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
05-23-2011, 01:38 AM
  #51
Jeffrey Lebowski
Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
Jeffrey Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Side
Country: United States
Posts: 5,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
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.
This is false. Key word: serviceable.

I think you should just leave Huet out of this, he belongs in an overseas league because he doesn't have the talent for the NHL, even at back-up, and he doesn't want to play in the AHL. He asked that if the Hawks were going to waive him, that he be assigned to the swiss league he currently plays in.

His cap-hit just adds insult to injury.

Jeffrey Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:40 AM
  #52
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 106,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
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.
Huet sucks at any costs but lets say he was on re-entry waivers like you suggested at half the salry. Why would a team want a goalie on decline in mid 30's at nearly 2.8 mil to be a #2?

And these players have options

If they want to play in NHL so bad they can choose to go thru unconditional waivers and become UFA

But you wont see anyone give up millions of dollars. So the players have only themselves to blame

If Huet wanted to be in NHL he should have played like an NHL netminder

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:46 AM
  #53
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
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.
There are always things that could be better, especially when you create something completely new like the current CBA.

That being said, teams shouldn't get a better possibility to get out of the contracts they sign. If they truly want to get rid of someone, they can buy him out. They signed a contract with the player, they know of the consequences and that he may not be able to perform at the level they may expect him to. The last thing this league needs is something rubbish like the NBA soft-cap or non-guaranteed contracts. No one forced them to sign expensive longterm deals.

As for teams and players searching for loopholes, that happens regardless of how good or bad the system is. Everyone will try to gain an advantage, else they wouldn't be doing their job.

Sanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:49 AM
  #54
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 106,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
There are always things that could be better, especially when you create something completely new like the current CBA.

That being said, teams shouldn't get a better possibility to get out of the contracts they sign. If they truly want to get rid of someone, they can buy him out. They signed a contract with the player, they know of the consequences and that he may not be able to perform at the level they may expect him to. The last thing this league needs is something rubbish like the NBA soft-cap or non-guaranteed contracts. No one forced them to sign expensive longterm deals.

As for teams and players searching for loopholes, that happens regardless of how good or bad the system is. Everyone will try to gain an advantage, else they wouldn't be doing their job.
It is a 2 way street. When a player bombs with a big contract that player should not expect to be treated any different from a fringe player who cant cut it in NHL

And this is not a soft cap /nonguaranteed contract issue as the player still gets paid in Minors or Europe and his cap hit still counts every summer + towards tagging cap space.

Also why should a player get rewarded for playing like garbage? A buyout + free agency to me is rewarding the player

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:54 AM
  #55
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,474
vCash: 500
People (GM's) make mistakes. Especially the ones who know less about today's game than some of us but get their jobs because they're smooth talkers or whatever.

This gives you some flexibility I guess. If a bunch of teams are stuck with bad contracts for under performing players then it's preventing younger players from coming into the league. I'd personally rather see the younger player who can still do something compared to the older ones. I actually think the rules are too restrictive and you should be able to send anyone you want to the minors at almost whenever. Make it more simple. And maybe it'll make some players think twice before they ask for huge contracts they don't deserve.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 02:41 AM
  #56
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,414
vCash: 50
This is why guaranteed contracts are a very bad idea. If you aren't performing up to snuff for a team, they should be able to cut you with your cap hit only hitting you that year or until a team picks them up whichever comes first.

Come on...If you didn't perform up to your bosses snuff you get fired should be no different

molsonmuscle360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 03:11 AM
  #57
Scottyk9
Goals? Please!
 
Scottyk9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: West of Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 25,276
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Scottyk9
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsauer2738 View Post
Rangers can't with Drury due to NMC, Devils wouldn't with zubs because he's fairly serviceable and they can't afford to bury players.
We can't what tells you that ?

Nothing does. You can speculate all you want though.

Scottyk9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 03:41 AM
  #58
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
This is why guaranteed contracts are a very bad idea. If you aren't performing up to snuff for a team, they should be able to cut you with your cap hit only hitting you that year or until a team picks them up whichever comes first.

Come on...If you didn't perform up to your bosses snuff you get fired should be no different
Guaranteed contracts (and non-guaranteed contracts as well) work both ways...

Everyone is always looking just as the under performing players who could be cut if the contracts were not guaranteed, but how about all those contracts signed before a player breaks out? Why would any player honor an undervalued contract if he subsequently exceeds the expectations?

Noldo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 04:21 AM
  #59
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
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.
and whose fault is that?

all huet needs to do is ask to be released, then his contract is over, certainly the blackhawks would let him.....

answer that please. see you are lying, you know full well that he can do that if he wishes.....this whole thread is just because you want to see teams with more finances punished for using their resources

and thats just because your jealous......sour grapes is all this is


all a player needs to do is say i wont report and the team can release them

Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 04:30 AM
  #60
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Buff Drinklots
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Germany
Posts: 54,469
vCash: 500
Just because your retard GM is stupid enough to pay a bum $5 million a year doesn't mean that player is an 'AHL player'. It's a ****ing loophole and teams with stupid GMs should be punished. If Huet was being paid what he was worth he'd be a damn fine 1B or back-up goalie in this league. Instead Chicago gets a Get Out of Jail Free Card for their ****ing retarded contract offer.

