What Ilya Kovalchuk's contract rejection means for Chris Pronger
by Travis Hughes on Aug 10, 2010 1:04 AM EDT
in Commentary
Email
PrintThe 35-plus extension Chris Pronger signed back in July of 2009 begins this year. As the carcass known as the Ilya Kovalchuk contract mess has been dragged along the road at a snails pace over the last month and a half, Pronger's deal has often been brought up as a point of reference.
In his ruling in the Kovalchuk case, Richard Bloch mentioned Pronger's deal, as well as the deals of three other specific NHL players -- Marian Hossa, Marc Savard and Roberto Luongo. The relevant portion is below (we've spaced it a bit for easier consumption).
It is true, as the Association observes, that the NHL has registered contracts with structures similar to the Kovalchuk SPC PA Exh. 8 reflects a list of 11 multi-year agreements, all of which involve players in their mid to late 30’s and early 40’s.
Most of them reflect reasonably substantial "diveback" (salary reductions that extend over the "tails" of the Agreement). Of these, four such agreements, with players Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, Roberto Luongo, and Marian Hossa reflect provisions that are relatively more dramatic than the others. Each of these players will be 40 or over at the end of the contract term and each contract includes dramatic divebacks.
Pronger’s annual salary, for example, drops from $4,000,000 to $525,000 at the point he is earning almost 97% of the total $34,450,000 salary. Roberto Luongo, with Vancouver, has a 12- year agreement that will end when he is 43. After averaging some $7,000,000 per year for the first 9 years of the Agreement, Luongo will receive an average of about 1.2 million during his last 3 years, amounting to some 5.7% of the total compensation during that time period.
The apparent purpose of this evidence is to suggest that the League’s concern is late blooming and/or inconsistent. Several responses are in order: First, while the contracts have, in fact, been registered, their structure has not escaped League notice: those SPCs are being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration.
It is also the case that the figures in Kovalchuk’s case are demonstrably more dramatic, including a 17-year term length, a $102,000,000 salary total and precipitous drop that lasts for the final six years of this contract.
The two interesting points to take away from this: 1) Pronger's contract is "being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration" and 2) Kovalchuk's case is "demonstrably more dramatic" than the other four cited in Bloch's ruling.
I take the following away from those two statements: yes, the League has those other deals on their radar, but they do not intend to reject them in the same fashion as they have done with Kovalchuk's deal. Lou Lamiorello, the Devils and Kovalchuk crossed a line by pushing the number of years to 17, pushing the salary to $102 million and pushing the "diveback" years to a whopping six, according to Bloch.
Thus, that's where the line is drawn -- somewhere between the deals with Pronger, Savard, Luongo and Hossa and this deal with Kovalchuk. Somewhere between 12 years, $64 million and four diveback years versus 17 years, $102 million and six diveback years. At least that's how I interpret what's said above.
It'll be interesting to see if GM's test the waters in between those figures -- say, a 15 year contract worth $85 million and 5 diveback years.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
mirtle
Worth noting that none of Luongo, Pronger or Savard deals have been paid out yet. They were all extensions that start in 2010-11.
So the league still has time to void those before they start?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Seems to be the case. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the league takes this ruling and moves forward by trying to void those deals now?
by tmurder on Aug 10, 2010 1:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Huh. Could they not de-register contracts after the fact? I think the CBA allows for this, but I don’t have time to look this up.
If Hossa is home free, then maybe Luongo’s is next on the NHL radar (I doubt Savard’s would be, it actually surprises me he is on this list, since the diveback starts at an earlier age; to Geoff’s point they must be looking at any divebacks).
Raul Ibanez: since Moyer is on the DL, he is fast becoming our favorite old guy.
Rooting against a certain LW for the Tampa Bay Lightning will be impossible.
I think savard is safe too his deal isn’t too long either.
by tmurder on Aug 10, 2010 1:29 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It’s specifically mentioned in 26.10 there is no limit on when the contract can be investigated. And it also states that the league’s authority to investigate is not hindered by the SPC already being approved and registered under Article 11. They can de-register the SPC and impose penalties at any point they are able to determine a circumvention has occurred under Article 26.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
This came up during part of the discussing on JITC, and my personal reading of the CBA is that they can find a Circumvention at any time, and take it before the System Arbitrator. If it was a violation by the Player, the Arbitrator determines the penalty (up to and including fines and deregistration of the contract), while if it was a violation by the Club, the Commissioner determines the penalty. This is from Article 26.13.c.
The League, however, can only “automatically” deregister a contract under Article 11 within 60 days of determining it violates the CBA (it still requires an arbitration hearing if the NHLPA disputes, but the deregistration is at the League’s discretion under Article 11.6).
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Sorry I wasn’t very articulate at 1:30 in the morning, but by “able to determine”, I had meant that they did the investigation and then won the arbitration process detailed in Article 26. But I look at it now and I know it wasn’t clear enough.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions
The fact that Pronger’s contract is 35-plus and his cap hit can’t go away may help the Flyers. The arbitrator specifically mentioned the move from No-Movement to No-Trade at the dive point as problematic, since the Devils could put him in the minors and the cap hit would go away. I’d guess Hossa’s contract would be more likely to be scrutinized, although, ironically, a de-registered contract would probably actually help the Hawks in their current cap purgatory situation.
Raul Ibanez: since Moyer is on the DL, he is fast becoming our favorite old guy.
Rooting against a certain LW for the Tampa Bay Lightning will be impossible.
