Given Richard Bloch's Ruling, What Exactly is the "Line in the Sand" for Future NHL Contracts?
by John Fischer on Aug 10, 2010 7:30 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
PrintYesterday, Richard Bloch sustained the NHL's rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk's contract with the New Jersey Devils. The $102 million over 17 year deal was voided and so Kovalchuk is now an unrestricted free agent. While the situation with Kovalchuk hasn't changed beyond the rejection yet, something important was revealed last night. Late last night, Eric Macramella of Offside: A Sports Law Blog and of Team1200 posted his own analysis complete with a PDF of Bloch's decision. If you have any interest in what was decided, then it's a must-read. Thanks to Greg Wyshynski for tweeting it, which caught my attention (and sorry for the lack of a hat tip in the FanShot about it, I'll make up for it here).
As an aside, isn't it fantastic we're in a time where such information can be made public and reviewable. If we're willing to put the time and effort into it, we can read the decision, review the CBA, look over rules, etc. and come to our own conclusions instead of just relying on someone else's interpretation.
Speaking of interpretation, Richard Bloch's interpretation of Article 26 was the crux to making the decision he did. In fact, I have to concur with Tom Gulitti that a part of page 15 of the decision is crucial to understanding his ruling. From the PDF of the decision, here's the section (bold emphasis is mine):
One accepts, therefore, that the CBA does not speak to the length of an SPC, the compensation limit in any single contract, the salary structure in terms of back or front loading or, generally, any affiliated player movement restrictions. But, the language of Article 26(3) speaks loudly to the parties’ intention that one look not only to whether the individual terms of the agreement conform but also to whether the agreement, taken in its entirety, may be said to have been intended, or even if not intended, has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the CBA. The possibility, therefore, that a Club and Player could construct an agreement, the individual terms of which are inoffensive but which, when taken together, challenge the provisions of the CBA is precisely within the contemplation of the signatories to the CBA.
From there, Bloch explains that while how the contract was structured, the assignment of no movement and no trade clauses, and the length of the contract are all valid on their own, in the combination of all three, he finds intent of circumvention. While I can't say I agree, the ruling is binding
However, it just raises another, incredibly important question that I, you, and about 30 general managers are asking: What exactly is the "line in the sand" for future NHL contracts? It's clear the NHL was successful in rejecting this contract, but what about future deals? I explain how further confusing
That Bloch cites multiple aspects of the Kovalchuk deal to concluding there was "intent" in circumventing the cap in his ruling obfuscates this matter. In fact, it's so confusing, Greg Wyshynski took it upon himself to do some myth-busting in this also-must-read post at Puck Daddy. I'd pay attention to Myth #3, since Bloch never ruled the deal was too long - just that it was too long and the usage of NTCs and NMCs along with the tail-end of the deal suggests an out for the Devils.
So does this mean the Devils can offer Kovalchuk a 17 year deal, but just structured differently? Could they just give him a NMC for the whole deal and would that make it OK? Could they use the same structure but just remove a few years?
To add further confusion, Bloch mentions in a footnote about how the Marian Hossa, Marc Savard, Roberto Luongo, and Chris Pronger deals are similar. Yes, he also states that Kovalchuk's contract was more "dramatic," but I don't think he brought them up just for the sake of bringing them up. Even if the league doesn't do anything with their investigations into the Hossa, Luongo, and Pronger deals (which are still on going); would they accept future deals just like those? Or is Kovalchuk's now-rejected contract the sole standard of what would be accepted or rejected? What's the limit on how much a player can receive before a contract goes into a tail: is it greater or less than 93.6%? Are the posits by others, like these at Gabriella Fundaro at Garden State Skates, possible? (h/t: Puck Daddy)
I don't want to be snarky, but the answer may just be this: whatever the NHL feels is acceptable.
I can't imagine GMs or players can be too happy with that possibility. It's a new uncertainty for management, and I don't think any GM would be happy to require Gary Bettman or Bill Daly or someone else at the NHL to "bless" the contract in advance of offering it. Players certainly can't be pleased that their options at getting the deals they want now have a new risk. If the NHL can do this to Lou Lamoriello, a highly respected figure in the league, and Ilya Kovalchuk, one of the top players of the game, then who's to say this can't happen to anyone else?
So I ask the turn the question to you. What do you think the "line in the sand" is for future NHL contracts? OK, it's not really up for us to decide. Let me emphasize that I don't want to know what you think of the ruling or what will happen next. That's not to be discussed here. Do not discuss it here. Discuss in the comments what the "line in the sand" is for future contracts. Thank you for reading.
142 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If there even IS a line
It can’t be drawn with a fine-point anything. What’s the fattest marker you’ve ever seen? That MIGHT be wide enough.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
At least
the Savard contract seems to already be under investigation. Let’s hope more of these deals get voided to justify what happened to the Kovalchuk deal.
If by..
more of these deals
you mean future deals, then I absolutely agree, however previous deals that have already been accepted and played under should remain uncontested. I know if Kovy’s deal went through and then a few years later a new contract, more front-loaded (20 years, where 97% was paid in the first 5) was rejected I certainly wouldn’t want Kovy’s contract to be re-opened for investigation and eventually rejection.
Go Devils!
Numbers don't lie, Martin Brodeur
Nope
All the front-loaded, cap circumventing deals that were allowed previously should be voided. The players should get to keep what money they’ve made so far, but they should become UFAs and have to re-negotiate. It’s hypocrisy unless they void all similar deals.
The effects of that would run very deep. Every team, and the league as a whole, would be negatively affected.
It’s understandable to be angry and even a bit vindictive, but don’t be unreasonable. Not only would it be a logistical nightmare (are the Flyers the de facto champions now? Do all stats compiled in forfeited games still count, and if so, do they come with an asterisk? Is previously paid escrow retroactively recalculated and redistributed?), it would be a public relations debacle.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Fortunately for the league, they are under no obligation whatsoever to act on similar contracts already registered. The “right” thing to do in light of this decision is to immediately void all similar contracts not yet executed (all those that are extensions or contracts set to begin period of performance as of 1 October, 2010) and give these teams as much time as possible to renegotiate with these players. Worst case, each contract would be granted a one-year period of performance, at the contract’s cap hit but this year’s salary, and at the end of the season, player becomes a RFA.
