• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
wings87

Loophole

Rate this topic

83 posts in this topic

I really hope the NHL closes the loophole which allows teams to give ridiculously long contracts, such as Kovalchuk's 17 year deal, to save cap space.

Instead of averaging the yearly salary, the cap hit should be whatever the player makes that year. These contracs are getting ridiculous, and that includes Franzens 11 year deal.

Anyway thoes are my thoughts, What do you guys think would you like the NHL to step in and put a stop to the madness.

Edited by wings87
dragonballgtz, lookalive07 and Ram like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mind deals around 10 years but when they start getting around 20 and take players to their mid 40s ....yeah its getting out of hand.

Edited by Original-Six

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the NHL disapprove Kovalchuks contract...

I might actually weep from joy if that happens.

Edited by wings87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I don't have a problem with Kovalchuk's contract.

Yes, it's ridiculously long, and no, he probably won't play to the end of it. But it fits within league contract rules, and Ilya is really the first player on the UFA market to have multiple suitors for such a deal. Hossa didn't have multiple teams offering him long-term deals like the one Chicago did.

Perhaps restraining long term contracts to rules such as "ten years or less" or ruling that if a player retires with 5 or more years remaining on his contract after he has passed the age of 30, his cap hit will remain. The second statement would of course have an injury provision.

But I don't see a "need" to stop these deals. Yeah, maybe it reduces some of the excitement on July 1st. But think of it this way. Teams will retain star players. Fans will get to know the team's stars. NHL markets with fans who say "who?" when you name half the team because there is so much turnover on the roster will have teams with identifiable players who the fans know and love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope the NHL closes the loophole which allows teams to give ridiculously long contracts, such as Kovalchuk's 17 year deal, to save cap space.

Instead of averaging the yearly salary, the cap hit should be whatever the player makes that year. These contracs are getting ridiculous, and that includes Franzens 11 year deal.

Anyway thoes are my thoughts, What do you guys think would you like the NHL to step in and put a stop to the madness.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the NHL disapprove Kovalchuks contract...

Its too late for them to do that IMO. They let everyone else have their long contract's and some with a history of getting injured. If they try to do something about his contract then they would have to do something about every one of these 10+ year contracts.

T.Low, ElCapitan and newfy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its too late for them to do that IMO. They let everyone else have their long contract's and some with a history of getting injured. If they try to do something about his contract then they would have to do something about every one of these 10+ year contracts.

The years doesn't bother me as much as the age at the end of the contract. Kovy will be 44 when this contract runs out. If this is allowed, will teams eventually move to signing players until they're 50+ in order to get a low cap-hit? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

Jasper84 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I don't have a problem with Kovalchuk's contract.

Yes, it's ridiculously long, and no, he probably won't play to the end of it. But it fits within league contract rules, and Ilya is really the first player on the UFA market to have multiple suitors for such a deal. Hossa didn't have multiple teams offering him long-term deals like the one Chicago did.

Perhaps restraining long term contracts to rules such as "ten years or less" or ruling that if a player retires with 5 or more years remaining on his contract after he has passed the age of 30, his cap hit will remain. The second statement would of course have an injury provision.

But I don't see a "need" to stop these deals. Yeah, maybe it reduces some of the excitement on July 1st. But think of it this way. Teams will retain star players. Fans will get to know the team's stars. NHL markets with fans who say "who?" when you name half the team because there is so much turnover on the roster will have teams with identifiable players who the fans know and love.

I don't care if its a 20 year deal as long as the cap hit is not averaged out, but instead what that player makes each year.

Spoken like a true socialist.

No, socialism is what we have now with the cap and parody in the league.

Edited by wings87
ElCapitan and Hockeymom1960 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be some provision for these long contracts, like 'after the age of 38 if the player retires 2/3rds of the contract average cap hit still applies' So if teams sign a player for a 20 year 100 million dollar contract they will be on the hook for it because even the player is in his low 20s its still putting him in his 40s and every team knows they don't want to pay a guy in his 40s that much money... Its a great idea to soften a cap hit for high end talent, and if its not ridiculous it shouldn't be an issue, but anything after 40 is getting to that point in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the NHL is stuck with this "loophole" until the next CBA at the earliest. The current CBA doesn't expire until the end of the 2011-2012 season, so like it or not, it's the way of life for at least the next two seasons.