I don’t think anyone will test those waters. I think the Hossa deal will draw the line with diveback years. The other point to consider is that not only does the team have to be willing to test the water but so does the player. Will another player be willing to resist a solid definitely legal contract for a questionable contract with an enourmous payday?
by tmurder on Aug 10, 2010 1:16 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
The players may be more willing to resist if the NHL legitimately starts handing out fines. From 26.13, a possible penalty:
(ii) Impose a fine against a Player of up to the lesser of $1 million or
twenty-five (25%) percent of a Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary in the
case of a Circumvent ion by a Player or Player Actor, but in no
circumstances shall such fine be below the lesser of $250,000 or
twenty-five (25%) percent of the Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary.
Notwithstanding the $1 million limitat ion set forth above, any
addit ional amounts by which the Player has been unjust ly enriched
due to the Circumvent ion shall be ordered to be disgorged;
…
vii) Suspend any Club employee, Player, or Certified Agent involved
in such a violat ion for a period of time determined in the sole
discretion of the Commissioner, the System Arbitrator, or the
NHLPA, respectively.
Million dollar fine, plus being back on the Free Agent market with no contract, or maybe a million dollar fine plus a suspension preventing more paychecks (from the NHL, at least). Not exactly a guarantee they won’t sign, but some might at least think twice.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Plus it’s back on the market when most teams have already made their big salary moves for the summer. Kovalchuk might have to take a one year deal if the Devils don’t make another good offer.
by tmurder on Aug 10, 2010 1:51 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don’t think Pronger/Flyers are in too much jeopardy here. Though the contract was mentioned in the ruling. I don’t think it represents a gross circumvention. There are only really 2 ‘diveback’ years. I would not consider the $4M for the 2014-15 season a ‘diveback’(as it is for more than 50% of his avaerage salary of $7.35M (during the first 4 years), the final 2 years definitely are. However, as previously stated by Bud in TN, Pronger’s is an Over 35 contract, so whether he plays, or retires, or is waived, his $4.9M Cap Hit still applies.
Of the other player contracts mentioned, Hossa and Luongo have the most ‘OBVIOUS’ (I would consider an OBVIOUS year any year in which the player makes less than half of the average salary) diveback years with 4, Savard’s has 3…BUT, the key difference is that all of these contracts were signed by players under 35 so the teams will be off the hook if the player retires or is released by the team.
The Kovalchuk contract would have been, by far, the grossest example of circumvention of all having 6-7 OBVIOUS diveback years. And when he up and leaves for the KHL (or retires) when he is 34-36 years old, NJ is off the hook.
While I feel that the NHL has created a gray area with this rejection, and they must close the loopholes that allowed this to happen. I am happy with the decision to uphold the voiding of this contract. I am not so obtuse, however, to believe that NJ & Kovy will have a re-structured deal submitted within a week. I am looking for them to try an 11-12 year deal with a cap hit in the $6.5-7M/year range ($75-85M), of course that is assuming Kovy would sign such a deal.
I am thinking the real thing to watch is if any of the other teams that have tidy amounts of cap space (Kings-$12.8, Lightning (could Stevie Y pull off a coup?)-$13.8, Isles-$20.1, Avs-$23.7) make a run at Kovy?
Oh god…I just realized we have come full circle and are right back to where we were a month ago…
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
I agree with you. Seeing as how Pronger stays on the books no matter what, I don’t think the Flyers are in any real jeopardy here.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Well there is a difference between staying on the books at 6.8M over 5 years compared to 4.9M over 7 years …
Well…yes…2 years and $1.9M/year.
But, I have to admit, you lost me. Are you saying that is what we may look at if the league decides to mess with the Pronger deal?
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
If Pronger’s contract wasn’t 35+, I wouldn’t have any problem with the NHL rejecting it. It’s so clearly trying to circumvent the salary cap — at least to me — with the final three years of the deal paying him $4,000,000 then dropping all the way down to $525,000 and $525,000. It’s probably a good thing Homer and the rest of the front office can’t read.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
by Ben Feldman on Aug 10, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Indeed, that is my point. Pronger’s deal really only has 2 OBVIOUS divebacks (@ $525k each), the $4M year is still more than 50% of the $7.35M average of the first 4 years. I can understand a drop off when he turns 40. The difference here is that his $4.9M cap hit stays with us all the way, even in the final 2 years, no matter what. The diveback years on the other contracts mentioned are true throwaways, the team will be off the hook for the cap hit if the player retires or is released. Had he been under 35, like the other players mentioned (and the one denied), I would agree, if they voided it…ok. It still, however, in not even close to being as gross a circumvention as any of the others (though Savard’s is not that bad).
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
Since the cap hit stays on the books, it doesn’t circumvent the cap. I read the “diveback” portion of Bloch’s comments to be more of an add-on then the main reasoning. Pronger is included because his salary divesback for an over 40 player. He wouldn’t be rejected since the cap hit remains and doesn’t circumvent it.
So, I think I agreed with you.
Well, it does circumvent the cap, but not in the gross manner of the others. Pronger’s deal is for approx $34.4M over 7 years. The final two years salary amounts to only $1,050,000. So about 97% is paid out over first 5 years. But, as pointed out above by Mr. Feldman…there is a big difference between $34.4 over 7 years, and $34.4 over 5 years. Namely the cap hit jumps from $4.9M to $6.8M…clearly the final 2 years are divebacks. But the main difference between Pronger and the others…We keep the $4.9M cap hit no matter what Pronger does.
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
Side note
The big difference in Kovie’s contract that was voided was the NMC that vanishes after 8 years of the contract. If that doesn’t go away, I’m not sure if the divebacks would have been enough to void the contract.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Agreed, it magically changes from a NMC to a NTC, which would allow the Devils to dump him, and his Cap Hit…
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
I’m kinda worried that we ALL basically concur here (also TheDark and DragonGiri in the other thread). This means that the PA is even more out of it than we discussed in the other thread.
