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.

Given the loophole in the CBA, how many veterans do you think will be buried?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2011, 02:16 PM
  #26
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal View Post
*Head explodes*

It's not a loophole, it's in the rulebook and it's perfectly clear, the size of the contract does not matter. This thread fails.
Actually, I don't think the last CBA took in the stupidity of some GMs and were trying to avoid absorbent contracts like Redden and Campbell's.

The funny thing is, Kovalchuk, Luongo, and DiPietro's contracts were not specified in the rulebook, which meant it should have been perfectly legal to do so, since it wasn't spelled out...but they closed that loophole pretty quickly, even though it wasn't a loophole.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:20 PM
  #27
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Which is going to be interesting come July 1st when the Blackhawks and the Rangers are once again going to bury some contracts.

I mean I never understood that. You lose Huet and sign Turco, who is worse than Huet...
The Rangers aren't going to bury any contracts. Drury will most likely get bought out, he will not be sent to the minors due to his NMC.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:24 PM
  #28
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 117,098
vCash: 157
Huet played like AHL talent. Hawks decided to put him on waivers. No team wanted him so he was given option of Europe to avoid AHL

This is not a loophole

If a goalie making 675k plays like AHL goalie he will be sent to AHL , Huet only has himself to blame for his failures

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:25 PM
  #29
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Actually, I don't think the last CBA took in the stupidity of some GMs and were trying to avoid absorbent contracts like Redden and Campbell's.

The funny thing is, Kovalchuk, Luongo, and DiPietro's contracts were not specified in the rulebook, which meant it should have been perfectly legal to do so, since it wasn't spelled out...but they closed that loophole pretty quickly, even though it wasn't a loophole.
Two different things.

The NHL argued that the Kovalchuk contract was made with the idea that it would not be fulfilled in it's entirety. Under the CBA, they had a right to null the contract, since they deemed that the contract violated the rules.

Teams don't sign players to big contracts with the intention of burying them in the minors at a later point. No team is going to say "hey, we'll sign you to a big contract, but to create cap space later, we'll put you in the minors".

EDIT: Another thing, why are you using DiPietro as an example? His contract is nothing like the other ones except for being long.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:26 PM
  #30
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 117,098
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Actually, I don't think the last CBA took in the stupidity of some GMs and were trying to avoid absorbent contracts like Redden and Campbell's.

The funny thing is, Kovalchuk, Luongo, and DiPietro's contracts were not specified in the rulebook, which meant it should have been perfectly legal to do so, since it wasn't spelled out...but they closed that loophole pretty quickly, even though it wasn't a loophole.
Since when does Campbell get grouped with Redden?

Campbell is playing quality hockey and has not nor will not be sent to minors anytime soon.

Using him in your loophole argument is stretching it

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:28 PM
  #31
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
That's their fault for taking the risk and overpaying for a player. Huet was overpaid. Redden was overpaid at that time and teams, fans knew it.

Again, that's their fault. Yes, minimum costs but teams with deep pockets can sign a player for a few years and then bury them. The player wins and the team wins.
players have the right to ask for their release if they wish, dont they? certainly teams would release players, if they are over paid, but no the player wants the money. What dont they have any responsibility for how they perform?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Huet did not woefully underperformed. Redden did not woefully underperform. They were overpaid and their projection was way over the top.
Yes they did underperform, they underperform the money they are being paid. dont businesses fire employees every day for the same reason ?

if what you say were true why didnt Chicago bury Campbell, after all he makes way more than Huet? Chicago buried Huet because Huet was not performing up to the level of his pay. Campbell may not be earning all of his as well, but he is coming closer to earning his than Huet was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Redden and Huet both were performing. Chicago buried him because they were in cap hell and still are. OR do you really think Turco was better than Huet?