Going after Hossa and taking action against the Hawks would indeed be a nightmare, one I’ve brought up on a number of occasions, and I don’t think the league would have taken action on this contract had they been obligated to in the CBA>
Agreed, however, even going after contracts that haven’t kicked in yet like Luongo’s opens up a whole different can of worms when teams can point to the Hossa contract being allowed when it’s more egregious a circumvention.
Could the league rightfully go after a contract that was bad, but not as bad, just because it hasn’t kicked in yet because going after one that had kicked in already would be a bigger pain in the butt for them? I think a team like Vancouver could and would fight that arbitrary enforcement and this whole situation would go from bad to worse real fast.
I think the warning shot has been fired and the league has to be satisfied with the result. They won’t do the “right” thing, they’ll just prevent any more of the “wrong” thing.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
In thinking about it, I actually think some of the teams are wishing the league would come after their contracts. Upon reflection I’m not so sure Vancouver wouldn’t want to void Luongo’s contract. Assuming no penalties were assessed, they’d probably be ecstatic to redo it. Same with Boston and Savard.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Agreed. These types of deals may lower a cap hit, but they’re a huge risk for the team that decided to take advantage of the hole in the CBA. That’s probably why we’re talking about half a dozen examples of it rather than 20 or 30.
At least going after the not-yet-executed contracts would show the rest of the league they were serious and are trying their best to keep a level playing field, rather than just taking a stand against the Devils and their Russian. The language in the ruling makes it seem like the League testified “but Arbitrator, we’re investigating all those other contracts like this one, honestly we are.” Pretty much exactly the same as the boss coming over in search of the TPS report that’s due. “Sure thing boss, already working on it.”
Riiiiiight.
the whole question is though, (as this article ponders)
What is the “wrong” thing?
Any reference to right or wrong was specifically in regards to Murdoc’s statement that the “right” thing would be to void all similar contracts not yet executed.
Wrong, in this case, refers to any heavily front-loaded contract obviously meant to artificially lower the cap hit.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
What about dropping veterans to the Minors, when they have say, 4 years and $23M still on their contract (Im looking at you, New York Rangers). To me, that is artificially lowering the Cap hit, and needs to be changed.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
If I’ve learned one thing in life it’s to never underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to beating the system.
I may just be a cynic, but I’m of the opinion that if you close those loopholes, new ones will be found shortly.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Agreed
But I feel something has to be done. If the rationale was used in reverse (to reach the Cap floor), would that be something you would want to see? I dont know, that bothers me. No one is going to convince me that Wade Redden isnt an NHL Defenseman or Cristobal Huet is not an NHL goaltender. The problem for them both (especially Redden) is Contract value versus production. No matter what team these players play for (Devils included) I really dont like being able to bury an NHL veteran in the Minors, especially if there is more than one year left on his agreed contract.
Its akin to the League stepping in and changing an agreed-upon, negotiated rule … oh wait….
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
They need to make a rule, if a player makes more than $2 million a year in cap space his contract does not come off the books if he gets sent down unless he has a 2-way contract.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
Get ready to look at the Devils
What about dropping veterans to the Minors, when they have say, 4 years and $23M still on their contract (Im looking at you, New York Rangers). To me, that is artificially lowering the Cap hit, and needs to be changed.
That’s completely different. When you sign a player to a LEGITIMATE contract that abides by, and does not circumvent the CBA there is nothing wrong with dumping said player who can no longer make there money.
When we get Kovy on a new contract, Rolston will be the first to go and it will be difficult to move him to a different team with his cap hit, he will be thrown on waivers if that is in fact the case.
Go Devils!
Numbers don't lie, Martin Brodeur
Rolston is a 35+ player, putting him on waivers does nothing for us.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Aug 11, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
?
Getting rid of this player anyway we can does exactly what we need right now, opens cap space for Kovy.
Go Devils!
Numbers don't lie, Martin Brodeur
We. Cannot. Get. Rid. Of. Rolston. By. Any. Means. Other. Than. A. Trade. To. Remove. His. Cap. Hit.
As I read it, I totally heard it in my head as Speed Buggy, too.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
by elesias on Aug 11, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
worked as intended.
i’m just about out of gas on the matter. We can all agree that Rolston hasn’t lived up to expectations and we’d rather the salary elsewhere. I’d love to have Rolston for half price, but we can’t do that. It’s just infuriating to hear the same thing over and over by people who have either not read the dozen other instances it’s been brought up, or choose to ignore inconvenient things like 35+ contract status and no trade clauses.
That said, I hope he sticks around. I got a gut feeling that certain changes in staff and philosophy are going to have a very beneficial effect on Mr. Rolston’s career in NJ.
From the CBA, page 385:
Amounts of Salary and Bonuses earned in the League Year by a Player who is in the second or later year(s) of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the Player was aged 35 or older (as of June 30 of the League [Year?] in which the SPC become effective), regardless of whether, or where, the Player was playing, except to the extent the Player was playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in excess of $100,000 should be included in your Club’s Actual Club Salary.
The way I read it, there is a difference between “Actual Club Salary” and “Averaged Club Salary” (i.e. Salary Cap). On pages 189-190 it defines “Actual Club Salary” usage as:
Actual Club Salary is utilized to calculate the League-wide Player Compensation, as contrasted with Averaged Club Salary, set forth in Section 50.5(d)(i) below, which is utilized to determine a Club’s Payroll Room.
Payroll Room is sort of defined on page 198:
Any Club with an Averaged Club Salary that is less than the Upper Limit has available Payroll Room in the amount of the difference between the Averaged Club Salary and the Upper Limit.
Could it be that burying Rolston in the minors DOES take him off the cap, but his salary still is counted toward the League total? Is sending Rolston to Albany really a method to save his salary against the cap? If someone could re-review these items who understands them more than I, that would be great.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
It’s been discussed here before, and I’m fairly certain that if Rolston were sent to the Minors to bury salary, the Devils would only see a reduction of his Cap value by $100,000. Say $5M to $4.9M, I’d love to get you quotes from the CBA and/or actual numbers from CapGeek, but alas, both sites are blocked from this location.
Problem with that is that we have to fill the roster spot and the cheapest we could go is $500k. Netting us a 400k loss in cap space.