Likely in the league office crosshairs, by rank: Hossa, Luongo, then a deep dropoff to Savard and Pronger (like the rest of you,I think the Flyers would be in trouble without the over-35).
Since Hossa’s de-registering might actually help the Hawks cap right now, look for the Canucks/Luongo to be the next move by the league, saving a Hossa bomb for sometime after camp and the Hawks cap is set. Last I checked, the Canucks were way over the cap, but losing Luongo would be much less in Vancouver plans than losing Hossa might be in the Hawks’. A Luongo de-registering would send a giant message.
Raul Ibanez: since Moyer is on the DL, he is fast becoming our favorite old guy.
Rooting against a certain LW for the Tampa Bay Lightning will be impossible.
Simple fix like football don’t count the average as the cap hit count the actual salary for that year, allowing GMs to front load contracts in years which they have the money to spend and allow them to save money on years when the rookies come up and become RFAs so you can keep a team together.
I don’t like what happened to the Hawks. That is not good for the sport. Losing half you team like that. With the above system they probably could have save a couple of players and still lost a good amount. But a total dismantling of a team to do the cap is not good.
I am all for the cap but they way teams are losing players left and right it is impossible to keep a team together with such a hard cap and that is not good for the sport. In a mere five years the 99% of all NHL discussion is about cap number cap hit, good value, bad contract, I like him as a player but not for that money, over spend, and bargain hunting.
I would also like to have players over 30 the right to renegoiate their contracts in the last year voiding that last year cap him in favor of a the cap hit of the new extension. Players are totally fucked in this system they need to have some flexibility to give players options.
Right not becoming a UFA is not a good thing. Nobody is willing to sign anyone or take risks paying anyone long term because the cap is so rigid. Many good players are jump to the KHL or taking whatever they can get to state stateside. Not good.
Kudos to you sir, I could not agree more…AND, the NFL style cap is most intriguing…
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
NO! The NFL cap stinks. Completely unfathomable, and often manipulated.
A simpler method is to restrict the divebacks. A hard cap works very well from a fan viewpoint.
Raul Ibanez: since Moyer is on the DL, he is fast becoming our favorite old guy.
Rooting against a certain LW for the Tampa Bay Lightning will be impossible.
What needs to be done at a minimum is to more clearly define what’s permissible with regards to front-loading. Players will always want front-loaded contracts, due to the uncertainty of a career as an athlete and due to the basic economic principle that a dollar now is worth more than a dollar next year. I don’t have a problem per se with certain amounts of front-loading, but the ridiculous amounts in certain contracts should, in my opinion, be taken as a lesson for the next CBA, which should change how multi-year SPCs are done.
I don’t have a solution for what would work best, but as an example, it should have a threshold (i.e. any SPC with any year over $2m), and either a hard limit (can have no year under $1m) or a percentage limit (can have no year worth less than 30% of the maximum) or both (can have no year less than the greater of 30% of the highest salary or $1m). All those numbers are just off the top of my head; my suggestion is on the ideas, not the exact numbers.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
I think everything is fair if my team salary in any given year is the same as your team salary in a given year. That is essence of a cap. The NFL is a joke with Signing Bonuses and stuff like that to move and shift money around. I don’t want that just use a players yearly salary as the cap hit and everything is fair.
There is too much uncertainty in the cap with the way it changes to use an average. Based on the rate that cap was increasing each year. The Briere deal didn’t look that bad that what UFAs were getting. Now the cap stopped escalating could go down that Briere deal sucks. Too much risk in signing guys long term when you don’t know what the cap will be from one year to the next.
Interesting
Thought about how the contracts count against the cap, and the idea of older players renegotiating the last year of their contracts.
HOWEVER…it’s not like the salary cap snuck up on the Hawks. The cap existed when they signed players like Campbell and Huet to those horrible contracts. They were put in this situation by mismanaging a cap. Like any business, management must learn to adapt to new rules and regulations set forth on them by their governing bodies. If management can not adapt to the new business, they must be replaced, and business usually suffers in the interim. Any big market team can spend, spend, spend, but it takes a complete organization working effectively to scout talent and build teams effectively under a certain budget. No matter how you want to handle a cap in the NHL, a cap is still necessary b/c of the market place that exists for this sport, and it will always be difficult to keep teams together. However, you do still see teams that are able to keep their cores together.
Personally my biggest problem with the cap are teams struggling to stay at the cap floor. That is the true crime to me in this current business model. I’m not worried about the conversations about the cap, b/c it makes you actually have to think and evaluate talent at a more detailed level. Nor am I worried about the KHL since that league is falling apart (name me 5 players playing in the KHL that you really feel would make the NHL better as a product). Top tier UFA’s still made their money this off season. The ones that seem to suffer are the ones that refuse to realize their real value under their current situation. They over valued themselves in the market place and now are forced to sell at a loss. Even the older players are still finding jobs at decent salaries. The NHL’s job market is far better than most job market’s in North America right now. Just b/c it’s a sport doesn’t mean it is above the problems that we face in the real world. I would love it if it was, b/c then we could have roses and sunshine and Gagne for life. But unfortunately it isn’t, and when management mismanages their allotted budget, players, teams, and fans have to pay the price, just like in the real world, when a business makes poor decisions employees get laid off, stock drops, benefits are cut, shareholders lose money, etc.
Is this the right room for an argument?
But it doesn’t matter how well you manage the cap eventually you will have to not spend one year to make room for your upcoming RFAs. So teams that would normally spend to the cap are inhibited from doing so they can try to keep their teams together the following year.
Ever year the cap doesn’t go up there is less and less money league wide available from teams that are willing to spend to the cap and not those teams are forced not to spend to the cap so they can avoid a Blackhawks situation or like us force to sign guys to a bunch of one year deals.