Redden did fine as a top 5 defenseman. It's not his fault that Sathers threw top 2 money at him.
once again you prove my point Huet was underperforming his salary otherwise they would have kept him over the cheaper Turco, since as you say Huet was better

Also was Redden not a party to that negotiation ? would Sather not have signed him if Redden said "im not worth 6M im only worth 3M" Im sure Sather would have said sure whatever You say.

your whole argument is sour grapes, nothing more and nothing less, simply because youre jealous of teams with deeper pockets


Last edited by Isles_Guy*: 05-22-2011 at 02:40 PM.
Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:33 PM
  #32
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,140
vCash: 50
I don't see how it can be considered a loophole, because the situation was clearly considered (and allowed) in CBA negotiations.

Loopholes generally don't seem to be thought of until they occur.

Seachd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 02:39 PM
  #33
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Actually, I don't think the last CBA took in the stupidity of some GMs and were trying to avoid absorbent contracts like Redden and Campbell's.

The funny thing is, Kovalchuk, Luongo, and DiPietro's contracts were not specified in the rulebook, which meant it should have been perfectly legal to do so, since it wasn't spelled out...but they closed that loophole pretty quickly, even though it wasn't a loophole.
Thespeckledkiwi, you clearly are showing how ignorant you are of the actual facts here. Luongo and Kovy were all about Manipulation of salaries to artificially lower the cap hits

DiPietros salary is the same every year for 15 years, so as such has no resemblance to the others.

All you've done is prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about

Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 03:09 PM
  #34
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 30,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Since when does Campbell get grouped with Redden?

Campbell is playing quality hockey and has not nor will not be sent to minors anytime soon.

Using him in your loophole argument is stretching it
Exactly, if the 'Hawks felt Campbell couldn't still help their team, they'd have done the same thing to him. The Rangers didn't feel Redden was one of their seven best defensemen going into 2010-11, and they were right.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:19 PM
  #35
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,712
vCash: 544
With the CBA, each team's total cap hit must be within a certain predetermined range.

When a team sends a player, whose contact was clearly designed for that player to play at NHL level, to the minors or a foreign league for the sake of acquiring additional cap space, then that is a loophole in my book.

CB Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:28 PM
  #36
Blackhawkswincup
Tornado Warning
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 117,098
vCash: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Huet did not woefully underperformed. Redden did not woefully underperform. They were overpaid and their projection was way over the top.

Redden and Huet both were performing. Chicago buried him because they were in cap hell and still are. OR do you really think Turco was better than Huet?.
Huet was utter garbage in 09/10

.895 Sv Pct in 48 GP

That is not an NHL caliber goalie especially behind the 2009/10 Hawks D and Team D.

As for Turco

He sucked just as much at 1/4 the salary

.897 Sv Pct in 29 GP

Huet was paid to be a #1 goalie. At worst be a 1A goalie. He sucked royally

Huet lost his starting job to Khabibulin in 08/09 and then to a rookie in 09/10

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:30 PM
  #37
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
 
TrollololBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB Joe View Post
With the CBA, each team's total cap hit must be within a certain predetermined range.

When a team sends a player, whose contact was clearly designed for that player to play at NHL level, to the minors or a foreign league for the sake of acquiring additional cap space, then that is a loophole in my book.
Contracts aren't clearly designed for a player to play in the NHL unless the contract has a NMC, which the player has every right to negotiate for before signing a contract. The player becomes the property of the team, not the league, the team can do whatever they want with the player once he has handed over his rights by signing a contract.

TrollololBoyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:34 PM
  #38
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB Joe View Post
With the CBA, each team's total cap hit must be within a certain predetermined range.

When a team sends a player, whose contact was clearly designed for that player to play at NHL level, to the minors or a foreign league for the sake of acquiring additional cap space, then that is a loophole in my book.
The problem is the CBA. It wasn't well thought out and some things need to change when they negotiate an extension. If they are going to stick with a rock hard cap, then they need to give teams potential outs from contracts. Whatever way you go...whether it be a soft cap like the NBA, or non guaranteed contracts like the NFL, change is needed. Likely the best result is somwhere in the middle between the NFL and NBA deals. But in the meantime...when you have a terribly designed system, both for the players and the teams, loopholes will be sought out and exploited.

