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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Cap circumventing contracts NOT grandfathered in?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 03:27 PM
  #26
BernieTheGreat1
Sharp, Pointy Teeth
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Camelot
Posts: 72
vCash: 500
Color me skeptical but this would hurt too many owners with a lot of pull in the BOG. I haven't heard of this guy that tweeted it so he can't be as reliable as Dreger, Bobby Mac, etc. I'll believe it when I see it. MTL, PHI, NYR already caved on revenue sharing can't see this also being true.

BernieTheGreat1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:32 PM
  #27
Evileye
Registered User
 
Evileye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
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!
Exactly.
People need to get it our of their heads that these teams are being 'punished'
How is it punishment to ensure that if you pay a player x dollars while he plays for your team that you incur x dollars in cap hit?
No one is saying the contracts are suddenly illegal no when they were legal before.
The provisions are being added to ensure the full cap hit is paid in the unlikely event a player retires just before his cheap years.
If Kovalchuk plays for 1M at 40, the Devils have nothing to worry about...

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:33 PM
  #28
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,199
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 ****.
I don't see this as a punishment though. I see the proposal as a clarification which makes logical sense, and the impacted teams have nothing to complain about.

After all, everyone involved (team, player, & agent) all asserted that the player intended to play out the entire contract. To the extent that does not happen, the team has a, "catch up" for the amount of benefit they received over the term of the contract. Not a punative or draconian punishment, but fair IMO.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:34 PM
  #29
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,905
vCash: 50
The contracts are still beneficial. Even if you get dinged some cap space years down the road, the salary cap should be a good bit higher so the impact felt will be much less. In the meantime, these competitive teams have created extra cap space for themselves to improve their teams when it matters most.

A $2-5M cap gain for a contending team now is worth a whole lot more than a $2-5M cap loss 10 years down the road when you don't know how good the team will be.

RandV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:41 PM
  #30
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieTheGreat1 View Post
Color me skeptical but this would hurt too many owners with a lot of pull in the BOG. I haven't heard of this guy that tweeted it so he can't be as reliable as Dreger, Bobby Mac, etc. I'll believe it when I see it. MTL, PHI, NYR already caved on revenue sharing can't see this also being true.
The gold standard of reliability validation...

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:48 PM
  #31
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 33,614
vCash: 50
I don't see what the problem is. The teams have claimed that the intention isn't for the player to retire and flush out the cap hit, because that would mean it's cap circumvention.

With that in mind it makes perfect sense to have the team be stuck with the cap hit if the player actually retires.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:50 PM
  #32
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy22 View Post
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.
yes youre right. i wasnt thinking about the money, just the length. my bad.

isles31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:07 PM
  #33
Schalkenullvier*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: tief im westen
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I don't see what the problem is. The teams have claimed that the intention isn't for the player to retire and flush out the cap hit, because that would mean it's cap circumvention.

With that in mind it makes perfect sense to have the team be stuck with the cap hit if the player actually retires.
but the team they play for, not the one that signed the contracts. I don't see the logic behind this.

Schalkenullvier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:13 PM
  #34
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
It seems to me that any clawback of cap savings would be distributed between all the teams the player plays for during the life of that contract, in proportion to the savings at each stage.

I highly doubt Philly will end up on the hook for cap savings the Kings are getting from the Richards/Carter deals. For the years he played with them, sure.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:24 PM
  #35
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick View Post
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!
This is a good way of looking at it. At first, and I'm talking specifically about the Luongo situation I felt that the Canucks were getting punished for signing a player within the rules of the CBA. I'm not interested in discussing what the spirit of a CBA is, I simply don't care as I see things as black and white in situations like this.

Besides, any player who is injured late in their contracts will be off the cap. Most players that "retire" early do so because of an injury. Who doesn't have a nagging injury by the time they're 40 let alone someone whose played a contact sport for the better part of 3 decades?


Last edited by lush: 01-07-2013 at 04:25 PM. Reason: grammar
lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:27 PM
  #36
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
It seems to me that any clawback of cap savings would be distributed between all the teams the player plays for during the life of that contract, in proportion to the savings at each stage.