That means as a fan every year roster turnover is going to be huge. That is not fun for fans to have a bunch of guys with one year deals swap out for each year. Nor is it fun for a player who basically has no home no job security and no financial security and risks his entire lively hood with a serious injury. The Players are getting fucked and then if they sign a deal and the camp goes down you might be forced to played in the AHL because your contract is no longer viable, ie Huet etc who the hell wants that either. Players are fucked.
I’m pretty sure I addressed all of this in my last paragraph. Feel free to re-read.
I’m confused by your first statement though. Can you clarify this for me:
But it doesn’t matter how well you manage the cap eventually you will have to not spend one year to make room for your upcoming RFAs. So teams that would normally spend to the cap are inhibited from doing so they can try to keep their teams together the following year.I have no idea what you are trying to say. You can manage a cap well enough to keep your core together and keep spending responsible. The NHL exists in this economy just like ever other business, so when the economy sucks for us, it also sucks for those employed by the NHL (again please read my last paragraph).
It be great if we lived in a fantasy world where we could avoid hard times, economic depressions, etc. Hockey players make life choices just like the rest of us, and just like the rest of us, it doesn’t work out for every one of them.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Nevermind
I get it after I re-read it, the who “you will have to not” through me off. However, I completely disagree. If you manage your contracts right, you will have them set up so not all the RFA’s and UFA’s come up at once. You will have older player contracts coming off the books when younger RFA’s are due. There are clearly ways to manage the cap effectively and keep teams together.
If teams can’t keep players, it’s just as likely b/c the player wants more money than the team can afford to pay them. So players have to have some blame put on them as well in this situation. If it a team manages their budget properly, they will be able to keep who they value as their key pieces in town. However, management can be wrong in their evaluation of their key pieces or players value, and get themselves in to cap problems.
Is this the right room for an argument?
I think my long responses are getting confusing I tend to go all over the place.
However, I completely disagree. If you manage your contracts right, you will have them set up so not all the RFA’s and UFA’s come up at once. You will have older player contracts coming off the books when younger RFA’s are due. There are clearly ways to manage the cap effectively and keep teams together./blockquote>
And those older UFA players like Gagne and Carter will not be able to be resigned and will walk UFA because 800K for Giroux just turned into 3.5 million. Not everyone would be willing to take a pay cut.
Also of course you would want to set you contracts up perfectly so they end in a nice succession but it is going to be hard to get every player to agree to your contract terms that you would ideally want to make it all work perfectly. Especially now that length of contract is almost more important than contract amount. In contract talks you are going to have to give some here and there to make your players happy. If you take that hardball approach not willing to give more years for less more or more money for less years nobody will sign or resign once they go RFA and you will have a bunch of unhappy employees who are always bitching about their contracts not the Flyers organization which has the league wide reputation of being a great place for players to play.
shit I fucked that up sorry DLJr I will repost it real quick
I am responding to this statement by DLJr
However, I completely disagree. If you manage your contracts right, you will have them set up so not all the RFA’s and UFA’s come up at once. You will have older player contracts coming off the books when younger RFA’s are due. There are clearly ways to manage the cap effectively and keep teams together.
And those older UFA players like Gagne and Carter will not be able to be resigned and will walk UFA because 800K for Giroux just turned into 3.5 million. Not everyone would be willing to take a pay cut. That is not keeping a team together.
Also of course you would want to set your contracts up perfectly so they end in a nice succession but it is going to be hard to get every player to agree to your contract terms that you would ideally want to make it all work perfectly.
Especially now that length of contract is almost more important than contract amount. In contract talks you are going to have to give some here and there to make your players happy. If you take that hardball approach not willing to give more years for less more or more money for less years nobody will sign or resign once they go RFA and you will have a bunch of unhappy employees who are always bitching about their contracts not the highly respected Flyers organization which has the league wide reputation of being a great place for players to play.
1) Carter will be an RFA,a nd he certainly isn’t older. And it seems like the Flyers are planning on keeping Carter around, so you will not be loosing both Carter and Gagne. And the fact is, the Flyers could have kept both this year if they wanted. So again, I disagree, you can keep who you value around. Homer did not value Gagne, and shipped him off. There are plenty of examples of keeping a team together, and one example of rbeaking one up (Blackhawks). Please make me a better case of the cap making teams break up every year. Of course there is turn over, it will always happen with a cap, but the Blackhawks are the exception, not the rule. And they are that exception b/c they mismanaged their cap (like I think Homer has done this offseason). If Homer has to lose Crater next year it’s b/c He took on Meszaros, Walker, and Shelley at too much money and too long of contracts, not b/c it wasn’t possible to keep him here.
2) I’m not advocating a hardball approach. I’m advocating not taking on contracts that will hurt your team’s cap situation. That is a completely different subject.
3) Unhappy employee counter. Okay that’s fine, give every player whatever he wants…we might be able to field 14 players to the payroll under the cap. It’s called negotiating to a middle ground. It’s part of the business, the players understand that, why can’t you. I’m not saying Homer should go in there and be like, “Carcillo you may have an awesome stache, but you take too many dumb penalties and you are almost as ugly as Malkin, so we aren’t going to pay you a penny more than 950K”. I don’t understand why negotiating is a bad thing. A GM should know his needs, know what value he has assigned a player, and know he should walk away if they can’t come to a reasonable agreement. I really don’t see how a GM is hurting someone’s feelings. Besides Chris, isn’t hockey for “warriors”, I don’t think a “warrior” would sit at home crying b/c he had to settle for a 2 year deal instead of a 3 year deal.
Is this the right room for an argument?
The Blackhawks are the current exception, yes. And I understand that.
But as more of these RFAs start to come up over the next bunch of years you are going to see this happen to more teams.
