I thought soem of you might be interested to know that the league is looking into the Hossa deal. Thanks to LS from the BoH board for finding this one.
that is amazing. i did not know the structure was like that. It makes it almost obvious that they agreed he won't be playing those last few years. I have never really liked the long term contracts, as i think it has always been a way around the cap, but accepted them as a growing trend. It would be nice to see this trend end...
i mean sure it is nice to see a player play his whole career somewhere, but it would also be nice to see it through their actual willingness to stay there and work with the team to be under the cap, and not because they are getting paid 15 million their first 5 years, and then 200000 their last 10.
As much as I like Chicago and would love to see them do some damage for a few years, it is undoubtedly in the best interest of the league to curb this trend before it becomes commonplace.
GMs are pushing the envelope just a little bit more every time, it needs to stop
I've advocated this elsewhere... IMO the cap hit should NOT be an average of the contract term, instead, the cap should be exactly what the player is being paid on a year-to-year basis. It would require a little more micro-management by GMs, but realistically, things wouldn't change too much. Front loaded contracts could be given out in years where you know you have a little more cap-space. When you're low on cap-space, give out contracts loaded on the backside instead. I think it offers more flexibility in the long run and doesn't create problems like this.
The biggest down-side I see is trading could be a little more complicated... Trading a player with a front-loaded contract for a player with a rear-loaded contract (but the same average cap hit) might now be an impossible trade.
I've advocated this elsewhere... IMO the cap hit should NOT be an average of the contract term, instead, the cap should be exactly what the player is being paid on a year-to-year basis. It would require a little more micro-management by GMs, but realistically, things wouldn't change too much. Front loaded contracts could be given out in years where you know you have a little more cap-space. When you're low on cap-space, give out contracts loaded on the backside instead. I think it offers more flexibility in the long run and doesn't create problems like this.
The biggest down-side I see is trading could be a little more complicated... Trading a player with a front-loaded contract for a player with a rear-loaded contract (but the same average cap hit) might now be an impossible trade.
I'm on board, lets pay Gags, Cogliano, and Grebeshkov 10 million each the year after next... after we win the draft lottery, we pay them each 1 million for the 3 years after that and win a few cups
I've advocated this elsewhere... IMO the cap hit should NOT be an average of the contract term, instead, the cap should be exactly what the player is being paid on a year-to-year basis. It would require a little more micro-management by GMs, but realistically, things wouldn't change too much. Front loaded contracts could be given out in years where you know you have a little more cap-space. When you're low on cap-space, give out contracts loaded on the backside instead. I think it offers more flexibility in the long run and doesn't create problems like this.
The biggest down-side I see is trading could be a little more complicated... Trading a player with a front-loaded contract for a player with a rear-loaded contract (but the same average cap hit) might now be an impossible trade.
Duck's fan. Not here to cause trouble, just to comment.
The potential problem you get with this scenario is that a GM could structure their star player's contracts in such a way that they could load up on talent for one year.
For example Crosby and Malkin (both making $43.5m over 5 years) could have had their contracts structured so that they make $10.5m each over 4 of the years, and only $1.5m in the remaining season.
If these lower salary years coincided then the combined cap hit of those two is now just $3m as opposed to the usual $21m meaning there is in effect much more money for the GM to go and load up the team with star players on one year deals
I don't like the obvious circumvention some contracts are showing but at the same time I can't think of a better system unless you want to look towards a player earning a percentage of the salary cap every year of his contract
As much as I like Chicago and would love to see them do some damage for a few years, it is undoubtedly in the best interest of the league to curb this trend before it becomes commonplace.
GMs are pushing the envelope just a little bit more every time, it needs to stop
then re-draft the CBA...it's smart work by GMs to make these sort of deals, and the NHL has no one to blame but themselves for allowing this loophole to exist.
I thought soem of you might be interested to know that the league is looking into the Hossa deal. Thanks to LS from the BoH board for finding this one.
then re-draft the CBA...it's smart work by GMs to make these sort of deals, and the NHL has no one to blame but themselves for allowing this loophole to exist.
They're taking action to correct it, of course they're accepting responsibility. Are you arguing that Chicago shouldn't be getting a penalty for it?
Mirtle suggests that there is nothing in the CBA to prevent these type of deals. This is not exactly correct. They are not specifically addressed but there is a clear "weasel clause" that allows for these type of investigations if there is suspicion of a backroom deal.
They're taking action to correct it, of course they're accepting responsibility. Are you arguing that Chicago shouldn't be getting a penalty for it?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing.
They're operating within the CBA in making such a deal, as was Detroit when they re-signed Zetterberg and Franzen (see the Mirtle blog for a similar argument).
This is easily fixed. Just make the cap hit count for every one regardless of age or if the contract was signed +/- 35.
Another option is that if a player retires, they must carry the cap savings for what would have been the reamindr of the contract.
This is an example
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 2, 1, ,.5 , .5
This is a 10 year deal with a cap hit of $5M per year.
If the player retires after 6 years he would have received $46 but the team was only on the hook for $30M. This is a savings of $16M. Spread out over 4 years, the team would have to carry $4M per year in dead cap space.
They're operating within the CBA in making such a deal, as was Detroit when they re-signed Zetterberg and Franzen (see the Mirtle blog for a similar argument).
It's a clear violation of the spirit, and obviously there is enough of a clause somewhere in the CBA to warrant an investigation.
Regardless, if they let it slide, what's to stop teams from signing 30 year contracts? 40 years? Life expectancy is 70 years, lets shoot for the moon and get Gagner signed to a nice and tidy 50 year contract before they rework the CBA. Lets be realistic here, there is a clear violation of sportsmanship, and the entire league (minus the economics) is governed on the principles therein.