Rolston is an NHL Devil unless he’s willing to waive his NTC to be traded to another team that wants to pay him too much for what he’s so far provided.
both of these are not quite right
re: waiving and using the CBA language – i looked at that when the devils had to get rid of malakhov and mogilny. it’s not possible.
it’s still possible to re-entry waive rolston, i see absolutely no reason why that wouldn’t work. don’t quote me the relevant CBA passage on 35+, i can probably recite it from memory, it’s not written clearly, and doesn’t address trades. i see no reason why this would differ from a trade.
The only thing I see on Capgeek is a Buyout calculator that wont account for Rolston because he is 35+. A waiver calculator only provides for players that played less than 1000 games and not earlier than 2002. Where would you find this information Murdoc, although I am sure you are right, Rolston in the Minors is still costing New Jersey $4.9M in Cap space.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I meant just for his real salary.
The waiver thing is where I get confused. If he’s waived, can’t some other team pick him up for half price sticking us for the other half?
re-entry waivers
that’s when you send a veteran player down, then recall him to the NHL – he is exposed to re-entry waivers, and any team can get him for half-price. i think new jersey would go for that, new jersey can make much better use of that $2.5M than rolston at $5M.
Gottcha, so we could, theoretically, “eat” $2.5 in cap space to get $2.5 back. That doesn’t sound like a sound business decision considering there’s a roster spot to be filled, and at another 500k, we’re talking about 2M in cap space acquired. Not terrible I guess.
So…the only way we get back all $5M in cap space is a trade that doesn’t come with it’s own salary.
Maybe we’d jsut be better off hoping that Rolston picks it up a bit. :P
it is an exceptionally sound business decision if we translate production on the ice into dollar amounts. even if we cannot do that literally as is done in baseball, we can certainly ballpark it. rolston will never deliver $5M in value – he is turning 38, and his last two seasons have been slightly above average NHL seasons. at best he will probably deliver around $3M, so we’re still out $2M even in the best-case scenario.
Agreed, but someone still has to take him. And all this is predicated on waiving him, not just sending him to the Minors, right?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Good point sir, good point.
I suppose then that this would be a good reason for Mr Rolston to waive the NTC if he has a say in destination. At least in that case, he would be spared the waivers and could play somewhere he wanted, rather than just another team that wanted a slightly above average player at a slightly below average price.
Of course, it would cost the devils more, since the accepting team would have to take our Mr Rolston at full price.
All this off-season tells me is that I’m glad running a hockey team isn’t my job.
It isn’t different at all, it creates cap space one ought not to have.
Ultimately, what’s the difference between adding a few years to a contract at a lower pay rate to lower the overall cap hit and placing an NHL caliber player in the minors to remove his salary from counting against the cap?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Subjectivity … and therein lies the problem as far as Im concerned. Bloch interpreted the CBA, he did not follow the letter of it.
Subjectively, the Rangers can say Redden is an AHL’er, but we can all say the opposite. So who wins?
Maybe at least a percentage of the player’s Cap hit can count, much like buying out the player, but keeping him in the organization. You should not be absolved of an NHL’ers Cap Hit by dumping him in the Minors.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I agree. That’s why I find the outrage of some fans of other teams about how terrible and unethical tail-diving contracts are humorous when, three posts later, the same fan is begging his GM to bury a legitimate NHL player in the minors just because their contract interferes with the team’s ability to sign someone else.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
the CBA grants bloch that subjectivity.
elesias: the difference is A: waivers are supposed to ensure that players who are of NHL quality cannot be hidden in the minors and B: burying veteran contracts in the minors in general is not good for business. it costs money, and it costs free agent capital.
But, ultimately, they are both taking advantage of loopholes to free up cap space the team shouldn’t have.
I’m not talking about legitimate movement between the NHL and AHL, I’m talking about those albatross contracts like Redden or Souray that a GM can bury and no other GM in their right mind would pick up on the way down. On the way back up for half cost, perhaps, but the chances of their being called back up are pretty slim to begin with.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
that’s not a loophole that a team shouldn’t have. it was unquestionably discussed during collective bargaining and both sides agreed that players in the minor leagues don’t count towards the salary cap.
yes, i understand you’re going to throw back at me the fact that there’s no term limits on a contract. fine. see which one lasts through the next CBA negotiations.
It’s a function that’s abused.
Point being, signing a player to a deal, but then sending a legitimate NHL player down to play in the minors so the team can use that money differently is, ultimately, no different than signing a player to a rear-diving contract.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
sophistry. there is no intent to subvert the CBA in the former case. you can sign 50 players to one-way deals if you so choose. both parties signed the contract with the intent of completing it, and in all probability, they will complete the contract – the terms of the contract will be fulfilled. the back-diving contract, the terms of the contract will not be fulfilled, and both signatories know that on day 1.
Well, that the player will not complete it is the assumed intent, but that’s irrelevant here. The point is that years are tacked on to a contract at a lower pay rate to bring down the over-all cap hit, thus partially subverting the intent of the salary cap and freeing up space for the team to use otherwise.
Signing a player to a contract because you think he’s worth it, like say Wade Redden, but then finding that you’d rather spend the money elsewhere and so forcing an effective, if overpaid, player back into the minors to cover your own mistake is, at the least, unethical. If you want to argue that it isn’t circumvention, that’s fine, but my point remains… they’re both means to the same ends… abusing the CBA to free up cap space one shouldn’t have.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
it is absolutely totally ethical – i have little idea how anyone could regard it as anything else. the player is compensated for his services rendered.
the CBA doesn’t have a ‘loophole’ regarding contracts in the minor leagues, it’s not like someone overlooked that – it’s been in there since Day 1.
It’s ethical to force an NHL player who strove his whole live to play in the NHL to play in the minors just because the deal he signed, that the GM offered him, is in his way from signing someone else?
I disagree.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the waiver system is in place to allow teams a certain amount of freedom for player movement when injuries and under-performance invariably happens… not for burying contracts just because, in hindsight, they were bad deals.
Using it as such is as unethical as any other abuse of a system for personal (team) gain.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
If the deal gets passed over by 29 teams, absolutely. Sign a smaller contract and perhaps that wouldn’t happen. The larger your contract relative to your own performance, the more likely it is that you get bought out or sent to the minor leagues.
Triumph: You write well. You’re concise and succinct and get your point across. I’d like to hire you to work for my prestigious hockey magazine. Here’s a five year contract.
Two years later.
