Max Talbot contract with Phi goes $2.5m, $2.25m, $2.25m, $1m, $1m. At first glance, seems to be a violation of the cap rules. Checking.
If they managed to mess something this simple up, what a disgrace.
11 months ago
Ben Feldman
124 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Article 50.7 of the CBA states:
The difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in all subsequent League Years of the SPC,… (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC…
The lower of the first two league years is $2.25 mil. Half of that is $1.125 million. The Flyers drop Talbot’s salary from $2.25 million in year three to $1 million in year, a decrease of… $1.25 million.
Yup, sure looks like they violated the CBA.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
So is there a penalty, or they have a chance to correct it or something?
G, the second coming of Foppa.
It should just be a rejection of the SPC by the League. Basically, the signing doesn’t count, but we can re-work the contract. Given that it’s a pretty standard contract, I’d be surprised to see any actual penalty – there’s no reason to believe it’s a deliberate circumvention attempt, and they’ll probably just be told to revise the contract accordingly. Making it 2.5, 2.5, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0 would keep the cap hit the same and follow the rules as far as I understand them.
Bob.
I hope you’re right. I asked Quisp – he has experience after the Kovalchuk fiasco last year – and we’ll see.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
This is Richards new deal taken from gapgeeks:
http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=690
There is a drop from 7 mill to 1 mill. So a drop from 2.25 to 1 mill shouldnt be a problem
by Anders Jensen on Jul 3, 2011 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn’t drop by more than 50% of the lowest of the first two years though, so it complies.
Richards’ contract may have a Kovalchuk “against the spirit” claim, but it passes the specific and easy to understand claim the Flyers’ contract with Talbot failed.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m a little confused. Aren’t the first two years both 12 million and the last 3 years 1 million. So it’s dropping by way more than 50%? I’ve had a bunch of beer so it wouldn’t surprise me if I’m missing something.
Do signing bonuses not count as the bonuses they’re talking about, which makes the first two years salary 2million so it’s dropping by exactly half?
by KornontheKobb on Jul 3, 2011 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
It is year-to-year. So:
$12
$12
$9 <—- Drops by $3 million, less than 50% of $12 million. Good.
$8.5
$8.5
$7
$1 <—— Drops by $6 million, which is 50% of $12 million. Good.
$1
The problem is that this is so very clearly a “no way he plays those last two years for $1 million each” deals.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
If I recall correctly the problem was that the NHL didn’t like it, but NJ refused to alter it.
In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC
At least...
Give her a BSH Masthead spot.
Assistant Masthead Power Person on Down Goes Spezza as ItsAFez66
I'm the Pronger. DUH, WINNING.
Chem and Gus to the restaurant.
Ian Laperriere (EE-an luh-PAIR-ee-YAIR), proper noun
Definition: Bad-assery on skates
Hahaha, give Geoff some credit! He had it all under control over here.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 4, 2011 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
General consensus seems to be:
Contract is voided, Talbot re-enters free agency. Flyers could face penalties.
Reality: Talbot becomes free agent, Flyers make offer with year two $2.5 million and year three $2 million (like the Dark said), Talbot signs it, same cap hit, same years, same everything. Ed Snider convinces Bettman it was a typographical error, reminds Bettman that he owns NBC now, and the Flyers escape with a “Be careful next time.”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
I think some of the onus here has to go on Pat Brisson. And by some, I mean nowhere near as much as should go on Homer, but a good bit nonetheless. Unless of course Brisson is/was hoping that the League would notice, reject the contract, and give him some leverage to make Homer pay a slight bit more money to keep his client. Then again, Brisson’s a very well respected agent (see his clients), so I think this was an “oops” all around.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Sure, but I think Hanrahan gets more blame than Holmgren. Afterall, he’s the CBA expert.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we’ve found the problem here. His expertise has never been verified by Andy Sutton.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
He kinda does. He runs Comcast WHICH owns NBC. Technically, Lukko owns NBC, but we know who calls the big shots there.
Samesis
Snider in no way runs Comcast. He’s Chairman of Comcast-Spectacor which is owned by Comcast. Comcast owns a lot of companies and that’s one of them. He’s got no responsibilities as far as NBC goes.
