Player contracts post-lockout

I think this subject deserves it's own thread, and I got a feeling tomorrow is just going to pour fuel on the fire about the way contracts have worked post-lock out.

I've never really delved into the business side of sports much because I prefer to leave that to people that get paid to do it instead of being a armchair coach/gm. But while I understand the lockout was used to create a salary cap, revenue sharing, change some rules and ultimately make some attempt at parity...I feel like the parity thing was total ********.

We all know who were some of the biggest voices amongst those pushing for some change, I don't need to mention them. But isn't just a little bit ridiculous that GM's are allowed to sign a player to a long-term contract and load it up front so heavy that they're making close to the league maximum meanwhile only giving the teams overall number a hit typically 2million or so lower than that amount?

I know this might seem like Rag bias but it's the best example. One year after the lockout, New York was tame for the most part...but last year they went RIGHT back to where they were prior to the lockout and used front-loaded contracts to make the signings. For instance, Scott Gomez's cap hit was 7.35 million dollars while he made 10 million for the season.

I understand it's at the teams discretion how they wish to distribute the money throughout the contract, but allowing NY, in this case, to basically be given 2.7 million dollars extra in cap room sort of defies the idea of parity and seemingly allows the market to have swelled the way it has already.

Ryan Malone just signed at a cap hit of something like 4.5 annually, but is expected to make like 7 or 7.5 in the first year of his contract.

How could a team that doesn't spend near the cap compare to that? No Tampa Bay isn't New York...but they've clearly taken on their ideology of free agent signings.

Something I am not entirely sure of with the CBA is...(using Gomez as an example) Scott Gomez made 10 million this season and is due to only make 5.5 million in his last season. Now lets say somehow Gomez magically becomes worth the money they're paying him. Can they then rip that contract up and once again re-sign him long-term, front-end loading it to where their cap hit is much lower?

Because that loop hole right there is bull **** because it allows teams with more money to just chunk it all up front and basically spend frivolously whereas other teams cannot. But, of course, to make up for it, there is revenue sharing so they won't completely sink into the mud just the actual on-ice product.

I think this subject deserves it's own thread, and I got a feeling tomorrow is just going to pour fuel on the fire about the way contracts have worked post-lock out.

I've never really delved into the business side of sports much because I prefer to leave that to people that get paid to do it instead of being a armchair coach/gm. But while I understand the lockout was used to create a salary cap, revenue sharing, change some rules and ultimately make some attempt at parity...I feel like the parity thing was total ********.

We all know who were some of the biggest voices amongst those pushing for some change, I don't need to mention them. But isn't just a little bit ridiculous that GM's are allowed to sign a player to a long-term contract and load it up front so heavy that they're making close to the league maximum meanwhile only giving the teams overall number a hit typically 2million or so lower than that amount?

I know this might seem like Rag bias but it's the best example. One year after the lockout, New York was tame for the most part...but last year they went RIGHT back to where they were prior to the lockout and used front-loaded contracts to make the signings. For instance, Scott Gomez's cap hit was 7.35 million dollars while he made 10 million for the season.

I understand it's at the teams discretion how they wish to distribute the money throughout the contract, but allowing NY, in this case, to basically be given 2.7 million dollars extra in cap room sort of defies the idea of parity and seemingly allows the market to have swelled the way it has already.

Ryan Malone just signed at a cap hit of something like 4.5 annually, but is expected to make like 7 or 7.5 in the first year of his contract.

How could a team that doesn't spend near the cap compare to that? No Tampa Bay isn't New York...but they've clearly taken on their ideology of free agent signings.

Something I am not entirely sure of with the CBA is...(using Gomez as an example) Scott Gomez made 10 million this season and is due to only make 5.5 million in his last season. Now lets say somehow Gomez magically becomes worth the money they're paying him. Can they then rip that contract up and once again re-sign him long-term, front-end loading it to where their cap hit is much lower?

Because that loop hole right there is bull **** because it allows teams with more money to just chunk it all up front and basically spend frivolously whereas other teams cannot. But, of course, to make up for it, there is revenue sharing so they won't completely sink into the mud just the actual on-ice product.

No, you're stuck with the average cap hit. A contract like the Malone contract, where it's heavily frontloaded (rumored at least), after the first two years, you have a contract where the cap hit is greater than his pay. Which makes it attractive for a trade. People like money too, so when they get a ******** up front, that's great.

No, you're stuck with the average cap hit. A contract like the Malone contract, where it's heavily frontloaded (rumored at least), after the first two years, you have a contract where the cap hit is greater than his pay. Which makes it attractive for a trade. People like money too, so when they get a ******** up front, that's great.

Right. I mean I see that aspect of it too of course. But overall it just seems like this is empowering teams with the money, while forcing out teams that can't pay that money up front. I mean isn't the idea of capping teams, to create some parity and not allow bigger markets to dominate the smaller ones by the might of their checkbooks?

I know they're stuck with the average cap hit despite when the salary falls below said amount, but as I asked...are they capable of then re-negotiating the contract in anyway they wish and then voiding the old one to start the process over again?

So for instance a team can say to a player "Well obviously your salary is X this season, we need some room to sign Y, so how about we re-negotiate your contract for slightly more than you are making this season with the front-loaded over 5 years so our cap hit is now half that."

If that is actually possible then doesn't that basically eliminate teams in smaller markets with less bank to spend from actually signing players like this? Because it gives teams with the money the power to spend more up front to lure players, leave more room for them to continue to spend, whilst giving them the option down the road for a trade or re-negotiating it to give them more room while still paying the player the same.

I don't know if it's possible because I haven't completely familiarized myself with the intricacies of the CBA...but it also seems like if it were possible it's still a little too soon to be seeing it happen with big $ UFA's.