Look at the Ducks roster, no Pronger no Neidermeyer, no Giguere. They were the 3 most important pieces of their cup team of a mere 4 years ago gone now somewhat because of the cap and they still don’t have tons of room.
Washington is going to blow up soon as well. No way are they going to have a viable roster next season they have 9 players signed eating up 1/2 or 30 million dollars of cap. No more Semin Backstrom Ovi 3 headed monster. That was a fun 3 years of what could have been one of the most productive lines in history.
The way to avoid losing guys is not to get those guys in the 1st place and save the money. That is not the best way for the players. Tampa is saving 14 million in cap space right now, knowing Stamkos and Hedman and up in the next 2 years. That is 14 million dollars of salary pool the players are losing out on because of cap considerations. If they spent that money our 3 4.5 million dollar guys holy shit look out they would be real scary but they won’t and can justify it by saying we need that money to resign Stamkos and Hedmen. And the other 7 RFAs they have up at the end of this year.
This goes with your last point in bold.
We should have not spent to the cap this year with Mez, Shelly and Walker to save money for next year. That is not good for the PLAYERS. Yes for us fans we could have kept our team they way we like. But this cap hurts the players because even the teams that would want to spend over the cap, can’t even spend to the cap, because they need to save for the RFAs.
Some when I finally become UFA at the prime of my career at 27 or so like Carter. Where am I too go. The teams that would spend the money are at the cap or are too close too it to give me the big offer I am looking for. And the rest of the teams are cheap as teams looking to stay at the minimum. Who has any money for UFA next year that would actually willing to spend it.
1)
But as more of these RFAs start to come up over the next bunch of years you are going to see this happen to more teams.Where is the proof of this.
2) Anaheim is currently $10mil under the cap. They lost Niedermeyer to retirement and Giguere and Pronger were traded for other assets. Pronger didn’t really save them much cap space in the long run either, they saved about $2.5mil for one year, and 700K for the rest of Lupul’s contract ($4.25mil cap hit). So sorry, this really isn’t an argument against the cap.
3) Washington: Semin spent the majority of his time at even strength with Laich and one of Fleischman or Morrison. Semin and Ovie are both LW’s, and Semin would probably want to be the man somewhere anyway, even without the cap, and he will never be the man with Ovie in front of him. In any cap there will be turnover, obviously, but Semin was an additional piece the Caps brought in to add to their core, just like Knuble was. He can only stay for so long and add to the nucleaus the Caps have created.
4) Tampa: Some teams don’t have the sustainable large markets other teams do. It is possible that a team chooses to spend less b/c they need to be able to break even this year. So are they not spending the $14mil b/c they are so worried about Stamkos and Hedman (he actually isn’t up next year, he is an RFA the following year), or are they not spending it b/c they have an internal cap limit like other teams such as the Preds and Avalanche do. If Tampa wanted to spend more and still keep Hedman and Stamkos they could. they would just have to sign those new players to 1 or 2 year deals, so they will come off the books when Stamkos and Hedman are up for raises. This is why they would trade for a player like Gagne, he comes off the books when Stamkos is due his raise. Their cap space is due more b/c they have an internal cap (their spending budget) than it is due to RFA’s coming up.
5)
This goes with your last point in bold.
We should have not spent to the cap this year with Mez, Shelly and Walker to save money for next year. That is not good for the PLAYERS. Yes for us fans we could have kept our team they way we like. But this cap hurts the players because even the teams that would want to spend over the cap, can’t even spend to the cap, because they need to save for the RFAs. My point was in direct response to your earlier point of keeping teams together. The Flyers could have kept their team together if they wanted to, but they chose not to. That was a team direction decision, not a cap decision. You have now taken that point a different way, and it is factually incorrect since teams that can afford it are spending within 100’s of thousands of the cap ceiling.
6) UFA’s: Marleau got paid $6.9 per for 4 years and will be 31 by the time the season starts. Kovie is gonna get paid big bucks. So again what you are saying is factually incorrect.
All you have done is speculate and made factually incorrect points. After reading what you wrote, I’m fairly certain you don’t understand how some team exist with internal spending limits with or with out a cap so they can still operate a successful business. B/c the NHL is still a niche sport when compared to the other top 4 leagues, and their revenue sharing is still not perfect, teams do not make the same kind of profits as the other leagues. The smaller market teams suffer more and have to establish internal caps for themselves so they can stay afloat financially. Some teams are struggling to spend to the cap floor!!!! So you can either have a cap and a league, or you can get rid of it, with the teams that struggle financially falling under, which means less potential roster spots for players. I’m sure players “hurt” by the cap would rather still have a league to play in, or at least the same number of roster spots to potentially make.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Quote fail...it should have read:
5)
This goes with your last point in bold.
We should have not spent to the cap this year with Mez, Shelly and Walker to save money for next year. That is not good for the PLAYERS. Yes for us fans we could have kept our team they way we like. But this cap hurts the players because even the teams that would want to spend over the cap, can’t even spend to the cap, because they need to save for the RFAs.
My point was in direct response to your earlier point of keeping teams together. The Flyers could have kept their team together if they wanted to, but they chose not to. That was a team direction decision, not a cap decision. You have now taken that point a different way, and it is factually incorrect since teams that can afford it are spending within 100’s of thousands of the cap ceiling.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Tampa’s also a bad example because they recently came under new ownership that wanted to clean house before attempting to rebuild with FAs. It’s an ownership decision to blow up their roster, see what sort of roster can be put together from homegrown talent, and then fill any unmet needs with FAs.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Look to make it simple. You can’t keep a team together long it is impossible if you spend to the cap every year.
Eventually your entry level contracts will ballon to real contracts and you have to decide between guys keeping some of your 3rd year players or some of your 6th year players. Or letting someone else like a vet like Gagne walk.