Yup, although a variety of fiduciary duties apply b/c of a parent taking advantage of its subsidiary.
@philatticus on Twitter
And we shouldn’t forget that Snider still owns 37% of Comcast-Spectacor. Not to mention, he orchestrated the league’s post-lockout deal with VERSUS (then OLN), and as a member of the league’s Board of Governors Executive Committee made sure that the NHL stayed with the new NBCUniversal conglomerate with its new media rights deal. No, he doesn’t “own” NBC or “run” Comcast, but there are few people inside of Comcast who are more influential than he is.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
You don’t need the quotes around “own” or "run because he literally doesn’t “own” or “run” those things.
If the implication is that he’s somehow able to push the league around, I’d say there’s plenty of situations where he would have chosen to do it before this one. Unless he’s been sitting on that card for the great Talbot slip-up that he predicted would someday happen.
Also, the same logic would apply to his influence over Broadstreet Hockey, because Comcast Interactive Capitol funded SBN in 2009. http://blog.sbnation.com/2009/7/17/952303/sb-nation-secures-new-round-of
He’s listening right now …
I only put quotes around those words because those are the terms that were used before by others. We’re not just making all this up about Ed Snider’s influence. This is from a few months ago, before the league’s new deal with NBC. Of course, you may wish to believe that the article and the highly respected writer’s reporting holds no credence because Stu Hackel refers to Ed Snider as the Flyers’ “owner” (although technically he is a minority owner at 37%).
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
I think his influence as described in that article and the influence implied here are very different. I also think “highly respected” or not, there’s a lot of speculation going on with that article.
Regardless, I don’t believe Ed Snider has an orange phone in his office that rings Gary Bettman directly so he can whisper “NBC” and get his own way. Or if he did, I wish he would have used it a couple of June’s ago and gotten us a Cup.
There’s a big difference between influence in the realm of business and tin foil hat influence, and any references to the latter were very clearly sarcastic (at least that’s how I interpreted them). I’ve been on this site long enough to know that none of our regulars are — or ever have been — those kind of people. Of course Ed Snider’s role within Comcast isn’t going to be the determining factor of whether or not the Flyers are penalized for not doing a few simple calculations. His influence within both Comcast and the NHL is pretty substantial, though, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
And again, this is not to say that he is somehow in charge of the NHL or in charge of the entirety of Comcast. Far from it. But to think that the guy who’s been involved with the league since 1967, longer than probably anybody else who he works with now, and also happens to have a major role within the conglomerate of Comcast, doesn’t have a lot of pull is wrong.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Actually we’re saying the same thing (or at least that was my intention). I opened up asking if Geoff was joking because the impression I have of this board is that people are pretty serious here about being accurate and reasonable.
That’s the only reason why I asked.
I completely agree with your remark “Ed Snider’s role within Comcast isn’t going to be the determining factor of whether or not the Flyers are penalized for not doing a few simple calculations.”
That’s actually what I was trying to say.
About your last point though, I understand he’s got influence within the NHL. But I think it’s because he’s done well for the sport … and as I was typing this you just said what I was about to say. It’s because he’s been there since ’67.
So we agree on a lot.
I think you get what I was trying to say. Or already thought it and coincidentally we’re on the same page.
Haha, yeah, I think you’re right — we are on the same page. I think Flyers fans throw around verbiage for Ed Snider’s role within [the Flyers, Comcast, NBC, the NHL] rather loosely, because when we want to talk about Ed Snider, nobody wants to write “Ed Snider, minority owner of the Flyers and Chairman of Comcast-Spectacor, majority owner of the Flyers.” But by the same token, we generally don’t like to talk about “Comcast” being owners of the Flyers, because (a) we don’t like the idea of some emotionless conglomerate owning our hockey team and (b) we all know that Comcast doesn’t give one damn about the Flyers and Snider and Luukko have full control. So we just say Ed Snider owns the Flyers. And Ed Snider can pull a very large number of strings within Comcast (and now NBC), so when it comes to dealing with this sort of stuff, again, instead of writing out the long explanation, we just say stuff about Ed Snider having control over NBC (well, NBC Sports, anyway). I think (hope) we all know that in reality that’s not how things are, but for the save of brevity, that’s how we write to each other, expecting the others to know what we mean.