I highly doubt Philly will end up on the hook for cap savings the Kings are getting from the Richards/Carter deals. For the years he played with them, sure.
As written in the offers shown to date, yes they would be on the hook for the full schebang. However, neither Richards nor Carters deals have a high chance of early retirement as they end at 35 and 37 respectively..

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:30 PM
  #37
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
As written in the offers shown to date, yes they would be on the hook for the full schebang.
I'm not going to be able to accept that until we see the actual wording of the CBA. If so, that would indeed fall into the "punitive" category.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:35 PM
  #38
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I'm not going to be able to accept that until we see the actual wording of the CBA. If so, that would indeed fall into the "punitive" category.
Just think, the original proposals called for the full hit to be counted.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:41 PM
  #39
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lush View Post
This is a good way of looking at it. At first, and I'm talking specifically about the Luongo situation I felt that the Canucks were getting punished for signing a player within the rules of the CBA. I'm not interested in discussing what the spirit of a CBA is, I simply don't care as I see things as black and white in situations like this.

Besides, any player who is injured late in their contracts will be off the cap. Most players that "retire" early do so because of an injury. Who doesn't have a nagging injury by the time they're 40 let alone someone whose played a contact sport for the better part of 3 decades?
Players who retire do not collect their remaining paychecks. Those who are on LTIR for being physically unable to play do collect their remaining paychecks.

Outside of Marcus Naslund, who was the last player to voluntarily retire and left cash on the table? As far as I remember, It's pretty rare for guys to retire while still being under contract.

The big point from my perspective is that all of the teams who signed those "retirement" contracts asserted that they expected the player to play out the entire contract. As I understand the new rule, it only "equalizes" the amount of the cap hit the team is charged with what that player actually collected over the term of the agreement.

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:52 PM
  #40
Dusk Soldier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,248
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 NHL didn't have the grounds to reject the contracts because there were no rules in place to stop them.

It's not like they up and voided them, they're are letting the players play them out.

Plus it was pretty obvious that Bettman was going to go after these contracts with the next CBA. Any team that offered one in the last 3 years was definitely playing with fire.

Dusk Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:56 PM
  #41
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
Outside of Marcus Naslund, who was the last player to voluntarily retire and left cash on the table? As far as I remember, It's pretty rare for guys to retire while still being under contract.
Rafalski and he had 6 million. However we've never had situations like this before. You really think Hossa is going to play for 1 million at 42 years old?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post

The big point from my perspective is that all of the teams who signed those "retirement" contracts asserted that they expected the player to play out the entire contract. As I understand the new rule, it only "equalizes" the amount of the cap hit the team is charged with what that player actually collected over the term of the agreement.
From my perspective both the player and team knew they had no intention of fulfilling the contract yet it benefited both the player and the team. By only "equalizing" it still can be a decent hit. Hossa's would be in the 4.3 range for the remaining years if he retired at 38, 39, 40 or 41...

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 06:57 PM
  #42
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk Soldier View Post
The NHL didn't have the grounds to reject the contracts because there were no rules in place to stop them.

It's not like they up and voided them, they're are letting the players play them out.

Plus it was pretty obvious that Bettman was going to go after these contracts with the next CBA. Any team that offered one in the last 3 years was definitely playing with fire.
He also warned GMs and owners that he would be going after them. CBA draft is out so we should know shortly...

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:19 PM
  #43
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evileye View Post
Exactly.
People need to get it our of their heads that these teams are being 'punished'
How is it punishment to ensure that if you pay a player x dollars while he plays for your team that you incur x dollars in cap hit?
No one is saying the contracts are suddenly illegal no when they were legal before.
The provisions are being added to ensure the full cap hit is paid in the unlikely event a player retires just before his cheap years.
If Kovalchuk plays for 1M at 40, the Devils have nothing to worry about...
It absolutely is punishing the teams that signed these deals! And opt course, that is exactly what those of you who's teams did not sign these deals want to see happen.

The issue is, the player who may choose to retire before the end of his deal for any reason, even if he never intended to when signing the deal. And a decision like this will certainly effect the team that signed him to the deal. You may see these deals as cap circumvention, when I may see them as applying the current rules to reward both the loyal player and teams willing to commit to key players in the team.