Triumph: You write well, but there’s someone else that writes well also that I’d like to hire and I think I can get him for a little cheaper. I made a mistake offering you as much as I did. I’m sorry, but I’m demoting you to write for my other magazine, Highlights.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
is he paying me the same amount of money? is he letting me shop my contract around to the 29 other hockey magazines around who can pick me up no questions asked?
or has my value as a writer (my capitalization skills are haphazard) declined to the point where no one will take my contract – that he signed me as one of the best and it turns out that i was not.
He signed you as a desirable commodity on the market at the time for too much and now the other 29 magazines won’t touch you because you make too much and you have no alternative but to forgo your dream of writing for that magazine and instead write for Highlights. And spend a lot more time on the road, away from your family.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
guess i should’ve gone for that no-movement clause instead of just trying to maximize my earnings. oh well, at least i still make more money than the majority of magazine writers.
players know the risk going into signing a long-term contract.
So it’s the players fault?
And, who said anything about a long-term contract?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
it certainly can be.
are you saying that any player who signs a one-way deal who is sent to the minors and passes through waivers has been subject to an unethical process?
Absolutely not. When I say “bury a contract” I’m referring to a player who is sent down for financial purposes.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
oh, right. even though there’s really no difference. you go look through all the one-way deals that have been sent down (mcgillis, mogilny, schaefer, preissing, finger, rissmiller are 6 that come to mind immediately), none of them have even been close to NHL average. huet was horrid last season, and he wasn’t good the year before. there’s also an expectation that the PLAYER live up to his end of the bargain by not sucking. you name me one instance of an NHL average player being sent to the minors in favor of another player.
I don’t know, Sheldon Souray? Ales Kotalik?
If my knowledge of every team’s comings and goings over the years isn’t complete, your point is proven?
GMs bury bad contracts in the minors. The phrase exists because it happens. Of course the players buried in the minors aren’t playing up to expectations, otherwise they wouldn’t want to send them to the minors, but it’s not the players fault that the GM went too far with the deal to “win” the player in free agency. In some cases (like Redden) there are signs that the player won’t live up to the contract, but GMs offer them anyway.
My problem isn’t that they’re being sent down because they’re under-performing, it’s because they’re sent down because the team wants their cap space but can’t trade them.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
souray was waived, he has yet to play any games in the minors. same with kotalik, and kotalik is well below NHL average.
souray has a no-trade clause – if he wants to play in the NHL, he probably could if he waived it to play anywhere. and souray isn’t being waived because his team has cap problems, he was waived in an attempt to save the team money by getting rid of his contract.
I think the difference between dropping a player to the minors
and the frontloaded contracts is a matter of intent. There is always the risk that a contract, front-loaded or not, won’t work out, and the player will become a liability.
In the case of Redden, they overpaid for a player at the time, and his decline in performance has made it into an even worse contract. I don’t think you should completely eliminate team’s abilities to rid themselves of a contract which in retrospect is bad for the team.
The problem with frontloaded contracts is the INTENT to enter into a contract which you know will be “bad” at some point, with the intention of either dropping the player to the minors or having them retire.
So, while I think waivers, buyouts, and dropping players to the minors, etc. are loopholes which allow teams to minimize contracts which turn out worse than expected, I don’t think they strictly constitute a circumvention of the cap. Teams and players should have some recourse for getting out of a bad situation.
At the ends of the spectrum you point out, no, placing a player in the Minors does not “strictly constitute a circumvention of the cap.” But because GMs/teams are able to do so, they have more of an incentive to sign these players to bigger or longer deals. The onus is on the player, and the player only, to perform.
Teams and players should have some recourse for getting out of a bad situation.
If the player had the ability to go to the team and state “Im ‘over-performing’ from what my contract pays me” and re-negotiate, then this issue would be negligible. But he cant, and as such, is stuck whether he over or under-performs. The teams meanwhile, can ‘bury’ him in the Minors at any time given he doesnt have an NMC. The power is strictly in the hands of the teams/owners.
‘Burying’ someone in the Minors to me, is not different from structuring a long-term, rear-diving deal.
Buyouts are different, the team is penalized, AND the player is then free to procure another NHL team. Being ‘buried’ in the Minors does not afford said player that opportunity.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I don’t know. I’m sure they hate the 35+ portion of his contract, but I truly think they believe he’s worth every penny.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
There is a scenario that no one brings up with Pronger:
Pronger decides he wants to retire, but keeping with a hand shake deal he has with the Flyers, he tells them but keeps it hush-hush. The Flyers then trade him to a team that will not be competitive for at least a few years and want to reach the cap floor with out actually spending the money. Pronger approves the trade and then promptly retires.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
That would be the ultimate in douche-baggery.
Just the sort of thing I’d expect from Pronger.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
It will not have to come to that
When the New CBA is agreed upon, there will be a brief period of time to buy out contracts without a cap penalty. This will be the end of Prongers +35 dilemma for the Flyers.
by Prometheus74 on Aug 11, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
You think? Is there precedent, like was there a period of time before that you could just buy out contracts without a penalty? That would be great for us to move Rolston, albeit he wouldnt have much time left.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I believe there was something similar when they introduced the salary cap, so that teams that were already over had an opportunity to reach compliance… but I don’t know that they’d just throw another opportunity like that out there with the new CBA unless the salary cap were to go down or something.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
He is going to “get injured” and go on LTIR for 2 years. We just got rid of Mike Rathje’s contract and he hasn’t played for us in forever.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 11, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Good luck with the “getting injured” part. The Devils had to go through a lengthy song-and-dance routine with the League to get one year of Alexander Mogilny off the books by way of LTIR, which included an independent, League-approved doctor in addition to the two doctors the Devils used to come up with the diagnosis. Now, I’m not saying the Flyers can’t use that particular clause to their benefit, but I imagine the League would have something to say (in addition to “no, this won’t work”) if the Flyers make the attempt without Pronger being legitimately injured. After this whole Kovalchuk mess, and given the current hue-and-cry about the other front-loaded contracts, I imagine the League will err on the side of rejecting an injury claim.
He just had knee surgery and will likely miss the start of the season, given how often hockey players have surgery after the season it really isn’t all that inconceivable for the guy to have legitimate issues that aren’t critical that he would normally push back get fixed. Especially for a 6’6 guy at his age.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 11, 2010 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve seen the same reports. There is quite a gulf between “knee surgery, will miss the start of next season” and “career-ending knee injury”.
