Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Loophole


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,911 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 06:28 AM

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.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#22 Guest_screwdahawks (Guest)

Guest_screwdahawks (Guest)
  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2010 - 06:39 AM

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.

#23 DEVILSWATERBOY

DEVILSWATERBOY

    DEVILSWATERBOY

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:19 AM

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!!!

#24 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:32 AM

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...

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#25 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:04 AM

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.

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!


#26 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:11 AM

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.



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.

If I was the NHL, I'd have no problem disapproving this deal. I think it is a clear circumvention of the cap. All the other long term deals at least ended no later than a player being 40 years old (I think). How can you justify a contract that has very, very close to a 0% chance of being completely fulfilled, especially with $98.5M of the $102M contract being paid out after the first 11 years of the 17 year deal. I'm not a fan of the contracts bringing guys to 40 either since the average player retires way before then, but at least with 40, you can point to several examples of players that have played to that age. At 44, other than Chelios, I can't think of any of the top of my head that have played to that age in the last 30 years.

#27 NeverForgetMac25

NeverForgetMac25

    Kate: Jr. Wing Nut

  • Gold Booster Mod
  • 18,184 posts
  • Location:Green Bay, WI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:23 AM

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.



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.

I know you're thinking of Crosby and just as an FYI, his deal doesn't expire until 2013.
It's amazing how much clarity comes when you care more about the Red Wings than any individual player.


"They are the best team in the world. They are a team that can just take over when they want to," Chicago's Patrick Kane said (of the Detroit Red Wings).

#28 grwingfan

grwingfan

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 190 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:23 AM

If the NHL tries to stop these long term deals we will see more players go to the KHL where they can get the $100m contracts. The NHL is stuck with these type of contracts as long as we have a salary cap.

#29 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:31 AM

I know you're thinking of Crosby and just as an FYI, his deal doesn't expire until 2013.

Why would he be thinking about Crosby? What does his contract have to do with any of this? I thought he must be thinking of Bettman, but who knows.

#30 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:43 AM

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.

The already solved the Brodeur issue, by getting a backup that doesn't require Brodeur to play 70 games... if they keep Brodeur around 50 games in the regular season, he can be just as dominant in the playoffs as he had, even at his age...

like I said in the Kovy thread, if NJ adjusts their system a little, he could fit in there VERY well with talented forwards like Parise and Langenbruner, they just need to let them run and gun a little more...

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#31 NeverForgetMac25

NeverForgetMac25

    Kate: Jr. Wing Nut

  • Gold Booster Mod
  • 18,184 posts
  • Location:Green Bay, WI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:45 AM

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...

On top of that, another way you could curb deals like this would be to reduce the maximum drop percentage. Allowing player contracts to only drop say 10% from the previous season's salary would have a profound effect on these types of deals as well.

If this were the case Kovie's deal would look like this as it starts to tail off:

2016/2017: $11.50 million
2017/2018: $10.35 million
2018/2019: $9.32 million
2019/2020: $8.38 million
2020/2021: $7.54 million
2021/2022: $6.79 million
2022/2023: $5.50 million
2023/2024: $4.95 million
2024/2025: $4.56 million
2025/2026: $4.01 million
2026/2027: $3.61 million

Money left on the table if Kovie retires after 2020/2021 season:
10% Drop Rule: $29.42 million
Current Deal: $3.5 million

On top of that, shorter term deals than Kovie's would be far more dramatic!

Why would he be thinking about Crosby? What does his contract have to do with any of this? I thought he must be thinking of Bettman, but who knows.

edi thinks about Crosby....alot. He, as well as plenty of others around here feel the league caters toward him.

No offense whatsoever, edi. :D
It's amazing how much clarity comes when you care more about the Red Wings than any individual player.


"They are the best team in the world. They are a team that can just take over when they want to," Chicago's Patrick Kane said (of the Detroit Red Wings).

#32 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:57 AM

Why would he be thinking about Crosby? What does his contract have to do with any of this? I thought he must be thinking of Bettman, but who knows.


Nope, Mac was right. :lol: And I forgot that Crosby's five-year was an extension with one year left on his current one. Good catch, Mac.

And my point was that Bettman wouldn't be in favor of closing the loophole until Crosby gets his ridiculous 25-year deal with an insanely low cap hit. :P

edi thinks about Crosby....alot. He, as well as plenty of others around here feel the league caters toward him.

No offense whatsoever, edi. :D


None taken. I admit that my hatred goes overboard. :lol:

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!


#33 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:04 AM

On top of that, another way you could curb deals like this would be to reduce the maximum drop percentage. Allowing player contracts to only drop say 10% from the previous season's salary would have a profound effect on these types of deals as well.

