Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Team signs superstar player X to 100 year contract with 7 million per year for the first 10 years then league minimum (500k?) per year for the next 90 years.
Cap hit = $1.15 million per year
Player would basically retire when he could no longer pass a physical. Yes, there would be a few extra years potentially that he would stick around past when he was able to contribute much, but at 500k that isn't a big deal.
Legal? Stupid? Am I misremembering how the cap works? Seems like this would work.
how about sponsorship money i.e. concast commercials paying flyer players for advertising.....thats one way to pay a guy more without the cap hit, we are going to start seeing lots of this....
Team signs superstar player X to 100 year contract with 7 million per year for the first 10 years then league minimum (500k?) per year for the next 90 years.
Cap hit = $1.15 million per year
Player would basically retire when he could no longer pass a physical. Yes, there would be a few extra years potentially that he would stick around past when he was able to contribute much, but at 500k that isn't a big deal.
Legal? Stupid? Am I misremembering how the cap works? Seems like this would work.
Well, one thing to remember, despite everything else, you still have to pay him, so the team would be on the hook for 500 grand a year for 90 years. Quite an investment.
how about sponsorship money i.e. concast commercials paying flyer players for advertising.....thats one way to pay a guy more without the cap hit, we are going to start seeing lots of this....
I dont know the specifics but the CBA is quite tight on outside money. I remember something about a team asking the league to look into the Crosby situation. He lives with the owner rent free. The value of that rent should be a cap hit they say.
Well, one thing to remember, despite everything else, you still have to pay him, so the team would be on the hook for 500 grand a year for 90 years. Quite an investment.
I thought if a guy retired you didn't have to pay him the rest of his contract? Naslund isn't getting his last year of pay for next year because he isn't playing, right?
I thought if a guy retired you didn't have to pay him the rest of his contract? Naslund isn't getting his last year of pay for next year because he isn't playing, right?
Why would the guy bother retiring? put a NMC into the contract, then show up at camp, get paid. The player could screw the team pretty bad.
I don't remember the section, but there is language in the CBA that talks about trying to circumvent the CBA rules. This would clear fall into that category, and would thus be illegal.
I had this same idea a while ago. Of course, the league would reject it. In theory, however, if the player got injured and was forced to retire, wouldn't he have to be paid his salary every year for the rest of his life?
I dont know the specifics but the CBA is quite tight on outside money. I remember something about a team asking the league to look into the Crosby situation. He lives with the owner rent free. The value of that rent should be a cap hit they say.
I thought I read reports that Crosby is paying rent to Lemieux.
As to the proposed contract, absolutely the league would reject it as unrealistic and an attempt to circumvent the cap. You can make an argument for players staying in the league till the age of 40 as there are many examples. Go much beyond that age and I don't think you'll find the NHL front office very supporting.
Well, one thing to remember, despite everything else, you still have to pay him, so the team would be on the hook for 500 grand a year for 90 years. Quite an investment.
i) The NHL would reject the contract.
ii) If the contract was signed before the player was 35 then the team would not have to pay after the player retired.
With Chelios playing into his late 40s that would seem to be the maximum age limit for a contract but even that would have it's limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt the Dog
If Chelios had a contract like that, he'd honour it in full and refuse to retire.
It's illegal according to the CBA. In two years of a contract, you can only make half of what you make in the first year compared to the second year. For example, you sign a guy for a 2 year contract, first year you pay him 2 million, you can't pay him less than 1 million in the second year of the contract.
Even if the salary changes wasn't illegal as Billy_shoe pointed out I'm pretty sure Article 26 on circumventions would have something to say about a deal like this that is obviously designed to skirt the cap rules.
__________________ "Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." '13 Shark CI Tracker: 48 gms, 19-23-6 (SJ-Opponent-National/Market feed)19 SJ feeds in HD Sorry, I am not taking signature requests at this time.
I believe the longest contract the NHL would accept is 15 years.....and that would be if the player is 25 or younger....anything longer than that would probably be refused.
I believe the longest contract the NHL would accept is 15 years.....and that would be if the player is 25 or younger....anything longer than that would probably be refused.
That being said didn't Gretzky sign a lifetime contract with the owner of the Indianapolis Racers in the WHA, but was then sold in a package to the Oilers and Peter Pocklington???
That being said didn't Gretzky sign a lifetime contract with the owner of the Indianapolis Racers in the WHA, but was then sold in a package to the Oilers and Peter Pocklington???
Gretzky signed a 21 year contract with Edmonton at the age of 17.....but with entry level rules and cap situation the league probably would not accept a similar deal now.
Gretzky signed a 21 year contract with Edmonton at the age of 17.....but with entry level rules and cap situation the league probably would not accept a similar deal now.
I'm thinking the league would have to look at a deal of potentially being 20 years in length, especially for players coming into the league at 18 because they would be only 21 when signing a new deal.
Players like Modano, Chelios, Recchi and many others are playing careers that long now so it wouldn't be shot down the road to see a Kane, Stamkos or Tavares offered that type of deal after their entry level deal.
I'm thinking the league would have to look at a deal of potentially being 20 years in length, especially for players coming into the league at 18 because they would be only 21 when signing a new deal.
Players like Modano, Chelios, Recchi and many others are playing careers that long now so it wouldn't be shot down the road to see a Kane, Stamkos or Tavares offered that type of deal after their entry level deal.
I could see it being possible.....but I cannot imagine a scenario where a player or an organization would want to commit that many years without considering all of the ramifications of signing such a contract....will the amount the player signs for be in his or the club's best interest 15 or so years down the road?
I thought I read reports that Crosby is paying rent to Lemieux.
As to the proposed contract, absolutely the league would reject it as unrealistic and an attempt to circumvent the cap. You can make an argument for players staying in the league till the age of 40 as there are many examples. Go much beyond that age and I don't think you'll find the NHL front office very supporting.
OT:
I believe the more important question is why does Crosby still live with Lemieux? It seems a little....creepy. Crosby has more money than 99.99% of employed citizens of CAN/US, so it seems odd to me why he'd continue to stay with him.
I believe the more important question is why does Crosby still live with Lemieux? It seems a little....creepy. Crosby has more money than 99.99% of employed citizens of CAN/US, so it seems odd to me why he'd continue to stay with him.