Now, this sort of talk occasionally gets picked up and misconstrued by non-Philadelphia media (such as this by the oh-so-beloved Damien Cox) who would actually seem to think that the dots are all connected and the Flyers get whatever they want. When, again, in reality, Comcast doesn’t give a damn one way or another about the Flyers and only bought 63% of Spectacor because they wanted a TV deal with the Flyers and a stronger influence over the city (and who it granted its legal cable monopoly to) and Ed Snider desperately needed another private funding source for what is now the Wells Fargo Center.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
/clears throat
As likely the only person on this thread who is actually paid to discuss corporate strategy in public contexts, I’ll just say that Ben F’s posts, including this one, capture the basic concept. Or, you might remember Animal Farm’s meme: “Some of us are more equal than others.”
In preparation for NHL free agency, thinking of changing my screen name to Bhudde in 10OC.
I do know that, yes.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Why am I not surprised? Dazzling…
by 92-74-99-96 on Jul 3, 2011 9:14 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Your Philadelphia Flyers.....
Slowly becoming the laughing stock of the NHL.
My teams are the Flyers, Phillies and the Steelers. Deal with it.
by LegionofDoom on Jul 3, 2011 9:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Remember that time the New Jersey Devils signed a guy to a contract, held a press conference and announced it, then the league said it was in violation of the CBA and everyone laughed at the Devils?
Yeah, those were the good ole days.
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
Then remember how that same guy signed a second contract with the Devils, and proceeded to do this?
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Irrespective of the legality of the contract, what do people think of this signing? I’m sad to see him go and happy to see him get paid, speaking of him as a person, but I don’t see how he’s worth anything close to that kind of money.
I think that about sums it up. The Flyers needed a new “character guy” with Lappy out of the picture, but giving Talbot five years should have brought down the cap hit significantly.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Ignoring the Richards and Powe trade, we needed to fill some holes in our PK, and if he was your 2nd top time PK guy on the top unit in the league, I have to assume he’s not complete crap in that role.
Then again, we woudn’t need PK help if we had waited until the goddamned UFA deadline and SIGNED PEOPLE FOR REALISTIC CONTRACTS THEN NOT TRADED OUR CAPTAIN… This whole situation has me infuriated.
again, the Bryz signing =/= the Richards trade. Richards was completely different. Carter, on the other hand…..
But I actually love the deal. Talbot is a better, younger version of Lappy. As for me, I don’t really care how much $$$ he gets, as long as the cap hit is good, and his cap is not bad for his talents.
Samesis
A) If we signed Bryz for Vokoun money, we could have avoided the Richards trade entirely.
B) Even if we signed Bryz for half what we did, Varly money, we could have moved something else, and avoided the trade.
A) If we signed Bryz for Vokoun money, we could have avoided the Richards trade entirely.
You don’t trade away your best play and team captain to “fit under the cap”. Richards and the organization had their problems, THATS why he was traded. What those problems were we may never know, but Bryz’s contract is only a tad higher then Carters, so you trade carter and one of either Versteeg or Carle/Mez/Coburn. We could have avoided the Richards trade even if Bryz got $6.5 mill a year, but neither of those players have any correlation to eachother besides the timing. Not trying to sound like a dick, but its just pure stupidity to say we traded Richards to afford Bryz.
Samesis
to prove my point
CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR
FORWARDS
Maxime Talbot ($1.800m) / Mike Richards ($5.750m) / Andreas Nodl ($0.845m)
Scott Hartnell ($4.200m) / Daniel Briere ($6.500m) / Jakub Voracek ($2.250m)
James Van Riemsdyk ($1.654m) / Claude Giroux ($3.750m) / Jaromir Jagr ($3.300m)
Jody Shelley ($1.100m) / Blair Betts ($0.700m) / Ben Holmstrom ($0.750m)
Tom Sestito ($0.550m)
DEFENSEMEN
Kimmo Timonen ($6.333m) / Chris Pronger ($4.921m)
Andrej Meszaros ($4.000m) / Matt Carle ($3.437m)
Braydon Coburn ($3.200m) / Andreas Lilja ($0.737m)
Oskars Bartulis ($0.600m)
GOALTENDERS
Ilya Bryzgalov ($5.666m) / Sergei Bobrovsky ($1.750m)
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $63,795,595; BONUSES: $1,825,000
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $504,405
Samesis
Then that only begs the question: What locker room problems? WHAT organizational problems. You have the GM almost in tears at the trade, you have a team that spent HOW long at the top of the league and, when not top of the league, how long at the top of the Eastern conference? We finished 3rd in the damned league.