Teams who gave these players these LEGAL "retirement" deals rewarded the loyal player with long term security while at the same time defining for the player a complimentary role well into the twilight of his career (rather than have to stress about the future in the case of injury, etc..). Clearly, under the old rules, this risk for the teams in providing this security for the players also had the effect of giving the team a break on the cap hit throughout the deal. This was legal when these deals were signed, and as such, they should be treated as such! It was widely known that the player had the right, some would say the option, of accepting a prolonged career and long term security in the chosen city they signed, all for also providing the team with a break on cap hit.

Again, these were the legal rules. It is understandable that the league wants to correct this issue, all for a variety of reasons- including stopping the rich teams from taking advantage of the offer sheet issues like the Webber deal and putting the financial health and competitive abilities of poorer teams at risk.

However, all of the banter about going back in time and creating a disadvantage for teams who applied these rules is absolutely offside in my view. To do it even after a trade is absolutely crazy. There is no logic to thus other than Gary being punitive.

I can not understand why the players association accepted this, if they did. This will take millions out of the system for players who could get singed by these big market teams. If Montreal, for example is on the hook for Gomez cap hit, and he retires for whatever reason (hue doesn't like the abuse from the fans), then Montreal can not use his cap space, and they most certainly would have...

bobbyb2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:26 PM
  #44
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
If it stays as the original proposal, and Gomez for some strange reason decided to give up 4.5 million and retire this summer, the Habs would get a penalty of a whopping 476 thousand... This isn't about those types of contracts, nor the Richards/Carter ones really...

Seeing as they were warned, one could look at it as just evening out an early advantage... And it has been confirmed that it's in in some form, just the specific details that we're missing...

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:26 PM
  #45
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I can not understand why the players association accepted this, if they did. This will take millions out of the system for players who could get singed by these big market teams. If Montreal, for example is on the hook for Gomez cap hit, and he retires for whatever reason (hue doesn't like the abuse from the fans), then Montreal can not use his cap space, and they most certainly would have...
Artificially consumed cap space doesn't take any money out of the players pockets, as their cumulative share is still 50% of whatever HRR is for the season.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:32 PM
  #46
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
Rafalski and he had 6 million. However we've never had situations like this before. You really think Hossa is going to play for 1 million at 42 years old?



From my perspective both the player and team knew they had no intention of fulfilling the contract yet it benefited both the player and the team. By only "equalizing" it still can be a decent hit. Hossa's would be in the 4.3 range for the remaining years if he retired at 38, 39, 40 or 41...
Good call on Rafalski. So we've got two players in the last 10 years who retired with $ on the table.

If the teams didn't.expect the players to complete those contracts, then they intentionally subverted the salary cap and should be punished like the Devilish were on the first Logy contract.

I'm a Hawks fan, and if they end up having a cap penalty for Hossa, I can live with that. I think those contract were BS and broke the spirit of the cap. I think the solution was fair, and hard to contest.

Total player $

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:33 PM
  #47
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Artificially consumed cap space doesn't take any money out of the players pockets, as their cumulative share is still 50% of whatever HRR is for the season.
It does limit available space in the system for free agents however...

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:38 PM
  #48
sweatypickle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
Good call on Rafalski. So we've got two players in the last 10 years who retired with $ on the table.

If the teams didn't.expect the players to complete those contracts, then they intentionally subverted the salary cap and should be punished like the Devilish were on the first Logy contract.

I'm a Hawks fan, and if they end up having a cap penalty for Hossa, I can live with that. I think those contract were BS and broke the spirit of the cap. I think the solution was fair, and hard to contest.

Total player $
We've rarely had contracts that extended past 35 for the option to be there in the last 10 years as well. They all circumvented the spirit of the cap, Kovy's just happened to push it into more ridiculous territory, playing till nearly 45 years old for the league minimum and the league finally stood its ground.

sweatypickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:40 PM
  #49
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweatypickle View Post
It does limit available space in the system for free agents however...
Yes, though whether this ultimately affects how much money those UFA would earn net of escrow charges remains to be seen. Escrow charges are completely independent of the salary cap.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 07:42 PM
  #50
King Mapes
Moderator
HF's King
 
King Mapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 23,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Dont forget good ol' Dipietro...still signed for another 8 years!
They can just buy him out. They get 2.

King Mapes 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 02:15 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.