IMO, I don't have a problem with the uber-length contracts. If it works as intended, then it's a great signing by the team's GM. If it backfires, they're the ones that have to live with it.

And, for the record, I would be absolutely SHOCKED if the next CBA switches to the cap hit being a player's salary that particular year. I highly doubt that either the PA or the owners want that kind of setup, as neither side has anything to gain from it.

T.Low likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the NHL is stuck with this "loophole" until the next CBA at the earliest. The current CBA doesn't expire until the end of the 2011-2012 season, so like it or not, it's the way of life for at least the next two seasons.

IMO, I don't have a problem with the uber-length contracts. If it works as intended, then it's a great signing by the team's GM. If it backfires, they're the ones that have to live with it.

And, for the record, I would be absolutely SHOCKED if the next CBA switches to the cap hit being a player's salary that particular year. I highly doubt that either the PA or the owners want that kind of setup, as neither side has anything to gain from it.

Or in the case of an injury prone Franzen we might be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in the case of an injury prone Franzen we might be

You do realize that if a player is injured long term, that we get cap relief to be able to make adjustments, right? The details are a bit tricky (Doggy knows the details better than I), but the long and short of it is that if we lose a player long term ( > 10 games or 14 days), we will be able to go over the cap up to that player's salary while they're out.

Granted if we lose him mid season the choice of free agents would be bleak, but we could make roster moves (i.e. trades or waiver pick ups) to help fill the gap.

Not to mention the fact that if Franzen decides to retire, we won't be on the hook for his cap hit since he signed the contract before age 35. So if Franzen misses half a year again, we'll have some cap room to work with. And if (God forbid) he is forced to retire due to injury, we'll have that much cap space again for another free agent.

There's inherent risk in any NHL contract. Too short, and you could end up in the same boat we were in with Hossa after '09. Too long, and you could end up like the Isles with DiPietro. Somewhere in the middle, and you have to worry about renegotiating with them again in a few years and worrying about how big a raise you have to give him in order to keep him.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with this at all. Detroit utilized it with two of their players. I don't see why people would be bothered by this when Holland's done it as well.

T.Low likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if it's a loop hole? The team is still taking a gamble. What if Kovy wants to play till he's 44 to get every dollar but he sucks after he's 37, he's eating up a lot of cap space at that point. Stop being so bitter, it's NJ's problem not ours.

T.Low and Konnan511 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that if a player is injured long term, that we get cap relief to be able to make adjustments, right? The details are a bit tricky (Doggy knows the details better than I), but the long and short of it is that if we lose a player long term ( > 10 games or 14 days), we will be able to go over the cap up to that player's salary while they're out.

Granted if we lose him mid season the choice of free agents would be bleak, but we could make roster moves (i.e. trades or waiver pick ups) to help fill the gap.

Not to mention the fact that if Franzen decides to retire, we won't be on the hook for his cap hit since he signed the contract before age 35. So if Franzen misses half a year again, we'll have some cap room to work with. And if (God forbid) he is forced to retire due to injury, we'll have that much cap space again for another free agent.

There's inherent risk in any NHL contract. Too short, and you could end up in the same boat we were in with Hossa after '09. Too long, and you could end up like the Isles with DiPietro. Somewhere in the middle, and you have to worry about renegotiating with them again in a few years and worrying about how big a raise you have to give him in order to keep him.

The problem might arise when he is older and not as good but doesn't want to retire. Obviously thats the worst case scenario, but with a deal that long its a problem you might run into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if it's a loop hole? The team is still taking a gamble. What if Kovy wants to play till he's 44 to get every dollar but he sucks after he's 37, he's eating up a lot of cap space at that point. Stop being so bitter, it's NJ's problem not ours.

The wings were never in on Kovay so why would I be bitter. My problem is with the CBA and how contracts are allowed to be structured, and how the cap can be manipulated.

There shouldn't even be a cap, but if your going to have one it might as well have some teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its too late for them to do that IMO. They let everyone else have their long contract's and some with a history of getting injured. If they try to do something about his contract then they would have to do something about every one of these 10+ year contracts.

Not really. The league can reject (or nullify at a later time, even if the deal is initially approved) any contract deemed to be a circumvention of the cap. But there isn't any specific definition of what constitutes circumvention. There is this, Section 26.13 (b) from the CBA:

The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on

direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or

any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct

prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant

to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator

under this Section 26.13.

