HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Franzen re-signs with Detroit for 11 years, $3.9M per

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2009, 03:59 AM
  #376
Cone
Registered User
 
Cone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cone
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I think the main point people miss in all this circumvention crap is that if the Wings hope he retires before the contract runs out there is nothing wrong at all. It is only circumvention is there is evidence that the Wings and Frazen in some way agreed ahead of time that he would retire at a certain time. So people calling the contract circumvention are off-base unless they are claiming that Franzen and the team have an agreement that he will retire early.
yep, that's exactly what people are worried about.

it's not exactly far fetched either

Cone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 04:04 AM
  #377
ktulu98
Registered User
 
ktulu98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,762
vCash: 500
11y holy crap

ktulu98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 04:51 AM
  #378
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chone View Post
yep, that's exactly what people are worried about.

it's not exactly far fetched either
It may not be far-fetched but how do you prove it without one side coming out and admitting it? You can't just come out and levy fines and sanctions on a team and/or player for signing a perfectly valid contract just because you have a theory. An arbiter wouldn't even need 5 minutes to decide that case.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 08:45 AM
  #379
grabo84
Registered User
 
grabo84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chone View Post
so 29 year olds who haven't scored 40 goals yet aren't considered 40 goal scorers?
Is this a trick question? Of course they aren't.

grabo84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 10:41 AM
  #380
selkie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I think the main point people miss in all this circumvention crap is that if the Wings hope he retires before the contract runs out there is nothing wrong at all. It is only circumvention is there is evidence that the Wings and Frazen in some way agreed ahead of time that he would retire at a certain time. So people calling the contract circumvention are off-base unless they are claiming that Franzen and the team have an agreement that he will retire early.
And the Wings have the argument that, hey, at the time the contract was signed, they had eight 35+ year old guys on the roster including a couple that had clearly lost a couple of steps from prime and who they were keeping around anyways. (Chelios, Maltby, Draper) So it would be really hard to prove collusion about an early retirement date when the club's tended to do everything it could to keep players around for a couple years longer than they maybe should.

I mean they pretty much gave up Kyle Quincy and a year of Ericsson's development in the NHL to keep Chelios around as a part-timer.

selkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 03:47 PM
  #381
PensBeerGeek
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Washington, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to PensBeerGeek Send a message via Yahoo to PensBeerGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by grabo84 View Post
Wow. So a buyout is likely not an option. The only other option would be to waive him and send him to the minors then.
What about a trade to a financially struggling team?

A lot of benefit to a player whose cap hit is $3.9 million per year that you only have to pay $1 million.

PensBeerGeek is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 09:05 PM
  #382
KLM-Line
Registered User
 
KLM-Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Munich
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 530
The problem with those longterm contracts is the lack of cap flexibility. I don`t think it is a genius move or a loophole. It is rather a decision of a GM to take a risk and put a lot of faith in the guy you signed longterm in order to have "more" quality/talent than ordinary signing in a cap world would allow you to. Still bares the risk of screwing your ability to enforce changes. We still have to wait some years to really see the true impact and whether its was smart, foolish or depending on the individual situation.

I heard Brian Burke in an interview saying he values cap flexibility a lot. Not a friend of NTCs or long term contracts. So he seems to be on the other side ... at least for the moment (Leafs have no urge of applying this strategy).

KLM-Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 09:25 PM
  #383
grabo84
Registered User
 
grabo84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensBeerGeek View Post
What about a trade to a financially struggling team?

A lot of benefit to a player whose cap hit is $3.9 million per year that you only have to pay $1 million.
Assuming that the current CBA stays in place when that situation becomes possible anyways.

grabo84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 09:43 PM
  #384
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
It may not be far-fetched but how do you prove it without one side coming out and admitting it? You can't just come out and levy fines and sanctions on a team and/or player for signing a perfectly valid contract just because you have a theory. An arbiter wouldn't even need 5 minutes to decide that case.
No ... but the league has broad discretion to investigate a circumvention. The fact that the SPC was registered and approved does not mean it cannot be later grieved as a Circumvention, and the league can go through phone calls, e-mail records, and anything else it deems necessary to investigate a suspected Circumvention.

There's also this from 26.13(b):
Quote:
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstancial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.

That being said, I've got the same stance I've had on all the mutli-year contracts that go out until the player hits 40: I assume they are legal contracts that are not attempts to circumvent the cap until either (A) there's clear proof to the contrary, or (B) the player suddenly up-and-retires with years left on the contract for non-injury related reasons. In (A), there would be clear evidence of a circumvention; in (B), I'd have my doubts but would still assume the contract was legal and not an attempt to circumvent the cap unless (A) takes place.

Of course, the next CBA may well render all of this discussion moot. In the meantime, I'll stick to what we know instead of speculating about what we don't know.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2009, 11:32 AM
  #385
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
I think it's a bad move to sign professional athletes to long-term contracts like this. The potential for performance drop-off is too much of a concern. Every player is one-hit away from losing effectiveness, a la Eric Lindros. Then your potentially stuck with 4 or 5 years of reduced levels of play at higher hits.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2009, 09:06 PM
  #386
PensBeerGeek
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Washington, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to PensBeerGeek Send a message via Yahoo to PensBeerGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
I think it's a bad move to sign professional athletes to long-term contracts like this. The potential for performance drop-off is too much of a concern. Every player is one-hit away from losing effectiveness, a la Eric Lindros. Then your potentially stuck with 4 or 5 years of reduced levels of play at higher hits.
Is there a reasonable definition of inclusion on LTIR, or any independent verification?

If not, let the "company doctor" tuck 'em on there for the rest of the contract; a heavy cap hit will allow a pretty solid replacement!

