Answers for CBA circumvention

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from captainbergeron. Show captainbergeron's posts

    Answers for CBA circumvention

    It's clear that the NHL's problem with Kovalchuk's contract as well as Savard's, Hossa's, Pronger's, and Luongo's are the extra seasons tagged on at the end with the league minimum. If the league insists on voiding all of the above for "circumvention of the CBA", which I doubt they will, the Bruins could resubmit Savard's contract with the last 2 season say at $1M instead of the league minimum. Overall it would only raise his CAP hit by $135,714.

    No big deal, unless you're one of the few people who want Savard's contract voided as an easy way under the CAP and don't think we need him for a cup run.

    Opinions? Thoughts? Ideas?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    It's not a bad idea, but it depends on the substance of the NHL's decision.  If all they say is "No." then this isn't a bad strategy to force them to commit to a line.  Try it at $1M, then go up $200K every time they say no until they set a standard. Works even better if Savard's willing to move some of that money back in exchange for more security?  It could be a limited NMC for the length of the deal that prevents the team from buying him out or sending him down but gives them pre-approved trade options.

    I think the NHL will be more prudent, though, and make a ruling that clarifies this to some degree - at least in principle.  Maybe something like the salary for any one contract year cannot be less than 10% of the total contract value.  That way, the longer the deal, the less flexibility you have to meet that percentage.  On a 10 year deal, every year would have to be the same.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    The league should have set a percentage baseline for each subsequent year of a player's contract.  This would prevent a significant drop in salary in the latter stages of a contract.  It would also prevent the significant front-loading of contracts that we have seen.  Lastly, it would prevent a team from tacking on extra years for cheap so that annual cap hit is less (thus circumventing the cap).  It is crazy that a players contract can go from 6 mil to 5 mil AND THEN to 1 mil and the league min ( a la Savard).  The 5 to 1 mil gap is not consistent with the percentage decrease from the other consecutive years. 



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    The league should have set a percentage baseline for each subsequent year of a player's contract.  This would prevent a significant drop in salary in the latter stages of a contract.  It would also prevent the significant front-loading of contracts that we have seen.  Lastly, it would prevent a team from tacking on extra years for cheap so that annual cap hit is less (thus circumventing the cap).  It is crazy that a players contract can go from 6 mil to 5 mil AND THEN to 1 mil and the league min ( a la Savard).  The 5 to 1 mil gap is not consistent with the percentage decrease from the other consecutive years. 
    Posted by luc-dufour


    Luc,
    I agree with you, but setting a percentage is not with in the current CBA the league could not pass something like that at this point in time I do not believe.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    The League Commissioner won't nullify any contracts...

    The League brass don't have any balls...

    I bet that they'll pipe right down once Kovalchuk is safely signed in Los Angeles...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    Luc and BB - You are both on the right track and it's something I and others have posted in the past regarding the front loaded deals. I think some very specific language will appear in the next CBA. It doesn't help to resolve Savard's situation but I'm thinking the league will deem his contract valid anyway. If not, it wouldn't take any drastic changes to his existing deal to make it work as captainbergeron posted. Or do the Bruins have a case of buyer's remorse and would rather get out from the contract???? This could get interesting soon!

    Has anyone read anything that would indicate when the NHL might rule on these contracts? I would think this is a priority and they would want to rule on it before camp but this is Bettman's NHL so who knows.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    The reports from the bruins indicate that the league has approved, but has also been 'Reviewing" Savard's contract since it was originally submitted. Do not have any idea what "reviewing " means, but a guess is that they were " reviewing" all contracts, like Savard's until they arrived at Kovie's and felt they could win a challenge. Their issue is the next CBA, so none of the current contracts will be thrown out.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    Luc and BB - You are both on the right track and it's something I and others have posted in the past regarding the front loaded deals. I think some very specific language will appear in the next CBA. It doesn't help to resolve Savard's situation but I'm thinking the league will deem his contract valid anyway. If not, it wouldn't take any drastic changes to his existing deal to make it work as captainbergeron posted. Or do the Bruins have a case of buyer's remorse and would rather get out from the contract???? This could get interesting soon! Has anyone read anything that would indicate when the NHL might rule on these contracts? I would think this is a priority and they would want to rule on it before camp but this is Bettman's NHL so who knows.
    Posted by WalkTheLine