Something I am not entirely sure of with the CBA is...(using Gomez as an example) Scott Gomez made 10 million this season and is due to only make 5.5 million in his last season. Now lets say somehow Gomez magically becomes worth the money they're paying him. Can they then rip that contract up and once again re-sign him long-term, front-end loading it to where their cap hit is much lower?


That's an interesting point, I'm not too familiar with the rules of the CBA and even if I read them, I probably wouldn't understand most of the points of it, but I would think that the league would be wary of stuff like that happening.

Time will tell I guess, because so far, there hasn't been the opportunity for something that shady to go down.

That's an interesting point, I'm not too familiar with the rules of the CBA and even if I read them, I probably wouldn't understand most of the points of it, but I would think that the league would be wary of stuff like that happening.

Time will tell I guess, because so far, there hasn't been the opportunity for something that shady to go down.

You can't rip up the contract and can't re-sign until the last year of your current deal. The re-signing is treated as a new and separate contract with a new cap hit that does not take effect until the current contract has ended.

The only way out of a contract is a buy-out. The player can't leave his contract.

So, Malone's contract is 7 years at 31 and change. The first two years are 15, the rest of it is 5 years/16 million, but the cap hit is always 4.5 million, no matter what, and stays that way until the end.

The difference is that his contract becomes much more tradeable after the first two years. He's already gotten most of his money, and he has a salary at a little over 3 million a season, but a cap hit at 4.5 million. That's favorable for teams that want to pick him up, because they can fill up cap at a discounted price.

It's also favorable to Malone because in the case of injury/accident that requires him to retire, he's already gotten most of his money. A buyout, also would be discounted in the later years of his career.

This is all according to the current CBA, so there's always room for changes in the future. I would think it stays the same unless there's pressure on the cap from revenue and the owners fight for renegotiation rights.

I see no problems with teams finding "Lou-pholes" to fix their problems ;)

It's not that big of an epidemic as you like to think.

Firstly, you're "re-negoiate/rip up contract" idea is not legal.

The CBA limits the front/back loading to a fixed percentage. If I remember correctly, you can never make 50% or 50% less than the averaged "cap hit" salary.

As much as you say it helps large market teams, it could potentially help small market teams as well. If a small market team trades for a player completing a longterm front-loaded deal, they could pay less while having a larger salary number to meet a salary floor.

Essentially, they could pickup a "Gomez" who has a 7+million cap hit but actually pay a few million less to "Scott" because the Rangers already have. Thus meeting the cap floor but saving some extra coin.

As much as the NHL's salary cap is panned by some, at least it isn't a cluster-**** like the NBAs. You think Malone is overpaid, the NBA is absolutely ridiculous for the money that non-stars get.

Some may want the varying contract to go away, but it is necessary for backloading for young players (so it goes up w/ hopeful production) and front-loading for older players whose play will typically diminish.

It's not that big of an epidemic as you like to think.

Firstly, you're "re-negoiate/rip up contract" idea is not legal.

The CBA limits the front/back loading to a fixed percentage. If I remember correctly, you can never make 50% or 50% less than the averaged "cap hit" salary.

As much as you say it helps large market teams, it could potentially help small market teams as well. If a small market team trades for a player completing a longterm front-loaded deal, they could pay less while having a larger salary number to meet a salary floor.

Essentially, they could pickup a "Gomez" who has a 7+million cap hit but actually pay a few million less to "Scott" because the Rangers already have. Thus meeting the cap floor but saving some extra coin.

As much as the NHL's salary cap is panned by some, at least it isn't a cluster-**** like the NBAs. You think Malone is overpaid, the NBA is absolutely ridiculous for the money that non-stars get.

Some may want the varying contract to go away, but it is necessary for backloading for young players (so it goes up w/ hopeful production) and front-loading for older players whose play will typically diminish.

Well my "idea" was more so a question I exemplified.

And essentially what you're saying in the bold part there is that big market teams can buy players at huge front-end loaded salaries, then once they're useless and not worth it they can trade them in their lower-cap years to the bottom-feeding small spending teams.

Yeah that sounds a lot of parity and benefiting the small guy like the whole salary cap had intended---eat what the lions don't want anymore while probably giving them the good prospects you accumulated over the bad season(s).

And parameters can be set which limit taking advantage of the salary cap while also allowing it in necessary circumstances. I mean the league has to approve all trades and contracts anyway, no?

Good article on this subject....

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/16888-Campbells-Cuts-More-money-more-problems.html


In the next few days, there will be a flurry of free agent signings and a good number of players will get tied into big-money, long-term contracts that will almost certainly widen the gap between the NHL’s have and have-not teams, which was one disparity this new system was supposed to address.

Of course, the small-market and also-ran teams will have to throw significant money around in order to get themselves to the salary cap floor of $40.7 million.

Many of those deals will be for terms that were once unfathomable - with seven to 10 years the going rate for a star player in the prime of his career. One thing that obviously hasn’t changed under the new system is the mentality of GMs to get the player now and damn the cost to the franchise later.

Which brings us to the question, what exactly is going to happen to all these long-term deals once the current collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2011-12 season?

The current CBA has a Sept. 15, 2011 expiration date, but that could be pushed back a year by the NHL Players’ Association and if the players don’t do just that, this writer will eat all 454 pages of the current agreement in one sitting without so much as a single glass of water.

(Note to readers: I really won’t do that. Just trying to make a point.)

I think the parity idea of the salary cap was just something that Bettman said to make the whole lockout seem important. In reality, with every cap increase that the nhl makes, the league parity starts to vanish. Then all your left with is the revenue linking to player's salaries which I guess is still good. I was never a fan of team parity anyway.