When it came to Alexander Mogilny, it was a slightly longer process. First, he missed half of the last season prior to the lockout with an injury. Then he signed a two-year deal with NJ out of the lockout…. and missed half the first season with a hip injury. The Devils doctor and Mogilny’s doctor concurred that this was career-ending…. and the NHL still appointed their own medical expert to examine Mogilny and the available data before they agreed.
Once again, I’m not saying that it isn’t possible. Just that the NHL will be very thorough before they grant the Flyers a waiver under LTIR, all the more given the 35+ status of the contract and the current mood regarding these “retirement” contracts. I just don’t see it as too terribly likely at this moment in time. Ask me again in two or three years, and I might change my mind, but that depends on what happens between now and then.
This would never happen
It’d be a clear violation of Article 26.2 as an Undisclosed Agreement. Which is definitely (and clearly) circumvention in the CBA.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Aug 11, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
well geez i wonder why the devils didn’t get dinged for the very same thing in 2006 when they dealt vladimir malakhov to the sharks. this is a fact for the tinfoil hat crowd who thinks bettman is out to get the devils.
pronger doesn’t have to retire. all he has to do is not show up for training camp, like malakhov.
That wasn’t an undisclosed agreement; that was a dumping of a contract. The Devils did give up something of value in the trade: the 2007 first round pick, IIRC.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Aug 11, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Not worth it?
Does that mean you dont think Pronger is worth $5M per season or more?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
He was one of the top 4-5 defenseman in the NHL last year. Lids, Keith and Doughty were the only ones I thought were better. He was underpaid cap wise last year, although he made more than the 5 mil we said.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 11, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Although your list is shorter than mine, I have to concur. Cap-wise, Pronger could certainly be seen as deserving more, not less as ‘Nut’ suggested.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Regular season probably, Pronger has a unique ability to almost single handedly win a playoff series which is why I put him up there. It was refreshing to watch after seeing Scott Stevens do it against us my entire childhood haha.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 12, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, Scott Stevens had help terrorizing the Flyers from players like Scott Niedermayer, Martin Brodeur, Claude Lemieux, et. al.
True, but when yo look back at how good the top teams were then compared to now…. I don’t think his performance was any less dominant. Some of those Av and Red Wings teams would never lose a freakin’ game now with the way the Cap has made every team beatable.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 15, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Just another case of the league's strong arming tactics to get their way.
The line that was drawn yesterday by Bloch was clearly an arbitrary one. The Kovy contract was technically sound and it is this basis that Bloch’s decision should have been made. Bloch’s decision wasn’t established on the facts of the matter but on what HE thought was an attempt to circumvent. NOT THE CBA. It doesn’t matter how Bloch’s interpretation underlying his conclusion is explained, the integrity of his decision will always be questioned by NHL fans for years to come.
Also, the term “interpretation” is a dangerous one in the science of contracts because it gives license to an “anything goes” state of mind by the person making the decision while preventing any challenge to the resulting conclusion by opposing parties. Bloch’s decision will always remain questionable and if NHL players are smart, they will see this as a sign of whats to come when the new CBA is negotiated, and take precautions to protect themselves accordingly.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Aug 10, 2010 8:53 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
he is given the ability to determine what HE thinks based on the CBA and the intent clause contained within. this is old news.
Where does the line get drawn...
this is old news.
CAN be understood to mean what I stated above. We are in fact talking about it in a way so what is so “old news” about what I said?
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Aug 10, 2010 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
i don’t know where the line is – it’s remarkably unclear – but i do know this:
the league would very probably accept a 17 year deal with an equal cap hit for every season.
also, the league or arbitrator can’t just decide where the line is, that would be adding to the CBA without actually collectively bargaining it. i think the PA would have a bigger problem with that.
i’m hoping lou and ilya can work out a 14 year deal with a more gradual cap decrease.
The Line..
Better be clearly outlined in the next CBA and this rejection was unfair (the right thing to do but nevertheless unfair) solely because it wasn’t in the current CBA. As for guessing what it is now, that would be difficult considering the gap in the front-loadedness between a contract like Hossa’s and one like Kovy’s.
Go Devils!
Numbers don't lie, Martin Brodeur
agreed
Given how big of an issue this is, I think the next CBA will HAVE to outline this very clearly. And then, teams/agents will just work on finding NEW loopholes. :-)
by Passemoilapuck on Aug 11, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
OK - Let me rephrase my question
What should be the “line in the sand?” I agree the next CBA should outline it, but let’s discuss that aspect. Knowing what we know now, what’s the breaking point?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
I don’t think there is one clear line, at least not until the PA and the League hammer this out during the next work stoppage in two years. Putting my pro-Devils bias aside, I think this is a case of the League picking a battle it felt it had a good chance to win, and using that to establish at least a “no fly” zone. I imagine the League will be somewhat permissive between now and 2012, so long as teams stay within what has already been established as accepted (Luongo, Hossa, et al) and don’t try to push it similar to Kovalchuk.
I also believe a lot of this is posturing by the League ahead of those CBA talks. Language will certainly be far more specific in the next CBA as to contract lengths and the like, and where it lies will depend on relatively unrelated factors — for example, whether or not the Players can go to the 2014 Olympics in Russia.
What should be the "line in the sand?
Two answers to this one. One for the immediate present (first paragraph), and one for the long haul under the assumption that the CBA won’t dramatically re-write the rules by introducing such things as a franchise player clause or limits on number of years (second paragraph).
If it were up to me, and I were the League Office, I’d send out a memo that the “line” is at the Hossa and Luongo contracts, and not an inch further. Allow a tail that is no more than 4 years or one-third of the contract — whichever is less — and that said tail must be at minimum salaries of $1 million per season…. unless the contract is under 35+ provisions. Lengthy contracts (7+ years) cannot take a player past age 41 from here on out. Then I’d grandfather what has already passed but does not comply (Marc Savard’s in particular, given its low salary numbers the last two years) and make it clear that this particular barn door is closed. In the same memo, I’d advise teams that the next contract to be rejected for violating these rules will come with punitive sanctions under the CBA, in terms of a fine and cap penalty of $5 million…. just as an extra incentive for GMs not to take chances. The one thing I absolutely would not do is void any current contracts and allow teams to escape messes of their own making.