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:45 PM
  #39
Jeffrey Lebowski
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
Jeffrey Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Side
Country: United States
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Huet did not woefully underperformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Huet did not woefully underperformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Huet did not woefully underperformed.
Huet posted a .895 sv% over 48 games behind a Stanley Cup winning team... I'd say that's as close to woefully underperforming as possible. Assuming he couldn't be traded, even if he made only 2 million the Hawks still would've buried him in Switzerland.

Jeffrey Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:51 PM
  #40
Ishad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,129
vCash: 500
I don't see why the GMs or the NHLPA would want to change the current rule, and it isn't going to get changed on the account of ******** fans.

Ishad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 05:58 PM
  #41
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,712
vCash: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukSOGoal View Post
Contracts aren't clearly designed for a player to play in the NHL unless the contract has a NMC, which the player has every right to negotiate for before signing a contract. The player becomes the property of the team, not the league, the team can do whatever they want with the player once he has handed over his rights by signing a contract.
Well when a player is making 3 to 4 times the average NHL salary you can say safely that the contact was designed for the player to play in the NHL.

CB Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 07:16 PM
  #42
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Actually, I don't think the last CBA took in the stupidity of some GMs and were trying to avoid absorbent contracts like Redden and Campbell's.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The players bargained for contracts in the minors to not count against the cap. If those contracts counted, that would be less money for the players actually playing in the NHL. This "problem" is a result of what the players wanted.

And another thing you obviously don't understand is that there is a limit to how much each team can bury. Why? Because of the summer cap.

Redden's cap hit is 6.5 mil. If the cap goes up to 63 mil this year, the summer cap would be 69.3 mil (10% higher). Even if Drury didn't have an NMC, we would get no benefit from sending him down, because during the summer, he would still count against the summer cap. We wouldn't be able to sign anyone with that money until we officially sent him down at the end of training camp, and by then, there would be no one left to sign.

So basically, the "loophole" allows teams to spend an extra 10% during the summer and bury that 10% during the season. The Rangers are already over their 10% limit due to Redden. This is actually a disadvantage for the Rangers as long as Redden is on the books, because it hurts their flexibility.

I seriously doubt you will see a change in this in the next CBA. More than likely, they will make buyouts less onerous so that they will be a better option for players like Redden and Huet rather than burying them in the AHL.

Oh, and don't forget. The player has the option to not report to camp, or to not report to the AHL, in which case the team could terminate the player's contract and the player would then be free to sign with any team. So the question is, does the player want to play in the NHL, or does he just want the money?

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 07:48 PM
  #43
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 8,210
vCash: 500
I'd like to point out that this "loophole" benefits everyone involved except for the players' feelings and ownerships' wallets.

The AHL teams should be happy (and are as far as I know) to have players who recently played at a high level and have some star status even if they've underperformed or are aging. While the development aspect of the league can be fun, the league doesn't want to be purely there to facilitate inexperienced youngsters and European players. With the current league agreement between the NHL/AHL and the CHL, many top-tier North American rookies bypass the AHL altogether and go straight into an NHL roster spot. The acquisition of a Sheldon Souray or Wade Redden allows AHL teams to better promote their product by billing these used-to-be high profile names.

We shouldn't worry about the AHL becoming a dumper league for bad contracts. In most cases, the AHL coach isn't required to play those overpaid players. The monetary strains those albatross contracts put on ownership is too strong of a force for them to hand out salaries with no worry. $4 million dollars is still $4 million dollars, and is quite alot by NHL standards (probably not by NBA/MLB/NFL standards).

I say let em do it, especially because it's in the rule book. It's fun to go to your AHL team's games to root on players that other people have heard of. In some cases, it benefits the players themselves as it gives them a chance to re-earn their roster spot as opposed to sitting at home eating and watching TSN.

Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 07:53 PM
  #44
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
I don't see how it can be considered a loophole, because the situation was clearly considered (and allowed) in CBA negotiations.