But if you could front load your contracts of say Gagne so by time he reached his 5th year of the deal his contract was only counting as 1/3 of what it originally was. You can have your roster at the cap every single year (which is good for the Players) and still keep your team together.
Where is the proof of this.
Of course I have no proof that this will happen because it hasn’t happened yet it is a prediction. But Math doesn’t lie has those entry level contracts balloon and the cap stays the same. Something has to give. IE tough decision who do you keep.
The idea of the cap is that with those tough decisions big market clubs couldn’t hoard all the players and the small market clubs will sign them and become competitive. But they are not signing anyone anyway for whatever reason, ownership bad market whatever. This is bad for the players who now have now where to go. The big clubs would be willing to pay them but they can’t because of the cap and the small market clubs are just too poor or cheap or greedy to do it too.
Raising the minimum is a good way to fix this but that might make several franchise bankrupt or certainly put them in the red. Oh well they should move or sell the team. I say tough shit.
The cap is screwing the players at the expensive of the big market teams and their fans to keep teams in markets than don’t have strong enough hockey fanbases to keep the team a float even at the minimum salary cap.
What I mean by screwing the players is the cap goes up based on revenue but less at less of the cap is actually paid to the players more and more of it is free space either for the big clubs saving to sign there upcoming RFAs or by the small market cheep teams trying not the go bankrupt.
This is not a sustainable model. The cap has done nothing. The UFAs still go to the same teams nothing has changed but the total amount money spent on the player contracts.
I agree with you that the Blackhawks are an extreme case mostly because Toews and Kane contracts went really big from entry level to over 6 million. And they had two players ballon at the same time.
But with the cap not going up or up enough to support all the new ballooning entry level contracts along with the current veteran contracts players are going to have a hard time finding a home. The cap is designed to allow the smaller market teams to provide them with a home but that is not happening.
Not counting the average and just the yearly salary with allow the big market teams to set up contracts to keep this players in the league along with their RFAs and keep everyone’s yearly salary at the same number to keep competition fair between the big markets and the mid size markets.
I rather the rules of the CBA favor sustainable franchises instead of favoring the unsustainable small market clubs.
The little markets will still be profitable or not Bankrupt, the midsize markets like Calgary, SJS, LAK will be able to compete with the super big markets like Toronto, MTL, PHL, and NYR because the total salary per season is still capped and more league revenue will go the players. Everyone wins.
Ok, to address the first half, please review part of my response from your very first post on here
Interesting Thought about how the contracts count against the cap, and the idea of older players renegotiating the last year of their contracts.I thought the idea of having the year’s salary be the cap hit was interesting and thought it be something to consider moving forward, but I disagreed that the Blackhawks situation was commonplace b/c of the cap. And once again you somehow change the discussion.
HOWEVER…it’s not like the salary cap snuck up on the Hawks. The cap existed when they signed players like Campbell and Huet to those horrible contracts. They were put in this situation by mismanaging a cap. Like any business, management must learn to adapt to new rules and regulations set forth on them by their governing bodies. If management can not adapt to the new business, they must be replaced, and business usually suffers in the interim.
And this from you:
Of course I have no proof that this will happen because it hasn’t happened yet it is a prediction. But Math doesn’t lie has those entry level contracts balloon and the cap stays the same. Something has to give. IE tough decision who do you keep.
I believe the cap went up this year, correct me if I’m wrong… Also, it’s up to the players and teams to constantly adjust to the market place.
Also this from you:
less of the cap is actually paid to the players more and more of it is free space either for the big clubs saving to sign there upcoming RFAs or by the small market cheep teams trying not the go bankrupt.That is also not true, teams continue to spend to the cap, there are currently 4 teams that are over the cap, and another 4 within 900K of the cap ceiling, and another 3 teams currently at 95% of the cap and FA has not ended (I’m not including NJ since Kovie is off the books in this group either). So over 1/3 of the league is still spending to the cap. You completely ignored the facts I had previously laid out for you. Team prepare for their RFA’s by planning for expiring contracts. Mega contracts still exist in the league, long term contracts still exist in this league. If the cap does anything, it forces teams to stager their RFA and UFA’s, and when they sign players they know when those RFA’s and UFA’s are up.
I’m not saying the cap is perfect or there shouldn’t be constant talks on how to improve the situation, rather all I was saying was the cap is not to blame for the complete dismantling of teams, rather it’s poor management. Obviously no team can stay together completely. You realize Gretzky left Edmonton right? It doesn’t matter if there is a cap, or if there isn’t, teams are still going to be broken up b/c of ego’s, b/c of a team’s revenue not being sufficient enough to support raises or inflated salaries regardless of if there is a spending limit or not. Obviously the cap makes it more difficult to keep everyone together, that was never my point (my point again was the Blackhawks complete dismantling being due to mismanagement), but I can’t handle your constant changing of topics and turning a blind eye to obvious facts. I never said your ideas were bad, I actually said they were interesting. But when you went into your RFA speil, and the cap, you were just wrong.
IT IS SIMPLE BUT YOU WON"T GRASP THE CONCEPT. This is my last response to this. The teams and players have to analyze the market place. Like any other market place, it is constantly changing due to other outside influences, such as the economy. The commodities market is not a constant, stocks and bonds are not constant; free agency is a market place, and depending on the shape of the market the players will either do better or worse than previous years. Even if there was no cap, this would still exist as it is still a market place effected by the economic forecast that will fluctuate from year to year. Some years players will be worth more, other years they will be worth less. It is important, for all parties to be realistic about the current market place, and how their talent should be valued in it.
Is this the right room for an argument?
I agree players need to adjust I also agree the Blackhawks situation is an extreme example and more do with gambling (with paid off ie Stanley Cup Parade) and the players need to adjust. So I am not arguing with you there.