Edit: Another thing that they may well have to look at in the next CBA is more verification, to avoid abuse of the system.


Last edited by PensBeerGeek: 04-15-2009 at 09:12 PM.
PensBeerGeek is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2009, 10:41 AM
  #387
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensBeerGeek View Post
Is there a reasonable definition of inclusion on LTIR, or any independent verification?

If not, let the "company doctor" tuck 'em on there for the rest of the contract; a heavy cap hit will allow a pretty solid replacement!

Edit: Another thing that they may well have to look at in the next CBA is more verification, to avoid abuse of the system.
I know there is a minimum games you have to miss in order to be put on LTIR (not sure how many). You can try and tuck a player on LTIR to avoid a cap "hit", but you still have to pay the player his salary. Mike Rathje of the Flyers comes to mind. He hasn't played in two years and he's still earning 3.5M per year. He doesn't come off the payroll until the end of next year. So they're paying 3.5M for Rathje, then another 1-1.5M for his replacement. So to fill Rathje's spot on the roster, it's costing the Flyers 4.5-5M for a player who is only 1-1.5M good. Not exactly the best way to do things. Plus, if you're gonna try and do the LTIR tactic, you better make sure that the player is on board with it and doesn't want to (or can't be cleared to) play anymore because if they raise a fuss, then you have the league coming down on you for cap circumvention.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2009, 11:55 AM
  #388
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,419
vCash: 500
You know, Vancouver could give the same contract to the Sedins. At 3.9 each a year, it's not that bad.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 09:43 AM
  #389
selkie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 448
vCash: 500
Bettman seems cool with the deal from a technical standpoint though he doesn't like the way it reduces flexibility:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...ld+Wings+brass

Quote:
"Detroit's a team with a history of players who can play until they're 40 years old and even beyond for a number of years.

"I don't think at this stage it's something that anybody can fully judge. My guess is by the time we're ready to sit down for the next round of collective bargaining (in two or three years), this will be a discussion we'll have with the Players Association. But it's something I don't think we need to fret about right now. It may turn out to all be OK."

selkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 10:50 AM
  #390
probertrules24
Registered User
 
probertrules24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by selkie View Post
Bettman seems cool with the deal from a technical standpoint though he doesn't like the way it reduces flexibility:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...ld+Wings+brass
Bettman deserves a two minute hooking minor for the way he talked to Mickey.

probertrules24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 06:14 PM
  #391
Hey Hanrahan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
~$43M. Not terrible year to year, but it's a lot to commit to him for as long as the contract is.
"Commit" is the quote/unquote problem here. There's very little commitment here by the Red Wings. Assume that Franzen wants to continue playing into the later years of the contract, but also assume assume the Red Wings are not happy with his play (or at least do not think it worth the $3.9m cap hit). Once the NMC expires after year 6 (at the end of his prime), the Red Wings can waive him and (i) some other team not near the cap takes him due to his low actual salary, or (ii) he goes through waivers and is sent down to the minors. Under scenario (ii), I don't see any way Franzen does NOT retire rather than play in the minors for low $. Either way, the Red Wings are off the hook for the cap hit. (I am not including the buyout scenario since I don't see why the Red Wings would pay $2m over double the length remaining when the could just waive him).

The easy solution to this is to limit how much actual salary can be front-loaded. Of course, there is always the sticky point of getting the union to agree (which I assume is necessary for any CBA changes).

I applaud Ken Holland for exploiting this time technicality; it's the shrewed thing to do for his club. On the other hand, as a fan of a team with supposed money problems and difficulty attracting FA's, it's disappointing as these types of deal will seem to work more in the favor of teams that can afford to pay big $ upfront and who are in a better financial position to absorb the "risk" of having to pay pay a waived player's actual salary on the backend.

Hey Hanrahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 06:21 PM
  #392
Hey Hanrahan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLM-Line View Post
The problem with those longterm contracts is the lack of cap flexibility. I don`t think it is a genius move or a loophole. It is rather a decision of a GM to take a risk and put a lot of faith in the guy you signed longterm in order to have "more" quality/talent than ordinary signing in a cap world would allow you to. Still bares the risk of screwing your ability to enforce changes. We still have to wait some years to really see the true impact and whether its was smart, foolish or depending on the individual situation.

I heard Brian Burke in an interview saying he values cap flexibility a lot. Not a friend of NTCs or long term contracts. So he seems to be on the other side ... at least for the moment (Leafs have no urge of applying this strategy).
What better cap flexibility could you have then getting a $6m player for only a $3.9m cap hit? Yes, there is an NMC for the first 6 years but his play would need to deteriorate more than say, $2m per season, to put the Red Wings at a disadvantage. Then, once you are into the later years after the NMC expires, you have the ultimate flexibility of waiving him. The cap hit comes off, and the Red Wings don't owe that much in actual salary left (since it's heavily front-loaded) so they'd easily be in a financial position to do so.

Hey Hanrahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2009, 06:47 PM
  #393
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 37,292
vCash: 500
Bumped for Mule domination!

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2009, 07:19 PM
  #394
timw33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,952
vCash: 500
Worth every penny in the playoffs.

timw33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2009, 10:30 AM
  #395
Zubrus Coffee Maker
Blinded by my Zubrus
 
Zubrus Coffee Maker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cobourg, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,387
vCash: 500
holy what a great signing

Zubrus Coffee Maker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2009, 10:50 AM
  #396
Sony Eriksson*
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: N. Dallas/NYC
Country: Faroe Islands
Posts: 13,583
vCash: 500
Hossa 20yrs @ 2mil per?


These large decade long contracts are retarded.

Sony Eriksson* 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 02:50 AM.

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.