For the long haul, I’d take it further in one of a handful of directions. I’d be satisfied with a rule that the “tail” could not be more than 3 years or 25% of said contract’s length — whichever is less — at the same $1 million/season rule. Or I’d be satisfied with a rule that penalizes a team if players retire early under contracts above a certain length of time, save for legitimate career-ending injuries. Or I’d be satisfied with a change to the 35+ rule so it applies in some degree to these contracts (if not necessarily in full). Or I’d be satisfied with a rule that states how much front-loading will be permitted — i.e., a maximum percentage permitted before the “tail” is reached. I’d retain my suggestion about maximum age under contract from the last paragraph — deals above a certain length (7 years, from previous) cannot go past a certain player age (41, from previous).
What should be the "line in the sand?"
Ok then lol, I think the line should be the NHL’s discretion (lemme finish) and not clearly stated, so not to encourage contracts to get as close to the line without, if you will, going offside. Although this may anger some (me and the rest of the devils fans because we wanted this deal so bad), a solution, the player should make the same amount each year of his contract, or (for fans of locking up players long time and don’t think they will be worth as much to play at an older age) whatever his salary is that year should be the cap hit.
Go Devils!
Numbers don't lie, Martin Brodeur
John, I think it’d be incredibly easy. Make the cap hit their salary for that year. That is how every other league does it and we don’t have these problems.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 11, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The NBA has a cap softer than a baby’s bottom. Unless you’re a cheap owner, or your team is scrambling to make cap space for free agents on other clubs (without going the sign-and-trade route), it isn’t really a concern for a lot of teams. Most of them are over the cap to begin with.
The NFL has non-guaranteed contracts — if you don’t perform, you get the choice of a partial pay cut or a 100% pay cut. Either way, there isn’t too much lasting damage from making a bad signing, other than the acceleration of a salary cap hit from signing bonuses. The NFL also has a cap roughly double that of the NHL, with a handful of players on each team making massive money and a huge number crammed down at league minimums.
Not sure you can really compare the NHL to either one of them.
i like these, although i think i’d decrease the tail length and increase the minimum cap hit. tail is max 2 years and minimum salary is 1.5 M. i would also not care if deal is a 35+ deal, because those contracts will be easy to move if the salary cap keeps going up and the CBA is unchanged. the islanders would love to have chris pronger’s cap hit wasting space for them.
Ok, but what about if I wanted to give my loyal ‘plugger’ a long-term deal, while also minimizing his Cap Hit? I think forcing a team that gives a player a long-term contract to pay 3x the League minimum would be unfair. I like the max tail of 2 years, but at something like 200% of the minimum, depending on if the League minimum comes down (which I think it will to give teams even more flexibility).
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
it should probably be based on percentages (e.g. no year of the contract can be less than 25% of the cap hit number), but pluggers shouldn’t get these kinds of deals anyway because these deals are based on the belief that top players are still viable NHL players well into their late 30s and early 40s. ‘pluggers’ don’t have very far to decline to become not NHL players – the idea of predicting their careers 6 or 7 years ahead is far more uncertain.
20% for me, as noted below.
But to answer the other issue, I think I used a term that was misleading. I dont mean a ‘plugger’ like Grant Marshall or anything. I mean someone who has a lower talent ceiling, but still merits a long-term deal because of his versatility, reliability and value to the Franchise. Someone like Jamie Langenbrunner, for instance. He will never be a $6M player, but he should be a serviceable player into his late-30’s.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
to me, langenbrunner would be a terrible candidate. he’s one injury away from being a bottom 6 player. he could easily be out of the league in 2 years.
sigh. langenbrunner is one minor injury away from being a bottom 6 player. he played like garbage at the end of last season and speed has never been an asset that he’s possessed. he looked like he was washed up in 2007-08.
like i said, i think there’s a pretty significant chance that langenbrunner plays his last game in 2011-12.
Ok, take someone different since you do not like Langenbrunner as an example. To say, even someone like Modano. Say the scenario he is going thru now, came up 3 or 4 years ago. Im the (stable) Dallas owner, I know I want Modano on my team until he retires, but he is no longer a superstar, so he will not be getting superstar numbers. I offer him a 5-year deal with a structure of $5M, $4M, $4M, $750K, $750K, Cap Hit $2.9M. I only expect Modano to play three or maybe four of those years, so I try to lower my Cap hit. Could you not see this scenario playing out, in place of Langenbrunner?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Line should be...
No contract term, no matter the age of the player, should be longer than 8 years.
Keep the maximum value and 50% decrease limits in place.
‘Tails’ are to be calculated by a percentage of the Cap Hit and cannot be less than 20% of that Cap Hit.
However, change the potential bonus structure to allow for some end-of-year bonuses to not count against the Cap. This could introduce gray areas, so I would have those categories eligible for bonuses clearly laid out, and in order to get any other bonus structures instituted, Team and League would have to first agree. Bonuses for major awards (MVP, Conn Smythe, Norris, Vezina, etc) as well as leading categories (goals, points, etc) could be used to keep Cap hits lower while still placating the player and of course, motivating him to perform all the while. Total of bonuses plus salary still cannot exceed Max salary.
Finally, introduce a ‘Franchise’ player clause, whereas one player drafted (and/or developed) by a team can be excluded from the Cap. Each year, only one player can be ‘tagged’ and the player can be a repeat of the year previous. Each of the rest of the regular provisions (Max salary) would still have to be adhered to.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
20% is probably too low. On a $6M cap hit, that’s only 1.2. 30 or 40% is more likely to look like a “legitimate” deal.
I deal with the “appearance” issue on a regular basis given my current position. In my position, even if everything I’m doing is completely legit (I’m not even talking aobut loopholes here), it has to pass the “appearance” test. If it can be perceived by anyone, even the lowest common denominator (we use a third-grader as the standard), that my actions are unethical or not in public interest, it can’t happen. Post-ruling, we are at that point now with Player Contracts.
Taking the appearance test, the best I can figure is a 13year, $90M contract that pays no less than 4M a year for the last few, and about 1/3 of the contracts total value in the last 6 years. That will put him at 39 years old (a reasonable expectation), a salary that remains relatively close to the cap hit for the contract for the duration, and appears as though the expectation is that the Player finishes the contract. And in this revised contract structure, I most certainly would expect him to play it out, and renegotiate the “twilight of his career” after this contract ends when he’s 39.