If this were the case Kovie's deal would look like this as it starts to tail off:

2016/2017: $11.50 million
2017/2018: $10.35 million
2018/2019: $9.32 million
2019/2020: $8.38 million
2020/2021: $7.54 million
2021/2022: $6.79 million
2022/2023: $5.50 million
2023/2024: $4.95 million
2024/2025: $4.56 million
2025/2026: $4.01 million
2026/2027: $3.61 million

Money left on the table if Kovie retires after 2020/2021 season:
10% Drop Rule: $29.42 million
Current Deal: $3.5 million

I like this one a lot too - possibly combine the 2 rules and we could be golden...

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#34 puffy

puffy

    Slightly Insane

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:25 AM

I doubt the league does anything. Sure this deal is crazy, but so was the DiPietro deal. Signing an average injury prone goalie for 15 years isn't any better.

#35 dragonballgtz

dragonballgtz

    Yu-Gi-HOE

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:50 AM

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:



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.



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.



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.

I still think they have no merit to stop this one. They let all those other I'm gonna play till 40+ year old deals be signed then there is nothing they can do. Some had injury history (Franzen) some play a hard game that will take its toll on the players body (Pronger). If they wanted to stop this they should of stepped up when DiPietro's deal was signed. It does not matter what happens to the last years in any of those contracts they are made to take advantage of the loophole in the CBA plain and simple. They failed to act and stop these contracts in the past so they cannot and should not be able to do it now.

Edited by dragonballgtz, 20 July 2010 - 09:52 AM.


#36 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,421 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:03 AM

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.

But there is also the possibility Kovy 'retires' at 35 and signs a 10m/year contract with the KHL to finish his career there. In this scenario the Devils would never see the downside of this contract. This doesn't seem unlikely considering the rumors that he was going to the KHL this year.

#37 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:15 AM

I doubt the league does anything. Sure this deal is crazy, but so was the DiPietro deal. Signing an average injury prone goalie for 15 years isn't any better.


He wasn't injury prone when he signed the deal.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#38 NeverForgetMac25

NeverForgetMac25

    Kate: Jr. Wing Nut

  • Gold Booster Mod
  • 18,184 posts
  • Location:Green Bay, WI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:19 AM

I still think they have no merit to stop this one. They let all those other I'm gonna play till 40+ year old deals be signed then there is nothing they can do. Some had injury history (Franzen) some play a hard game that will take its toll on the players body (Pronger). If they wanted to stop this they should of stepped up when DiPietro's deal was signed. It does not matter what happens to the last years in any of those contracts they are made to take advantage of the loophole in the CBA plain and simple. They failed to act and stop these contracts in the past so they cannot and should not be able to do it now.

Pronger's deal is a 35+ contract. The Flyers brass F'ed up and his cap hit will count against Philly until the expiration of his contract (unless they play the whole "injury-related" retirement scheme). As for DiPietro, his contract is 100% balanced from beginning to end, so neither his nor Pronger's are valid examples. Also, the tail-end of Franzen's contract really isn't that unreasonable. It's alot better than Zetterberg's, which is also way better than Hossa's and now Kovalchuk's.
It's amazing how much clarity comes when you care more about the Red Wings than any individual player.


"They are the best team in the world. They are a team that can just take over when they want to," Chicago's Patrick Kane said (of the Detroit Red Wings).

#39 Doggy

Doggy

    Meanwhile...

  • HoF Booster
  • 4,343 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:30 AM

It's understandable that people would compare Kovalchuk's contract to Zetterberg's, but NJ has circumvented the cap more obviously than Detroit has. Below are the cap advantages of each players retirement by age at the beginning of the season (beginning at 35):

Zetterberg
35 2015-2016 $1,509,524
36 2016-2017 $1,497,917
37 2017-2018 $1,433,334
38 2018-2019 $1,016,667
39 2019-2020 $462,122
40 2020-2021 $0

Kovalchuk
35 2018-2019 $3,833,333
36 2019-2020 $3,500,000
37 2020-2021 $2,954,545
38 2021-2022 $2,270,833
39 2022-2023 $1,676,923
40 2023-2024 $1,167,857
41 2024-2025 $726,667
42 2025-2026 $340,625
43 2026-2027 $0

Choose whichever year you think they're most likely to retire. IMO, while both could be called circumvention, the gap between the two is large enough that Lamoriello's could be considered illegal while Holland's not.

Edit: I don't necessarily think it will or should be rejected, but I do think a line needs to be drawn. This is getting very close to crossing it.

Edited by Doggy, 20 July 2010 - 10:36 AM.

Rough as guts.

#40 puffy

puffy

    Slightly Insane

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:40 AM

He wasn't injury prone when he signed the deal.


True, but he was still just an average goalie at best. Even if he manages to stay healthy for the remainder of his contract it could still turn out to be a huge bust. He has never really lived up to the hype.





Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users