    WTL,
    I posted something in a different thread, but you won't see specific langauge, once you get specific, everything you don't mention becomes legal. I think the league will address how much a contract can increase or decrease, lengths of deals, etc. But I would not look for it to get more specific on what exactly circumvenation is, you can't cover every possible scenario, the league had the forsight to rule out stuff like giving a player a lower contract but supplimenting it with endorsements (say we gave lucic 1.2m per, but then let nesn endorse him for 7m per season as a suppliment)

    Then again, that reasoning is the Same BS campbell hid behind not suspending Cooke..Stating that intent to injure had to be for violating a rule, and he didn't feel he had.. don't get me started but if cooke had to "elbow, or charge" to be called for an intent to injure you wouldn't need a penalty that was so broad based and undefined..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention : WTL, I posted something in a different thread, but you won't see specific langauge, once you get specific, everything you don't mention becomes legal. I think the league will address how much a contract can increase or decrease, lengths of deals, etc. But I would not look for it to get more specific on what exactly circumvenation is, you can't cover every possible scenario, the league had the forsight to rule out stuff like giving a player a lower contract but supplimenting it with endorsements (say we gave lucic 1.2m per, but then let nesn endorse him for 7m per season as a suppliment) Then again, that reasoning is the Same BS campbell hid behind not suspending Cooke..Stating that intent to injure had to be for violating a rule, and he didn't feel he had.. don't get me started but if cooke had to "elbow, or charge" to be called for an intent to injure you wouldn't need a penalty that was so broad based and undefined..
    Posted by rolerhoky19


    I also don't believe they would get so specific as to try to cover every possible scenario (it's not possible) but specific enough to address the current loophole.
    I needed to be more specific about what I meant by specific :p
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    Yeah i think they will address that, but it wont be under the "circumventation" it'll be expressed in the SPC portion of the deal..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention : WTL, I posted something in a different thread, but you won't see specific langauge, once you get specific, everything you don't mention becomes legal. I think the league will address how much a contract can increase or decrease, lengths of deals, etc. But I would not look for it to get more specific on what exactly circumvenation is, you can't cover every possible scenario, the league had the forsight to rule out stuff like giving a player a lower contract but supplimenting it with endorsements (say we gave lucic 1.2m per, but then let nesn endorse him for 7m per season as a suppliment) Then again, that reasoning is the Same BS campbell hid behind not suspending Cooke..Stating that intent to injure had to be for violating a rule, and he didn't feel he had.. don't get me started but if cooke had to "elbow, or charge" to be called for an intent to injure you wouldn't need a penalty that was so broad based and undefined..
    Posted by rolerhoky19

    Totally agree, but with some clarification. The language of "circumvention" was broadly interpreted (thanks san dog), but the solution may be simple not complex as our legal society so demands.  Just limit the number of years to a contract and do not, I repeat do not, limit the $ of the contract for a player in the next CBA.  Grandfather all contracts that have been "approved" by the NHL. These are definable lines.  Anything less will only lead to more jurisdictional controversy.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention : Totally agree, but with some clarification. The language of "circumvention" was broadly interpreted (thanks san dog), but the solution may be simple not complex as our legal society so demands.  Just limit the number of years to a contract and do not, I repeat do not, limit the $ of the contract for a player in the next CBA.  Grandfather all contracts that have been "approved" by the NHL. These are definable lines.  Anything less will only lead to more jurisdictional controversy.
    Posted by islamorada


    I agree, I think they should base the term on the players age  3 years EL, 3 years after that, 26-30 6 year deal max, 30-34 5 years max, and 35 plus 3 years max.  Get rid of the 35 plus rule, but change the way buy outs work (you should be buying out the remaining cap hit, not the remaining contract, at least in terms of how you affect your cap)


    I would allow for "contract option years" on both sides as well that cab be factored in (with in a guideline that said pay could not fluw more then 10-20% annuallly)


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    "Has anyone read anything that would indicate when the NHL might rule on these contracts? I would think this is a priority and they would want to rule on it"

    This what I don't like in 26.1 of the CBA is the League has no timetable. Criminy they waited till birdbrain Lou really did something blatant then the NHL had there ammo. They can look at any contract no matter how long ago or if it was registered already bleepin BS.