That cap hit is about $7M. The rejected contract was 6. We’re talking about a difference of 4 years, 12 million dollars and 1M in salary cap relief for the contract duration. All we’ve done to make it an acceptible contract (I’m practically positive the 13/90 contract I’ve structured in other posts would be approved) was to remove the 4 questionable years at the end of the contract and tweak the dollar values around. If he’s able to play at 40 and beyond, we can deal with that then.
How do you build a contract now?
As far as I see it, the “line in the sand” is an illusion — an imaginary blue line that doesn’t exist except when the NHL decides to call offsides when they see fit. To me, the only fair thing is for annual salaries to be fixed based on the total salary divided by total years, getting rid of front-loading (and I’m sure Bettman would agree). But the CBA doesn’t disallow front-loading. But if you do it, you’re circumventing. Agh, my head hurts.
My problem with the decision is that because there IS no real line, how do you know what is good and what isn’t? Without having the NHL to “bless” any contract before it’s signed, how is Lou, or any team for that matter, supposed to create a contract that is acceptable? Do we want to go through the whole signing—announcement—rejection—arbitration cycle again … and again, and again until the NHL approves it? The NHL can easily say “We won’t dispute Pronger’s contract, but we won’t allow any more of them. Yes, each parameter is CBA-compliant, but the whole contract circumvents salary cap and we have that precedent now. If you don’t like it, waste your team-building time in a slew of arbitrations.” What a nightmare.
I believe the line in the sand, if there even is one, is 1. How old the player is when the contract ends and 2. how many of the league minimum/close to league minimum salary years are tacked on. Like it or not, even hardcore Kovy-supporters (like myself) could see that those 4 years at league minimum were a complete farce designed to lower the cap hit. 1 or 2 years, it gets a little foggy, but 4 is too much. Plus, as many have pointed out, when the contract ends is a problem, with apparently 43 being okay but not 44. This NEEDS to be addressed in the next cba, with either a limit on the years a contract will be signed or some clause saying that “long term contracts cannot end past the player’s late 30s (possibly 38?)” That way, there is a clear line in the sand, at least at length.
The first time I saw a front loaded contract, I was appalled; applying the appearance test, they are all circumvention. But then I saw it explained and couldn’t really argue with it. Player X is worth a lot now, but once he turns a certain age (maybe 35), he is worth less and less, until at some point he’s worth the league min. At that point, you have a marginal player, you’re paying very little, but you have a huge cap hit. Of course, smart GMs put in an out to get away from this situation.
So where’s the line, if we want to be “reasonable”, you modify the 35+ rule as mentioned in other posts, so that all contacts that extend past a players 35th birthday do not allow the cap hit to be eliminated by waiving or demoting a player. At that point, the length of a contract or the tail do not really matter (as long as the tail has a reasonable chance of being at or above the min player salary).
Problem with that, as I see it, is that it would just encourage teams to sign players to similar cap-friendly deals that run until the players turn 34… and would probably lead to a greater number of viable careers ending at age 34.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
You can make, as a solution, the player’s salary equal to the Cap hit for that season. So when Kovalchuk is making $11.5M, his Cap hit would be $11.5M. This of course, benefits the Owners, and hurts the players. You’d see lots of low-balling and players changing teams more often I think. And that should never be the goal.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
this doesn't exactly benefit owners
A cap hit of $11.5MM in a year a player makes $11.5MM will inevitably hurt the team from keeping (or signing) more players.
Except that the real point of these deals is that the person never plays the whole contract. Bloch mentions this in how it’s in both the player and the teams best interest that they retire before the contract is up and that is why it’s circumvention. Money will be paid to the player that never is shown on the teams salary cap. It’s the same reason why I think they would have a hard time challenging Prongers deal. They are moving the money around to later years but never eliminating it.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
NJHockey8, I still don't think you addressed the final age limit.
Teams will still try to push the envelope if that is the rule. Since you did not address the total length of the contract, what’s to stop a team from creating a 20 year deal at age 23 (that extends past age 35 as you say) and creates a low enough cap hit?
Would the NHL need to say, "No contracts made before the player is 35 may extend past his 40th birthday and at that point a new contract shall be necessary if the player is in demand and able to play.? And apply some type of more involved year-year salary tapering rule?
I’m assuming that the player receiving the contract is worth the salary and the yearly salary is fairly high prior to the player turning 35. Seems like for all these contracts in question, the player is 38 or so before the big drops occur in the yearly compensation. Of course we all know what happens when you make assumptions.
A summary of comments
I feel like this would work better than individually replying.
1. No, the “artificial” lowering of the cap number isn’t the issue. Bloch’s decision was quite clear (at least to me, hence my quote in this very post). The structure of the deal along with the length and the usage of trade clauses all summed up ( to his conclusion that Kovalchuk won’t play out the end of the deal. The circumvention is that the deal gives the Devils an easy out, a painless way to lose the cap hit on the books. Whether or not the deal would cost $6 million or $7 million or whatever isn’t the issue.
That’s also why Pronger’s under review. If it was simple as “The Flyers are stuck with the cap hit” then there wouldn’t be an investigation. But there is.
2. Let me re-iterate that none of these deals should have been rejected or investigated in my opinion; but again, my opinion is based on the assumption that if something isn’t written in the rules, then it doesn’t exist. An assumption proved false by this hearing.
3. Changing the rules of the CBA may settle the long term issue, but it doesn’t set a line in the sand right now. That’s what I’m asking.
4. We now have a clue as to what is allowed. Vincent Lecavalier’s contract extension is not an issue to the league, per this report by Damian Cristodero of Tampa Bay.com. (Hat-tip: Puck Daddy)
In other words, the NHL has no problem with a contract that is 11 years long, pays out $85 million in total, pays out $82.5 million in the first 9 years of that deal (or 97% of the total), and has a NMC seemingly all the way through per CapGeek’s entry.
Of course, Lecavalier’s extension kicked in for last season and paid out the first $10 million, so there’s only $75 left for the next 10 years (and 96.6% of that will be paid out in the next 8 years). I’m sure that has something to do with it. That said, I now think the line in the sand is somewhere between the Lecavalier contract and the Kovalchuk contract. But where?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
4. We now have a clue as to what is allowed. Vincent Lecavalier’s contract extension is not an issue to the league, per this report by Damian Cristodero of Tampa Bay.com. (Hat-tip: Puck Daddy)
In other words, the NHL has no problem with a contract that is 11 years long, pays out $85 million in total, pays out $82.5 million in the first 9 years of that deal (or 97% of the total), and has a NMC seemingly all the way through per CapGeek’s entry.