But your thinking that only losing players to the cap is entirely dependent on GM mis-management is also not true. Running into the cap is inevitable by sheer numbers. Entry level contracts are good for only 3 years. Any contract you sign that is longer than 3 years means eventually you will into a situation where you can’t fit everyone.
Salary comes off the books slower (longer than 3 years) than it comes on the books. If the cap doesn’t continue to inflate each year to make up for some of that difference every team will eventually hit the cap.
So contracts of longer than 3 years and not favorable, along with bringing up more than one entry level contract per year. Players are going to be forced to sign 1 year deals or accept really low multi year deals. Not good situation for players. Especially as the rate of retirement doesn’t equal the rate of new entry level contracts.
But your thinking that only losing players to the cap is entirely dependent on GM mis-management is also not true.
If that’s what you have been trying to argue, you have wasted my time. I did not say that losing players to the cap is solely due to mismanagement. Please refer to the following:
Any big market team can spend, spend, spend, but it takes a complete organization working effectively to scout talent and build teams effectively under a certain budget. No matter how you want to handle a cap in the NHL, a cap is still necessary b/c of the market place that exists for this sport, and it will always be difficult to keep teams together.
If teams can’t keep players, it’s just as likely b/c the player wants more money than the team can afford to pay them. So players have to have some blame put on them as well in this situation. If it a team manages their budget properly, they will be able to keep who they value as their key pieces in town. However, management can be wrong in their evaluation of their key pieces or players value, and get themselves in to cap problems.
Please make me a better case of the cap making teams break up every year. Of course there is turn over, it will always happen with a cap, but the Blackhawks are the exception, not the rule. And they are that exception b/c they mismanaged their cap
In any cap there will be turnover, obviously, but Semin was an additional piece the Caps brought in to add to their core, just like Knuble was. He can only stay for so long and add to the nucleaus the Caps have created.
I’m not saying the cap is perfect or there shouldn’t be constant talks on how to improve the situation, rather all I was saying was the cap is not to blame for the complete dismantling of teams, rather it’s poor management.
Obviously the cap makes it more difficult to keep everyone together, that was never my point (my point again was the Blackhawks complete dismantling being due to mismanagement),
I don’t know how to make this more clear to you, honestly. I am beyond frustrated having had this discussion with you to have it boil down to you thinking I think the only reason players are lost to the cap is from mismanagement. As you can see above, that is clearly not what I have said at any point in our discussion. I said the Blackhhawks COMPLETE DISMANTLING of their team was due to their mismanagement of the cap, and is the exception not the rule. I’m too exhausted from trying to get you to actually read what I write to address the other two points which I have addressed already anyway by discussing market places and both players and teams being responsible etc.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Also, please don’t read this as me thinking the NHL runs their business well. I think they need to reassess the way they market, the way have the cap set up, the way current player contracts can be set up, along with several other issues. More so I’m just trying to bring to light the reality of the situation, and the fact that we aren’t living in La-La land where we can have the ideal situations for every entity.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Any regular NHLer that doesn’t have financial secuirty has himself to blame not the salary cap or the CBA.
by tmurder on Aug 10, 2010 12:58 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
In a way I agree as it depends upon the lifestyle the player chooses to lead. Which could be said for anyone, if you live beyond your means, you will be broke, and it will be your fault.
The money can go a long way, for instance…take JVR’s contract worth just under $5M for 3 years…at my current salary it would take about 65 years to earn that money. Obviously a professional athlete is going to make more than the common man. My point is I make a decent living, support my family, my kids want for nothing (though I may do without here and there so they don’t). If that $5M is budgeted and invested properly, you are correct the security is there. I mean doubling what I live on it would last 32.5 years (not taking into account any interest or dividends accrued over that time)
However, I agree with DLJr, the NHL has to find a way to better market itself and its players.
My cynical side says, “you are a grown man getting paid millions to play a childs game, take what you get and be happy because me and most every guy that gets up at 5 and slugs through a 10 hour day for pennies compared to what you earn would play this game till they bled from their eyesockets for 1/10 of what you make!”
My logical side balances it by saying “hockey players, based on length of season, physical duress on the body, average length of career, and potential for career ending injury are the most underpaid professional athletes of the four major professional sports.”
The key is the marketing, the NFL, NBA, & MLB know how to market their product that just generates revenue far beyond what the NHL is doing.
DLJr makes a great point though, players are thinking in the past when setting their UFA prices. Perfect example Nabokov (though he made it clear by going to the KHL that he is interested only in $$$), I mean really, $6M/year? In today’s NHL? for a 35 year old goalie? Who can afford it? Apparently the KHL…Had he priced himself at about $4M, he would probably still be in the NHL. But who put that number in his head? His agent? Or was it more likely due to the boneheaded contract given to guys like Thomas & Huet?
Bottom line is that both management & labor have together begun to create a monster that has spiraled out of control to the point where the defending cup champion team has jettisoned what 8 players from there championship squad? Think the Oilers or Islanders of the 80’s would have been able to keep their cores together to win 4 cups in a row in today’s NHL? No Chance In Hell!!! Both sides are to blame and it will take both sides to fix it. The cap was a start, learning to manage it and closing a number of loopholes will help, and players understanding the business and financial strains of operating a franchise is a must.
Or things will continue the way they are, players will be no more than 1 year carpetbaggers, fans will become disinterested because the players are new every year so there is nothing to hold on to…
Suddenly I am found thinking of the dodo…
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
I think the NHL thinking it should be marketing with Baseball and Football is the problem. Hockey fans are hardcore and super passionate not casual like Football fans can be or Baseball. Those sports are not competing with Fall TV lineups and tons of other stuff. NFL owns Sunday and Baseball has the summer where there is absolutely nothing to do.