    There excuse will be "Were looking at all possibilities to make sure we rule on this correctly" worse than the attorneys we have down on the beltway. Undecided duh!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    They waited until they were reasonably sure they'd get a win.  They didn't challenge the earlier deals because they were harder to label clearly, and given that this would have been the first such challenge, they had to get the win to avoid total chaos...or at least a whole heck of a lot of these deals.

    This provision gives the league a bit of leeway to set some guidelines unilaterally. They won't be altering the CBA, only defining what they consider to be "circumventing the cap" so a flexible formula that clarifies their thinking would be possible - though it could certainly be challenged.  They'll surely have given more feedback to Lou, even if it was as part of disclosure in the arbitration process.  In essence, this step is the league clarifying the conditions under which they will apply this precedent and reject a contract.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    If they make it vague enough in the next CBA, it'll be up to the teams to keep it straight.  Even the slightest variation wold come with a feeling of, "Dang, I hope this one doesn't get rejected."


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Clyde-Fitch. Show Clyde-Fitch's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    What if the NHL CBA made the cap hit a moving average of 3? years (current year plus 2years).  For example

    Savard is payed 7,  7, 6.5, 5, 1.5, .5, .5
    So his cap hit for 10-11 would be 6.66M. (20M/3y)
    Then his cap hit  11-12 would be  6M (18M/3y)
    Then 12-13 Cap hit 4.33M (13m/3y)....
    Last year cap hit .833M(2.5M/3y)

    This would basically make long term front loaded contracts worthless for bypassing the cap.

    Just a thought
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    What if the NHL CBA made the cap hit a moving average of 3? years (current year plus 2years).  For example Savard is payed 7,  7, 6.5, 5, 1.5, .5, .5 So his cap hit for 10-11 would be 6.66M. (20M/3y) Then his cap hit  11-12 would be  6M (18M/3y) Then 12-13 Cap hit 4.33M (13m/3y).... Last year cap hit .833M(2.5M/3y) This would basically make long term front loaded contracts worthless for bypassing the cap. Just a thought
    Posted by Clyde-Fitch



    I think that works, but that also is adjusting to front loaded contracts..
    I think limiting the years would eliminate the ability to do that all together..
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    If they make it vague enough in the next CBA, it'll be up to the teams to keep it straight.  Even the slightest variation wold come with a feeling of, "Dang, I hope this one doesn't get rejected."
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    I agree with you and I fear this.  I feel like that will deter GM's from getting creative.

    There should be a strategy/creative element to team building.  It provides an exciting dimension to the sport.  I fear that they are going to remove all avenues for a GM to get creative with.  No good (IMO).
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    Just take the financial structure of the NBA.

    A) The cap hit is the amount of money you pay the player that year.
    B) The cap is a SOFT CAP (meaning you CAN go over the cap)
    C) You can only exceed the cap when retaining your own players.  If you are over the cap you cannot sign a single free-agent (w/ 1 exception...see next pt)
    D) The exceptions.  Exception 1) Teams are allowed to go over the cap to sign their draft picks.  Exception 2) If you are over the cap, you can sign free-agents over 35.  Exception 3) If you are over the cap you can sign ONE free-agent to a max contract of 2.4M
    E) For every dollar you spend over the cap (maybe re-signing your own players put you over, maybe the built-in contract escalation put you over, maybe the signing of your draft picks put you over, maybe exercising your exception put you over)...in any case, every dollar over the cap you spend, you have to put a dollar into a pool that gets divided up and given to all teams come end of year.
    F)  this "luxury tax" the amount you have to pay into the pool (which is also the amount that you exceed the cap) DOES not count against your cap next year.  But it WILL make a dent in your profits, if you are perennially over the cap.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    The beauty of the above is that you cant buy a championship (because you cant exceed the cap to sign free-agents), but if you draft well, and acquire good young talent, you will not be forced to part with said talent once it matures (because you can go over the cap to keep your own), but if you do elect to "hoard" your maturing prospects/home-grown stars, you have to pay $$$$$ for it.  And this $$$$ goes to your competition to help them hoard their prospects.