__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/054.gif
Big McLargehuge is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 04:39 AM
  #61
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 Big McLargehuge View Post
Just because your retard GM is stupid enough to pay a bum $5 million a year doesn't mean that player is an 'AHL player'. It's a ****ing loophole and teams with stupid GMs should be punished.
Why? why should cities with insufficient revenues get teams?

if a city cant afford to pay the going rate for players,what right do you have to have a team

all you poor mouth fans want revenue sharing to support your teams and you whine incessantly about how unfair it is

It's not a ****ing loophole because every team can do it if they choose, and teams with fans who dont pay to support their teams should be punished.

Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 05:57 AM
  #62
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
I didn't miss it. You can still grab two or three players because the summer cap is so high.
Not really. Using the Rangers as an example, Wade Redden's contract alone takes up the 10 percent limit of the summer cap. The Rangers can't keep signing players to big contracts like you seem to be saying, they would run out of cap room.

Quote:
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...
And the bolded part is just tells me that you don't have a basic grasp of the facts. Kovy's contract is as bad as Luongo and Hossa's it still violates the same principal and is actually a longer contract.

It really does seem that you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 06:22 AM
  #63
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richiebottles View Post
Sather will be all over this thread.
Sather is the only GM to send a player to the AHL or Europe to remove the cap hit?

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 06:32 AM
  #64
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
A guy on a 0.6 contract who could not keep his NHL Roster Spot and gets send down = no Cap Circumvention
A guy on a 5.6 contract who could not keep his NHL Roster Spot and gets send down = Cap Circumvention


yeah sure


Quote:
They signed a contract with the player, they know of the consequences and that he may not be able to perform at the level they may expect him to.
and now they pay him 5.6 million for his vacation in Swiss...

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 11:47 AM
  #65
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
I read about 5-6 posts following the OP. Guys. stop the none sense. Whether you want to consider it a "loophole" or a "perfectly legal tool" the question was, who do you think will be sent down to the AHL due to their underperformance and higher scale salary.

I swear, I think HF sometimes just like to argue anything and everything. Thinking their smart-allec remarks are funny or something

Cant you guys just read the OP question and answer it instead of trying to dissect the way the question was asked?

gotmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 12:12 PM
  #66
discobob
Registered User
 
discobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Everything
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmonte View Post
Cant you guys just read the OP question and answer it instead of trying to dissect the way the question was asked?
....no.....

discobob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 12:20 PM
  #67
skroob**
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
Just because your retard GM is stupid enough to pay a bum $5 million a year doesn't mean that player is an 'AHL player'. It's a ****ing loophole and teams with stupid GMs should be punished. If Huet was being paid what he was worth he'd be a damn fine 1B or back-up goalie in this league. Instead Chicago gets a Get Out of Jail Free Card for their ****ing retarded contract offer.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarjak View Post
... that's what a loophole is. It allows you do to something that's against the spirit of a law/contract in perfect legality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB Joe View Post
Yes, it can still be considered a loophole. The AHL is not meant to bury large contacts.

I hope that in the new CBA they have a rule that if a player makes over the average NHL salary they still count against the cap even if they are sent to the AHL or are loaned to another team.

Wow. A lot of people simply have no idea what a CBA is.

CBA. Collective Bargaining Agreement. An Agreement is a contract and by definition, a contract is established when each side of the deal is mutually beneficial.

In this particular CBA, the key issue was to establish a CAP, for the intent of (1) ensuring cost certainty for the survival of the league and (2) to ensure that the on-ice product, on a game-by-game basis, would be of relative monetary equality.

These two issues were to establish that both the NHL teams and the players would both be of benefit. The NHL would get cost control, and the players would still be able to get salaries as agreed upon in their contracts. That is what the CBA was about. That was the Agreement.


Taking that into consideration, giving someone like Drury 7 million to sit in hartford (1) does not take money away from the NHL and (2) since he is not playing on the NHL team, is not a factor in the NHL on-ice product.

In other words, there is NO LOOPHOLE because nothing is being violated.


Nowhere in the CBA was the NHL trying to "punish" the rich teams for having more money, and nowhere was there any language to "punish" teams from making "bad contracts" If such clauses were in there, there is no way in hell the top half of the NHL teams would have agreed to it, as such clauses would only serve to hurt them, and not help them (in other words, its not mutually beneficial).

I know a lot of fan bases wish such terms were in the CBA (out of their own bias, of course), but that is simply not the case. Sorry.

skroob** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 12:21 PM
  #68
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmonte View Post
I read about 5-6 posts following the OP. Guys. stop the none sense. Whether you want to consider it a "loophole" or a "perfectly legal tool" the question was, who do you think will be sent down to the AHL due to their underperformance and higher scale salary.