Hardcore NHL fans are also for the majority so highly devoted to their team they can’t stand watching their rivals succeed. How many Pens playoff games did you watch after they bounced us the last two years, how many of us plan of being glued to the Sid vs. Ovie circle jerk that the Winter Classic will be. I don’t plan on it. I watch the Flyers and follow everything else through highlights and newspapers.
If the NHL would concede to being local and not national it would be a much better product. Put teams in markets that have hockey fans not markets with big populations trying to get a national contract TV contracts and recognition. Winnipeg, Hartford, Qubec, Hamilton all would have much more rabid fanbases than Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Tampa, Columbus, Phoenix etc.. despite being smaller markets or non US markets. Fuck Fox, NBC, and ESPN let them teams make their own money.
That’s the problem though, for teams to spend the way you want them to spend, the NHL has to cater to the casual fan, which you don’t want. There is no way to generate the revenue that would allow the cap to be at a level to pay every player what it would take to keep a team together by just selling the game to the people who are already sold on the game. So you since you can’t have both, which you always seem to expect for some reason, what one do you want?
Another issue is revenue sharing; the NHL still doesn’t have that right, but that’s getting in to a whole other topic that would probably need it’s own dedicated post.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Perhaps I am unique, but I actually watch every game I can. During the playoffs, I watch em all, if the Flyers are out, I root for the lowest ranked team left. When MY GUYS are done, I root for the underdog…
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
Yeah, I agree with you. I didn’t touch that point b/c he is free to his opinion. But since I think a majority of the “hardcore” variety, I would think they watch pretty much all the playoff games they can b/c it’s just a great time of year for hockey. I know I do. So if you tune out during the playoffs b/c your team isn’t in it any more, I would call you more of a Team X fan than a hockey fan.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Thank you Fezzlekway…couldn’t agree more. It’s nice to wish for things, but you have to step back and recognize the facts of the situation, what has gotten us here, and the potential ideas to continue to improve upon what was started.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Agreed, sadly though will both sides ever actually stop trying to get the “better end of the CBA” in an effort to correct things? Doubtful…but here’s to hoping.
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
Well, I’d imagine it could get a little hairy for the guys who have a fairly low salary ceiling; not so much during their playing career, but as far as making the money last a long time. Let’s take a guy like Blair Betts, who makes 700k a year and isn’t a 20 year old phenom with a multimillion dollar contract waiting on the horizon. By the time he pays income taxes, escrow he might not get back, union dues to the NHLPA, and maintains multiple residences (you know, a year round home plus one wherever he’s playing at the time), a guy like that will live just fine during his playing career but might not make enough to carry him through the 30-40 years of life after he retires. Now most of them actually do work in some form, or invest in a business, etc after they retire, but not everyone makes enough that they’ll never have to work another day in their life.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Extremely well put.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Aug 10, 2010 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree to an extent, I never wanted to blanket this to all NHLers have financial security as tmurder did. Rather, like any other person entering the work force, that player should understand how that work force operates, his potential career length, his income, and plan for life after his career is over. Players willing make the choice to try to make a career in the NHL, it’s not as if they are forced in to it. As such, they should be able to understand their earning value, or hire someone that can help them understand. As their career progresses they should be able to acquire assets (those house expenses can be future assets as well), invest earnings, and position themselves for future positions after hockey through the contacts available tot hem during their career. Yes there are injury risks, but these players are willingly entering this career path knowing those risks. So if guys like Blair Betts can’t plan for their future after the NHL, they have no one to blame but themselves. Just b/c they play pro sports does not exempt them from having to deal with the economic realities the rest of us face, or having to have the fiscal responsibilities that we must have, or having to plan for their futures. Sure they have more expenses than the average job, but that’s why they have higher minimum wages than the average job. Making it through life isn’t an easy thing, and it’s equally difficult fiscally, everyone is responsible for their own stability, it’s part of being an adult.
PS: I know this is a bit of a tangent as to what you wrote, b/c all you are saying is not all NHLers are set for life. But, I feel we make too many excuses for them. The Riley Cote’s and Blair Bett’s of the world should understand their earning power and plan accordingly for their future.
Is this the right room for an argument?
Agreed. Although a simple fix is to the cap floor problem is to raise the floor, and make it a higher percentage of the overall cap. The Preds and the Isles won’t like this (why it probably won’t happen) but this would help overall league balance, and finally shake out the pretenders.
Raul Ibanez: since Moyer is on the DL, he is fast becoming our favorite old guy.
Rooting against a certain LW for the Tampa Bay Lightning will be impossible.
I don’t know that making the window smaller will really help, there’s already only $16M between the cap ceiling and floor (it’s a fixed window anyway), reducing that range further gives teams far less flexibility. If you make that range too narrow, it becomes possible to have 1 guy with an Ovie-type cap hit go on LTIR and have a team drop from right at the ceiling to below the floor, but they only have 1 roster spot open for a call-up…. what a mess.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Friday’s Three Stars: Blackhawks lose seventh straight; Wings win nineteenth straight at home
- Puck Previews: Blackhawks reeling; Sabres streaking; Holmstrom’s 1000th game
- Will Teemu Selanne remain with the Anaheim Ducks through the trade deadline?
- Nikolai Zherdev takes stick to crotch, elbow drop in KHL game (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Accused coach Pravilov dead; more Tim Thomas heat; Junior team goes nuts post-shootout
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- WHL Roundup: A look at Friday's games
- Franson scores winner as the Giants edge the Silvertips 3-2
- Ross with goal and assist to lead the Winterhawks over the Americans 4-2
- Wedman, Aviani and Valcourt lead the Chiefs over the Thunderbirds 5-4
- Elynuik scores winner as the Cougars beat the Oil Kings 5-4 in OT
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.