    As an added bonus, this structure creates a strong incentive to scout and develop your own, because once a player is under your control, you'll be able to retain him as long as you are willing to pay his contract and the luxury tax.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    The beauty of the above is that you cant buy a championship (because you cant exceed the cap to sign free-agents), but if you draft well, and acquire good young talent, you will not be forced to part with said talent once it matures (because you can go over the cap to keep your own), but if you do elect to "hoard" your maturing prospects/home-grown stars, you have to pay $$$$$ for it.  And this $$$$ goes to your competition to help them hoard their prospects. As an added bonus, this structure creates a strong incentive to scout and develop your own, because once a player is under your control, you'll be able to retain him as long as you are willing to pay his contract and the luxury tax.
    Posted by Drewski5


    I like that drew, I also think the nfl, (minus the need for a rookie cap) is a better hard cap, you do get to "average" the bonus out, while the base salary is the salary, but often over 50% is in bonus money, contracts are not gauranteed, and if you buy a player out you only have to cover the "gauranteed" portion of the contract, though it is all compiled on to the current cap year.

    you can give a guy a 3m bonus all paid in season 1, and a 1m, 2m, and 3m contract, cap hit = 2m then 3m then 4m, he does not perform and you buy him out after season 1, you only get hit with the bonus (2m) that was averaged into the cap hit.. but not the salary..

    If ryders deal was for 12m at 6m in bonus, and setup up so he got.
    1m and 3 in bonus year 1
    2m and 2 in year two
    and 3 and 1 in year there, we could have cut him for 2 m agaist the cap, and only 1m out of pocket..

    (that is a little over simplied but you get the idea)
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    The beauty of the above is that you cant buy a championship (because you cant exceed the cap to sign free-agents), but if you draft well, and acquire good young talent, you will not be forced to part with said talent once it matures (because you can go over the cap to keep your own), but if you do elect to "hoard" your maturing prospects/home-grown stars, you have to pay $$$$$ for it.  And this $$$$ goes to your competition to help them hoard their prospects. As an added bonus, this structure creates a strong incentive to scout and develop your own, because once a player is under your control, you'll be able to retain him as long as you are willing to pay his contract and the luxury tax.
    Posted by Drewski5


    Drewski - Although not perfect, I like the NBA's version of a salary cap. I think a hard cap has more flaws and the "cap" that MLB uses is a joke. It would be interesting to see how a similar cap to the NBA one would play out in the NHL. With expiring contracts having value to teams trying to get under the cap, would that alone stop these front-loaded deals?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention : Drewski - Although not perfect, I like the NBA's version of a salary cap. I think a hard cap has more flaws and the "cap" that MLB uses is a joke. It would be interesting to see how a similar cap to the NBA one would play out in the NHL. With expiring contracts having value to teams trying to get under the cap, would that alone stop these front-loaded deals?
    Posted by WalkTheLine


    the "flaw" in the NBA cap though, is its encouraged to allow teams to keep their own guys.. The NHL cap was intended to encourage player movement and parity.. The NBA cap is attempting to allow teams to keep success if built from with in..
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention:
    In Response to Re: Answers for CBA circumvention : the "flaw" in the NBA cap though, is its encouraged to allow teams to keep their own guys.. The NHL cap was intended to encourage player movement and parity.. The NBA cap is attempting to allow teams to keep success if built from with in..
    Posted by rolerhoky19


    The NBA has plenty of player movement. A workable cap should provide the opportunity for teams to be competitive. If the NHL needs a cap that forces player movement artificially to the degree that a hard cap does then doesn't that indicate you have another problem, namely too many teams and/or too many teams located in markets that aren't viable for an NHL franchise?   
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Answers for CBA circumvention

    the nba had plenty of movement this year, and the cap they have is fairly powderpuff wouldnt you say? I mean you ever heard of a team having to lose players to get under the cap? or can you explain how the 3 most prized free agents all end up on one team with a cap in place?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share