeard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Based on this quote from Mirtle, it seems that the old cap circumventing won't be grandfathered in. And by that, I mean there will be penalties if the player retires...whereas before, there were no penalties)



https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

I think this means that teams are on the hook for the contracts even if the player retires.

So from my count the teams that could be hit are:

Chicago
Detroit
Minnesota
Nashville
New Jersey
Vancouver

Thoughts?

Edit - I missed Philly in this. Would they be on the hook for the Carter/Richards contract or would LA?
Ironic how a Nucks fan would start this thread. No worries, Lou is on a great cap hit, and should play at a high level at the age of 42. Any teams that circumvented the cap, should suffer the consequences.

New Liskeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:30 PM
  #11
Cmoneyflyguy
Registered User
 
Cmoneyflyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wayne, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,139
vCash: 500
Sorry if this has been explained, but why are/would Flyers be on the hook for Carter/Richards?

When they traded the players did they not trade the contracts?

I obviously don't understand something, so if someone could explain it to me like I was a 5 year old, that would be great.

Cmoneyflyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:31 PM
  #12
xECK29x
Moderator
 
xECK29x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Coram, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Dont forget good ol' Dipietro...still signed for another 8 years!
Really, that long? It feels like that deal constantly gets a little longer .

xECK29x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:31 PM
  #13
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoneyflyguy View Post
Sorry if this has been explained, but why are/would Flyers be on the hook for Carter/Richards?

When they traded the players did they not trade the contracts?

I obviously don't understand something, so if someone could explain it to me like I was a 5 year old, that would be great.
I am guessing the flyers would get dinged a percentage of their contract(ie the amount of time they spent in Philly during the life of that deal)

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:32 PM
  #14
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoneyflyguy View Post
Sorry if this has been explained, but why are/would Flyers be on the hook for Carter/Richards?

When they traded the players did they not trade the contracts?

I obviously don't understand something, so if someone could explain it to me like I was a 5 year old, that would be great.
The team that signed the players to the contract bears the burden of the cap penalties going forward once that player retires, regardless of where he ends up...

It's absolutley ridiculous and something only a bush league would do, but here we are...

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:34 PM
  #15
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 6,567
vCash: 500
Rangers would be in trouble with Richards too...


I get it Kovalchuk's deal was bad... but the Devils got an unprecedented HARSH punishment and have adhered to it with no appeal and no complaints... we better not get hit again that's ridiculous.


... and let's not even talk about the fact that the contracts were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the last CBA regardless of intent.

njdevil26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:38 PM
  #16
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 500
DiPietro's one isn't cap circumventing - it has been and will be equal amount of money for all 15 years.

ES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:43 PM
  #17
ThatGuy22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Dont forget good ol' Dipietro...still signed for another 8 years!
Dipietro isn't a back diving contract, and based on the term cap benefit recapture the NHL went with a version of the NHLPAs proposal that only penalizes the benefit against the cap hit the player got. Dipietro has a flat 4.5 million dollar salary and caphit throughout so he could retire and the Islanders wouldn't be penalized at all.

ThatGuy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:51 PM
  #18
Kirkpatrick
Registered User
 
Kirkpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
I haven't seen any talk of punishment for backdiving contracts. From what I've read it's a simple "repayment" scheme.

If a team gains cap benefits from a long term backdiving contracts, they then have to "pay" that cap space back for the amount that they saved if the player retires early.

It's no more a punishment for long term deals than the over 35 rule is a punishment for signing older players. If the player plays what you signed them for, there's no problem!

Kirkpatrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 02:53 PM
  #19
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
Rangers would be in trouble with Richards too...


I get it Kovalchuk's deal was bad... but the Devils got an unprecedented HARSH punishment and have adhered to it with no appeal and no complaints... we better not get hit again that's ridiculous.


... and let's not even talk about the fact that the contracts were PERFECTLY LEGAL under the last CBA regardless of intent.
The newer contracts will actually be hit a bit higher since the "Kovalchuk clause" was added. If Kovalchuk doesn't play the last 5 years, your cap hit will be 4.86 per year.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:07 PM
  #20
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,106
vCash: 500
Use your amnesties

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:13 PM
  #21
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,462
vCash: 50
New Jersey signs Kovalchuk to an illegal contract -> Team gets penalized

New Jersey signs Kovalchuk to a legal contract -> Team still gets penalized

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:15 PM
  #22
ScoreZeGoals
Back on Cloud 9
 
ScoreZeGoals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 10,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Use your amnesties
No thanks, the Kings will keep Carter and Richards, and the Flyers can take the heat if something goes bad. Pretty sweet situation

ScoreZeGoals is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:16 PM
  #23
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 6,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoreZeGoals View Post
No thanks, the Kings will keep Carter and Richards, and the Flyers can take the heat if something goes bad. Pretty sweet situation
I don't understand how the league can penalize or inquire about contracts like this especially in the Flyers case where the players aren't even on that team anymore!

njdevil26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:19 PM
  #24
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,233
vCash: 500
Having conditions associated with contracts (such as, you'll retire when you're this age, even though you have years left on the contract) WAS illegal under the last CBA. If all these players REALLY meant to be playing until that age, and they NEVER had a spoken or implied agreement that they'd retire, they shouldn't be punished.


Now that we have THAT out of the way, if those guys intend to retire rather than play for league minimum at age 40, they broke the rules, and philosophically the teams should be punished.

EDIT - I don't think it should apply to contracts that have the same value their entire length like DiPietro and Ovechkin however, just the circumvention contracts.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:22 PM
  #25
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevil26 View Post
I don't understand how the league can penalize or inquire about contracts like this especially in the Flyers case where the players aren't even on that team anymore!
Easily. Just write a clause in the new CBA...

sweatypickle 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 10:57 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.