That would seem to provide all the latitude necessary for the league to decide that a 17-year deal for a player who would be 44 at its conclusion can not be explained reasonably without considering it an attempt to avoid the Upper Limit, and/or an unwritten agreement (both of which are specifically prohibited). A line has to be drawn somewhere. Exactly where is somewhat arbitrary. Could be length of the deal, degree of front-loading, age of the player, etc.

There's nothing that specifically prevents 50 or 60 year deals either, but I think we'd all agree that offering a player a contract until they're 84 would be a clear case of circumvention. 84 is just an arbitrary number, there isn't any absolute guarantee that Kovy couldn't play that long. In all the history of the NHL there have been only 7 fewer 84 year-olds as there have been 44 year-olds. Pretty small difference, relatively speaking. No matter where the arbitrary number is (if age was the factor) there would be a line where age X is ok, but age X+1 isn't. They could easily, just for the sake of simplicity, say 43 is far enough.

I don't have a problem with this at all. Detroit utilized it with two of their players. I don't see why people would be bothered by this when Holland's done it as well.

It's a matter of degrees. See my 50-60 year example above. Also look at the effect of the 'garbage' years. All three deal are structured similar. Front loaded to pay out over 95% of the salary in the first 11, 10, and 9 years respectively for Kovy, Hank, and Mule. Coincidentally, that is when all three players turn 38. After that, all three see their salary drop to $1 million or less.

For Franzen and Zetterberg, each has two years at $1M, reducing their cap hits by around $650k for Frazen, and slightly over $1M for Hank. Kovy has 6 years paying a total of $3.5M, reducing his cap hit by nearly $3 million!

That said, I wouldn't really care if they did nullify our deal, provided we get a period of exclusivity in which to renegotiate. If it meant stopping the nonsense I'd be ok with it. If they let this one go, what are they going to do next year when Parise gets the 22 year deal NJ would need in order to afford him.

Who cares if it's a loop hole? The team is still taking a gamble. What if Kovy wants to play till he's 44 to get every dollar but he sucks after he's 37, he's eating up a lot of cap space at that point. Stop being so bitter, it's NJ's problem not ours.

There's really not that much risk. If he starts to suck, NJ could just send him to the minors. He'd already have 95% of the salary, so he probably wouldn't care and would just go to Russia anyway, but even if he didn't NJ is still off the hook for the cap hit.

dobbles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with these long term deals, like eva said players will be staying with teams longer, which is better for the fans.

I like that Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen will be Red Wings for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that so many have a problem with this contract but thought it was a wonderful creative way to sign "our" players. "Holland was a genius", and "Hank really gave us a discount with that 6M cap hit" when in fact Hank is making over 7Million per year for 9 years. It was a unique way to manipulate the cap and a smart move on Holland's part but Zetterberg did not, in my opinion give the Wings any discount because he will never fulfill the final 2 yaers and possibly even the 3.5M year.

T.Low likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap sucks anyways. Teams like ours that do their jobs to rake in the money get punished just for being a well-run organization.

Lets rephrase this and say it the way it is, the cap is Bettmans way of saying I f'd up and never should have put teams in the desert, Florida, Carolina and that his marketing team sucks!!!

T.Low likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should make it so if you sign a player past age 40, his cap hit stays until the deal is over.

As was discussed in the Kovalchuk thread, I think Z and D for the C hit the nail right on the head for the solution...

This way, a team can sign ITS players for LONG term (if you want to sign a 20 year old to a 20 year deal, knock yourself out) but generally speaking, free agents will be limited to 13 or so year terms at most...

T.Low likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the NHL disapprove Kovalchuks contract...

It won't happen. I seriously doubt we'll see any closing of the loophole before 2012, when a certain someone's contract is up.

Who cares if it's a loop hole? The team is still taking a gamble. What if Kovy wants to play till he's 44 to get every dollar but he sucks after he's 37, he's eating up a lot of cap space at that point. Stop being so bitter, it's NJ's problem not ours.

And I find that absolutely hilarious. At least, I suppose, they're addressing their scoring problem (even though it doesn't seem like Kovalchuk fits well into the Devils' system) knowing that they can't rely on Brodeur to steal games for them any longer. His postseasons have been garbage for the past three years, it's only a matter of time before his regular seasons follow suit. I'm just curious who they're going to have to dump now to get under the cap and if they'll be able to avoid Parise leaving when his contract's up. Lou seems to have issues with the cap, that's for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0