NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

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

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : I don't think its doing what they want, the language is unclear, and has to be, if you work in contracts you should know the more specific they get, the easier it becomes to find a loop hole, and the harder it would be to enforce that.. The fact is any contract that circumvents the cap is illegal, there does not need to be specific language to define that..
    Posted by rolerhoky19


    Absolutely correct.  Contracts contain phrases like : "reasonable", "best efforts", "in good faith" all the time and rarely clarify what is specifically meant.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Well, see, here's another pressure point.  These contracts aren't in violation of the CBA except insofar as they trigger that clause about circumventing the cap.  I think that makes the "legal" SPCs in every way except in their potential effect on the team's cap.  Right?  If the a team close to the salary floor signed Kovalchuk to a deal that paid him max $$ for the next five years, then tapered down to five years at $1M, and that max $$ never put them over the cap in salary paid out, could you say that that deal circumvented the cap?

    On the other hand, no team near the floor signs one of these things, and that alone should point to the fact that they exist to help teams "manage" the cap.

    If I'm a defense lawyer on this one, one of my arguments would be that the contracts don't circumvent the cap because the full salary is charged to the team's cap over the life of the contract.  All that's happenening is some re-profiling of the annual cap allowance.  If I spend $70M on salary this year, even though my cap hit is compliant, there will come a time where I'll be paying out $11M less than the cap allows even though my cap hit is maxed out.  In principle, the cap already contains provisions for reprofiling in the buy-out procedures and the carry-overs enabled by the bonus cushion.

    The counter argument is that the CBA contains provisions to allow you to exit the contract before you've paid that full cap hit - unplanned (wink wink) retirement, buy-outs tied to the dollars remaining on the contract and not the cap hit, reassignments etc.  There's no mechanism to capture reprofiled amounts and apply them to a team's cap hit in any structured way.

    In effect - if I think this through more than I should - it's really the buy out/reassignment/retirement that circumvents the deferred cap hit.  Personally, I don't mind the idea that teams can get creative with the way they pay out guaranteed contracts in order to manage their talent and their cap hit as long as those cap payments eventually come due.  Anything that helps fight mediocrity and parity with ingenuity and intelligence is fine by me.  So I think I'd like to see the penalties for these contracts be deferred in some way, so that a player retiring for reasons other than catastrophic injury will count against the team's cap hit if his contract allowed the team to defer X amount of money.  Say they've saved $10M over 5 years before the player retired.  The remaining salary was $500K for two more years.  So the player is leaving $1M on the table.  Fine.  Subtract the remaining salary the player chooses to leave on the table from the amount of cap hit the team has deferred ($9M) and use the same formula that applies to buy-outs (2/3rds of the remaining salary over twice the remaining years) except, instead of remaining salary you're calculating on deferred salary and instead of remaining years your using the number of years where savings accrued.  In this example, the team would carry a $600K cap penalty for a decade ($6M over ten years).

    Something like that.  As Drewski says, there are other ways to go than simply voiding the contracts.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    BB,
    monetary fines are in there as well, could simply be a $1m fine..

    But I agree its not the deal itself its all these things combined, length, dollar amount, age of the player etc..

    the cloud of where you circumvent is unclear, but a cap hit/contract length that would require a player from playing so far past the typical nhl career is probably a clear case..
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    roler - I don't think that logic would be defensible, though.  If a team believes Player X will be able to play in the NHL at age 45, and they can lock him up at a lower dollar when he's 35 as long as they commit to him until he's 45 (pretend 35+ rule isn't in effect for this example), why shouldn't they have that option?  The only problem is if he doesn't play, and if they sign a contract where there will be a clear benefit to the team if the player retires, well, then it gets dicey.

    Say I'm a GM who wants out from under the $5M cap hit on a player I'm only paying $500K.  The player's probably one of my top 12 forwards and a solid vet, but not a $5M player, and I need to sign a real $5M player.  So I tell this player "We're carrying extra rookies for the first three months.  You're only going to play one out of every three games so we can audition these guys.  You'll probably be asked to play 4th line most games.  Maybe 4, 5 min. a game. Okay?"  Well, what player who's playing for the love of the game at that point is going to stick it out?  He'll retire.  And you'll have contrived to bring it about.  And it would be almost impossible to grieve it because the team has valid reasons for cutting the player's ice time - development, chemistry, changing roles etc.

    Like so much about this, it isn't that there's anything wrong with contracting a player until he's 45 in principle, but it creates an opportunity for impropriety that is deeply uncomfortable for the league.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BruWingFan. Show BruWingFan's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Pronger signed his deal on 7/1/09, Luongo on 9/3/09 and Savvy on 12/1/09...

    11.6 (b) Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs.


    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 11.6, an approved and registered SPC may be subject to subsequent challenge and/or de-registration by the League: (i) in the case of a Circumvention relating to either the Club Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, within sixty (60) days from the date upon which the facts of the Circumvention became known or reasonably should have been known to the NHL...

    I believe it's reasonable to believe the facts should have been known to the NHL well before now. Particularly since the NHL initially had concerns, and made their concerns known, when all 3 contracts were registered. IMO this is the teams/players way out of the de-registering of the contracts.

    As for the teams paying fines and/or forfeiting draft picks... In the case of all 3 players, if their contracts were un-registered, they would revert back to their status prior to the contracts being registered. I believe all 3 would have been UFA's so that would be their status according to the CBA.

    If anyone has the time, or the inclination, to peruse the CBA...

    http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    It is reasonable to assume a fine of 5 million can be assessed for "circumvention". The issue still remains how does the NHL and NHLPA define a contract that has been circumvented.  As Book mentioned above it would be difficult to define given the number of contracts like Kovy's and since the infamous DiePietro fifteen year contract.

    IMO the number of years must be the most simplest solution to the issue of a "circumvented" contract but that will not be changed until the next CBA.  Roler's =>35 contract is also a model for the next CBA. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    Pronger signed his deal on 7/1/09, Luongo on 9/3/09 and Savvy on 12/1/09... 11.6 (b) Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 11.6, an approved and registered SPC may be subject to subsequent challenge and/or de-registration by the League: (i) in the case of a Circumvention relating to either the Club Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, within sixty (60) days from the date upon which the facts of the Circumvention became known or reasonably should have been known to the NHL... I believe it's reasonable to believe the facts should have been known to the NHL well before now. Particularly since the NHL initially had concerns, and made their concerns known, when all 3 contracts were registered. IMO this is the teams/players way out of the de-registering of the contracts. As for the teams paying fines and/or forfeiting draft picks... In the case of all 3 players, if their contracts were un-registered, they would revert back to their status prior to the contracts being registered. I believe all 3 would have been UFA's so that would be their status according to the CBA. If anyone has the time, or the inclination, to peruse the CBA... http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf
    Posted by BruWingFan


    I agree with you, but could see the league using an "in light of this"

    and reading some of the other language (the NHLPA version is much better by the way) I would argue that any contract that tapers of so extreme circuments the cap since your team pay roll would far exceed the cap.. BB in your example of being under at a later point in time i think from the leagues stance you would just say so then pay the guy 4 for 7 years? not 7 7 6 5 1 1 .5 ..

    then your cap hit is the same?  if your savard and your getting 28m for 7 years, planning to play the deal out, do you care necessarily when you get it?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I agree I don't think it was to expose other teams, but to go so far as to set it up so it would definitely get rejected, and set a precedence moving forward, i could see...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share