It's a clear violation of the spirit, and obviously there is enough of a clause somewhere in the CBA to warrant an investigation.
Regardless, if they let it slide, what's to stop teams from signing 30 year contracts? 40 years? Life expectancy is 70 years, lets shoot for the moon and get Gagner signed to a nice and tidy 50 year contract before they rework the CBA. Lets be realistic here, there is a clear violation of sportsmanship, and the entire league (minus the economics) is governed on the principles therein.
What in the hell is that supposed to mean? It's a black and white issue.
Another option is that if a player retires, they must carry the cap savings for what would have been the reamindr of the contract.
This is an example
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 2, 1, ,.5 , .5
This is a 10 year deal with a cap hit of $5M per year.
If the player retires after 6 years he would have received $46 but the team was only on the hook for $30M. This is a savings of $16M. Spread out over 4 years, the team would have to carry $4M per year in dead cap space.
Probably the most reasonable solution yet, in my opinion, but in the example of Hossa's contract, four years on the books means Chicago eats under 1M in cap starting in 2017. I'm not sure that's enough of a deterrent... especially if teams were given the 'green light' by a stipulation like this and a long term signing frenzy started happening by GMs that aren't afraid to eat a half a million for a couple years 10 seasons down the line.
What in the hell is that supposed to mean? It's a black and white issue.
Sportsmanship? Now you're really reaching...
Like I said, there is obviously something in CBA that opens the gates for an investigation.
Are you really suggesting that we open the gates for 50 year contracts? I just don't understand why you are defending this practice so strongly. A lot of work went into the CBA and making the league a cap league... do you really think the NHL is going to sit on the sidelines and let something that may or may not be a loophole jeopardize the entire system?
They're taking action to correct it, of course they're accepting responsibility. Are you arguing that Chicago shouldn't be getting a penalty for it?
I don't think Chicago should be penalized for it. There wasn't anything specifically stating that a contract like that can't be signed and it will be next to near impossible to prove an allegation of what the "intent" of the contract was. You're not trying if you're not cheating. It's not like Hossa's camp is gonna be like oh ya when we went into negotiations the plan all along was to come up with a deal where I will retire before the end of it.
From what I saw the Ohlund deal in Tampa Bay was the same thing. He signed 7 years 26.25 million. Ohlund will make something like 25 million of that in the first 5 seasons. Obviously the Pringer deal was the same as well in Philly but they already kicked themselves in the ass on that one.
Like I said, there is obviously something in CBA that opens the gates for an investigation.
Are you really suggesting that we open the gates for 50 year contracts? I just don't understand why you are defending this practice so strongly. A lot of work went into the CBA and making the league a cap league... do you really think the NHL is going to sit on the sidelines and let something that may or may not be a loophole jeopardize the entire system?
I'm saying that the NHL failed to recognize that this could become a problem when they created the previous CBA. Until a new CBA comes out, they're stuck with this.
Everybody lauded the CBA as the saving grace for the league, with a "New NHL" coming about. While that agreement was certainly better than the previous one, it is proving to have serious flaws.
And where did I suggest that we "open the gates for 50 year contracts"? Show me where I said it, because I'd like to know...
I'm saying that the NHL failed to recognize that this could become a problem when they created the previous CBA. Until a new CBA comes out, they're stuck with this.
Everybody lauded the CBA as the saving grace for the league, with a "New NHL" coming about. While that agreement was certainly better than the previous one, it is proving to have serious flaws.
And where did I suggest that we "open the gates for 50 year contracts"? Show me where I said it, because I'd like to know...
If there is no penalty for cap circumvention, there is no penalty for a 50 year contract... so, it's an implication. I agree that there are clearly problems with the CBA, but that doesn't mean the league structure needs to be in disarray until a new CBA gets worked on.
If there is no penalty for cap circumvention, there is no penalty for a 50 year contract... so, it's an implication. I agree that there are clearly problems with the CBA, but that doesn't mean the league structure needs to be in disarray until a new CBA gets worked on.
How about when Burke found a loophole with Neidermayer & Selanne that season. That was somewhat a similar case in "circumventing the cap". The league corrected the CBA moving forward but I don't recall penalties for Anaheim.
If there is no penalty for cap circumvention, there is no penalty for a 50 year contract... so, it's an implication. I agree that there are clearly problems with the CBA, but that doesn't mean the league structure needs to be in disarray until a new CBA gets worked on.
Why does Chicago need to be penalized when other clubs have "violated the spirit" of the CBA?
How about when Burke found a loophole with Neidermayer & Selanne that season. That was somewhat a similar case in "circumventing the cap". The league corrected the CBA moving forward but I don't recall penalties for Anaheim.
If I recall, Neidermayer got fined and the Ducks were without 2 star players for half a season. Different situation that even still warranted a punishment and some scrutiny.
If I recall, Neidermayer got fined and the Ducks were without 2 star players for half a season. Different situation that even still warranted a punishment and some scrutiny.
Neidermayer wasn't fined, was he? They were without two players because they choose to be without two players, as in both sides were in agreement.
Why does Chicago need to be penalized when other clubs have "violated the spirit" of the CBA?
They pushed too far, clearly.
"This was the first of the long-term contracts that took a player out past the age 40 and the value of the contract in its 'out years' was dramatically lower than its early years."
It's arbitrary, yes, but the precedent had been set for long term contracts with a few teams and Chicago pushed just a little too far. I doubt the people investigating this are the only people that have concerns about Hossa's contract specifically.
Regardless, I honestly doubt anything will come of this 'investigation,' it's likely just their way of letting the GMs know that there is a limit to how far these contracts can reasonably go before somebody needs to step in.