Of course, Lecavalier’s extension kicked in for last season and paid out the first $10 million, so there’s only $75 left for the next 10 years (and 96.6% of that will be paid out in the next 8 years). I’m sure that has something to do with it. That said, I now think the line in the sand is somewhere between the Lecavalier contract and the Kovalchuk contract. But where?
Which begs the question: Do you think the Devils will restructure the Kovalchuk deal to look more like the Lecavalier deal in order for it to pass muster by the NHL brass?
Can you guys afford to do that? Vinny has a huge cap hit..
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 11, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Lecavalier’s cap hit is about $ 7.72 million. I have no idea if the Devils can afford that. They’d certainly have to shed at least two roster players just to fit Kovalchuk in under the cap. But everything up onto this point has led me to believe that the Kovalchuk deal is something that ownership wants to see happen and they’ve given management (i.e. Lou) carte blanche to do whatever it is he needs to do to make it happen, including risk a run-in with Gary Bettman et. al. So if Kovalchuk as a Devil does indeed happen it will most likely come at the death knell for some current Devils.
We’d have to lose Rolston and White for that to happen. They both have NTC’s too.
Mathew Barnaby to Lyle Odelein: "Cornelius, as we like to call him, gets under your skin. Planet of the Apes. Look at him. Seriously. He looks like Cornelious."
Odelein to Barnaby: "He should take a look at his wife. She's God-awful to look at."
by RolliePollieKovy on Aug 11, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The Devils currently have just under $3.7 million in cap space. Salvador and Zubrus combined make $6.3 million…. so that would give you $10 million for Kovalchuk and four other players to fill a roster out to 23. I still consider moving Rolston and/or White to be in the realm of fantasy, when one considers their value (not good, especially for their pay grade) and their NTCs.
My opinion all along has been that the Devils can make Kovalchuk fit at a number close to $8 million, but that it will be very difficult, and might necessitate that the higher-salaried “kids” (Tedenby, Josefson, et al) would be sent to the Minors while the Devils filled out the roster with guys like Fraser or budget veterans making the league minimum. It might not be pretty at that stage…. but the Devils could always simply ride the top two lines at 20 minutes a night apiece the way many teams with two clearly superior lines do. Then, the third and fourth lines decline in importance, and it isn’t quite so bad if they’re filled out with more marginal players.
Lecavalier
Vinny’s contract structure is below. What happened to the 50% decrease rule, am I missing something?
SEASON AHL SALARY NHL SALARY P. BONUSES S. BONUS CAP HIT
2009-2010 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2010-2011 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2011-2012 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2012-2013 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2013-2014 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2014-2015 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2015-2016 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2016-2017 $8,500,000 $8,500,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2017-2018 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2018-2019 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
2019-2020 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 — NO DATA $7,727,273
KNOWN CLAUSES: NMC
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
The 50% rule is based on the first two years of the deal, IIRC, so that means as long as the year-to-year decrease is less than $5 million per year.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Aug 12, 2010 12:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So then why would Kovalchuk’s contract be structured to give him $6M the first two years, then jump to Max money? I thought the purpose of that was so the offer could be $3M later on in the contract.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
That could have been purely a financial decision. A number of big contracts come off the books and therefore out of the budget in the next two years. Maybe Vanderbeek didn’t want to spend 11.5M on top of everything else the next two seasons, but saw 6M as palatable.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The only big difference between Kovalchuk’s and Lecavalier’s is that Lecavalier’s got a NMC all the way through the deal. OK, Kovalchuk’s tail is longer and the deal is longer; but given that Bloch ruled that all three aspects (contract length, contract breakdown, and the NMC becoming a NTC late in the deal) combined led to his conclusion of circumvention; just slapping a NMC for 17 years on this just-rejected deal may be enough to make it compliant.
Whether or not that is a smart idea is another question entirely. (for what it’s worth, I don’t think it is good to bind a guy for 17 years to not move him at all.)
If the Devils just copy the Lecavalier contract, well, that just puts them deeper over the cap than the original deal would have. So, they’d have to dump salary anyway – just more of it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Aug 11, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
take from Cristodero. Im confused as to how Vinny’s structure is much different than any other of the questionable contracts. There will be seasons where he is making some $6M less than his Cap Hit, Kovy’s is $5.5M difference at most. Vinny has a drop-off of $9M from one end of his deal to the other, Ilya has $11. Are they truly that different? The only real difference I see is the age at the end. Seems more and more to me that people’s opinions are swayed as much by the player’s performance (as noted by Cristodero in the article “the salary cap hit would have been $6 million, a bargain”) as to the actual contract. Vinny was terrible last year, so sucks for TB that they are ‘saddled’ with the contract as opposed to the ‘bargain’ the Devils would be receiving with Kovalchuk.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
the difference is that tampa is not at the salary cap or even close to it. hard to be circumventing the salary cap in that case.
One doesn’t have to be up against the cap ceiling to circumvent the intent of the rule.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Agreed – because it is not just about the current season. A team could very well not be up against the cap right now, but what about 2 years from now?
Where a team stands against a cap at the time they submit the contract should have absolutely nothing to do with whether the contract circumvents the cap.
by Devilssection21fan on Aug 12, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Aren't the Devils really waiting on Bill Daly
Apolgoies if I missed it in the above, but given
Doesn’t the League, and specifically Bill Daly have a responsibility to follow up this ruling (the “Legislation” so to speak) with the Specifics on exactly would be considered compliant?
If I were a GM, and nothing further was issued by the League I would be totally PO’d. What are the GMs supposed to do, live with “we wont tell you exactly what is illegal in advance, but we will know a bad contract when we see it”.
by Devilssection21fan on Aug 12, 2010 2:23 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- The Chicago Blackhawks’ losing streak is bad for everybody
- According to NHL, here’s why Dominic Moore escaped suspension for Fedotenko hit
- How Mats Sundin’s no-trade clause controversy made fans reconsider loyalty in NHL
- Nordiques Nation invades Hockey Day in Canada
- Youth hockey coach, parents clash over alleged tirade over 9-year old’s 200th goal puck
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