I swear, I think HF sometimes just like to argue anything and everything. Thinking their smart-allec remarks are funny or something

Cant you guys just read the OP question and answer it instead of trying to dissect the way the question was asked?
The problem is that the OP asked a loaded question. If he had just asked "what veterans do you think will be buried in the AHL," I don't think much of a fuss would of been made.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 01:05 PM
  #69
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
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.
*rolls eyes* . . . as others have said, without arguing for or against it, that is the very definition of a loophole.

The salary cap/ floor is meant to do a couple things. First and foremost from the owners perspective it is to save them from themselves, or specifically to make sure spending from some teams will not make the product not viable in many if not most cities where they can not keep up with the Joneses, as we saw happening right before the strike where 2/3 of teams were losing money.

But it also as a byproduct was meant to maintain some degree of competitive balance. In a league where many teams can not even spend to the cap, not all teams can afford to bury millions if not tens of millions of dollars of salary. So teams who can and will afford to bury their mistakes and shrug off the loss have a competitive advantage not intended in the overall framework and spirit of the agreement. ie, a loophole. Whether it was forseen or intended even, it remains just that, a loophole that only a small percentage of teams can and will take advantage of.

As for the practice, well it is a reason you see so many NMC's now. And teams that use it often, and likely have a rep for doing it, well I seldom see them getting any breaks or discounts on players they sign. So perhaps there is a hidden cost in employing this practice as well.

Jaded-Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 02:00 PM
  #70
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
People really need to use their brains. A loophole is something that goes against the spirit of the system without technically going against the system. Sending a player to the AHL, regardless of salary, isn't against the spirit of the CBA anymore than paying all your AHL players 250k/year or giving an extra $1M/year to a crappy player just because he's a fan favorite

A loophole in the CBA is the retirement contracts given to Hossa, Progner, et al and attempted to be given to Kovalchuk. The teams attempted to lower the cap hit by including fake years on the contract. In the case of Kovalchuk the NHL deemed this to be so obvious that they enacted the 'no circumvention' clause of the CBA which was basically just a bunch of legalese for "don't use loopholes"

hatterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 02:21 PM
  #71
Mr Forever
The Oilers :(
 
Mr Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: COLLEGE
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post


It's not a loophole if it's in the rule book and perfectly legal to do.

Lol. A loophole is essentially what you just described. Something legal within laws, that generally goes unnoticed but when used in a different way than designed for, can be beneficial. Such as, rather than using waivers and the minors to develop and move players, using it to hide a contract from the salary cap. If you have a rich enough owner, that is.

Mr Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 02:32 PM
  #72
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
People really need to use their brains. A loophole is something that goes against the spirit of the system without technically going against the system. Sending a player to the AHL, regardless of salary, isn't against the spirit of the CBA anymore than paying all your AHL players 250k/year or giving an extra $1M/year to a crappy player just because he's a fan favorite

A loophole in the CBA is the retirement contracts given to Hossa, Progner, et al and attempted to be given to Kovalchuk. The teams attempted to lower the cap hit by including fake years on the contract. In the case of Kovalchuk the NHL deemed this to be so obvious that they enacted the 'no circumvention' clause of the CBA which was basically just a bunch of legalese for "don't use loopholes"
Loopholes do not have to be unintended, or challenged by one of the parties, to in fact be a loophole. Hell, major corporations pay literally an aggregate of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to CPAs to exploit loopholes in the tax code. The IRS knows they are there and for the most part goes along with them. Mostly because they are in there for very specific reasons, or to reward/encourage certain activity, or because some party lobbied for them. It does not make them any less loopholes.

Jaded-Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2011, 02:32 PM
  #73
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
People really need to use their brains. A loophole is something that goes against the spirit of the system without technically going against the system. Sending a player to the AHL, regardless of salary, isn't against the spirit of the CBA anymore than paying all your AHL players 250k/year or giving an extra $1M/year to a crappy player just because he's a fan favorite

A loophole in the CBA is the retirement contracts given to Hossa, Progner, et al and attempted to be given to Kovalchuk. The teams attempted to lower the cap hit by including fake years on the contract. In the case of Kovalchuk the NHL deemed this to be so obvious that they enacted the 'no circumvention' clause of the CBA which was basically just a bunch of legalese for "don't use loopholes"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrForever View Post
Lol. A loophole is essentially what you just described. Something legal within laws, that generally goes unnoticed but when used in a different way than designed for, can be beneficial. Such as, rather than using waivers and the minors to develop and move players, using it to hide a contract from the salary cap. If you have a rich enough owner, that is.

A guy on a 0.6 contract who could not keep his NHL Roster Spot and gets send down = no Cap Circumvention
A guy on a 5.6 contract who could not keep his NHL Roster Spot and gets send down = Cap Circumvention

Bubba88 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 11:59 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.