Loopholes generally don't seem to be thought of until they occur.
Thank you and end thread.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 07:55 PM
  #45
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,278
vCash: 500
Problem is a team could use a Huet or a Redden at half their cost, so it effectively locks them out or even a Souray. No team is going to touch that contract.

I mean what's going to stop New York from signing some talent for three years and then stagger them and bury them in the minors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
I don't see how it can be considered a loophole, because the situation was clearly considered (and allowed) in CBA negotiations.

Loopholes generally don't seem to be thought of until they occur.
I think that long term contracts were thought of and were disregarded. So why was Kovalchuk's considered a bad contract and voided? It wasn't cap circumvention per say, they were saying he was worth that much at the end of his contract.

The thing is, I don't think they were thinking that hiding salary in the minors was going to be such a problem given cap space as they were hoping GMs were just going to blow all their cap space on a bunch of guys like Finger, Redden, Huet, Rolston. But they did and now teams are going through cap hell and are burying guys that could actually be reasonable in the NHL but can't make it in the NHL due to the contract they were handed.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 08:23 PM
  #46
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Problem is a team could use a Huet or a Redden at half their cost, so it effectively locks them out or even a Souray. No team is going to touch that contract.

I mean what's going to stop New York from signing some talent for three years and then stagger them and bury them in the minors?
I'll just re-post what GAGLine said earlier in the thread, since you appeared to miss it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
And another thing you obviously don't understand is that there is a limit to how much each team can bury. Why? Because of the summer cap.

Redden's cap hit is 6.5 mil. If the cap goes up to 63 mil this year, the summer cap would be 69.3 mil (10% higher). Even if Drury didn't have an NMC, we would get no benefit from sending him down, because during the summer, he would still count against the summer cap. We wouldn't be able to sign anyone with that money until we officially sent him down at the end of training camp, and by then, there would be no one left to sign.
Quote:
I think that long term contracts were thought of and were disregarded. So why was Kovalchuk's considered a bad contract and voided? It wasn't cap circumvention per say, they were saying he was worth that much at the end of his contract.
Geez, did you read any of the responses? I already told you, the league ruled that Kovy's contract was made in bad faith, with the intention of circumventing the cap by adding extra dummy years to lower the cap hit.

It's entirely different then a team signing a player to a big contract and then having that player's performance decline sharply. Teams don't sign guys with the anticipation that they will not live up to their contract, so how can the NHL rule that it was made with the intention of burying the contract?

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2011, 11:01 PM
  #47
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocarina View Post
I'll just re-post what GAGLine said earlier in the thread, since you appeared to miss it:
I didn't miss it. You can still grab two or three players because the summer cap is so high.


Quote:
Geez, did you read any of the responses? I already told you, the league ruled that Kovy's contract was made in bad faith, with the intention of circumventing the cap by adding extra dummy years to lower the cap hit.

It's entirely different then a team signing a player to a big contract and then having that player's performance decline sharply. Teams don't sign guys with the anticipation that they will not live up to their contract, so how can the NHL rule that it was made with the intention of burying the contract?
Any contract that wasn't two way applies to the cap. That means any veterans would apply. That would keep teams from getting into a massive bidding war over one player.

Kovy's contract isn't as bad as Luongo's or Hossa...

You see where that is going...

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:23 AM
  #48
t3hg00se
Registered User
 
t3hg00se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,396
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to t3hg00se
Sending AHL players to the AHL.

A loophole.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:25 AM
  #49
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
Sending AHL players to the AHL.

A loophole.
What makes an AHL player, an AHL player. A guy like Huet could have been a serviceable backup on another team but his contract doesn't make it so.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:35 AM
  #50
FireEverybody*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
Sending AHL players to the AHL.

A loophole.
Finger would is a 5-6 NHL Defenseman.
At 3.5 he is a AHL Defenseman for that reason alone.

FireEverybody* 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 07:43 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.