What possible problems could there have been?
Ed Snider problems.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
by Ben Feldman on Jul 3, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Still, being #2 on the top-ranked PK in the league isn’t a bad resume line. And if we were letting Carcillo go, Max is a PERFECT replacement. GDet and I discussed this elsewhere, and basically decided that the math is 3:2. We’re getting the benefits of two previous players (Carcillo and Powe) condensed into one player (Talbot), freeing up a roster spot for someone else. AND in such a broken locker room after trading away the core of the team, Max’s leadership and humor will be worth every penny he gets. I, for one, think signing Max was outstanding.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 4, 2011 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s not worth the money and he doesn’t fill any of the roles we need help in.
Keeping alive the old Vaudeville joke, "I'd rather be dead than play Philadelphia."
The first part is true, the 2nd part is very wrong. The Flyers traded their best PK forward, and another very good defensive forward. Signing Talbot did a lot to help stabilize what had quickly become a decimated power play unit.
"You can commit no mistake and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." - Jean-Luc Picard
Simple, yet stupid, mistake.
Contract was probably supposed to go $2.5m, $2.25m, $2m, $1.25m, $1m.
This was a stupid mistake, yes, but I can’t imagine the league coming down especially hard over it. I don’t expect any serious ramifications.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I think so. Like I said above, Pat Brisson is very highly respected and he’s probably as embarrassed as Homer. Still, how the Flyers (and as Geoff likes to remind us, Barry Hanrahan) let this happen is beyond me. Brisson and his staff probably had a million things going on with all of his clients the other day, so it’s not hard to see how it slipped by them, but yeah, someone should have caught it.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Yup. It’s easier to understand an agent overlooking the CBA requirements than it is the team.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 3, 2011 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Well I guess it's time......
To order a Richards Kings jersey. I am guessing by the end of the week the rest of the Flyers will gone as well. Especially with Snider and Homer at the helm of this sinking ship.
My teams are the Flyers, Phillies and the Steelers. Deal with it.
by LegionofDoom on Jul 3, 2011 11:36 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Come on now. It was a stupid oversight on everyone’s part. Miller just said that the Flyers will be forced to changed it a little bit but likely would not be penalized.
I want Richie and Gags to do well in LA too, but please. The Flyers are not going to cease to exist.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
While true, and while I’m not going to go to quite the length of rooting for another team against the Flyers (I will, however, be rooting for LA in any Western conference sense, though.)
However, I think heads HAVE to roll for this. The need for a goalie? Blown call that should have been stopped before it got worse. The amount we paid? Blown call. This contract? Blown call. In less than a month, we’ve been running a frigging blockhead bonanza over at the FO, and someone needs to put a foot down.
If you were Ed Snider, who publicly vowed on behalf of Paul Holmgren that the Flyers would never have such a mess in goal again, whose heads would you roll, exactly? Your own? And if Ed Snider won’t roll any heads, who will? As we’ve just discussed ad nauseum, Brian Roberts certainly isn’t about to do anything (although he was probably been a Flyers fan since before his dad bought a majority of Spectacor and probably has an opinion on the matter).
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Please simply ignore the part in parentheses.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Ohh, I know it won’t happen. But I think it has to for the immediate future of the franchise to be healthy.
One of the things I’ve noted before as a point of pride the Flyers have is I don’t really recall there being a period where we were flat out terrible. We’re second amongst active NHL teams in win percentage, we have the most Conference Final appearances of any expansion team, tied for most playoff appearences of any expansion team, etc. When it comes to the history and importance of the O6, of the expansion teams I think we’re one of the few, if not the most worthy, of standing up next to them and saying our history matters, big time, for the NHL.
But I am legitimately worried we’re heading for a long down period due to the contracts we’re signing and moves we’re making. This debacle isn’t helping my stress-level any.
You’re right that throughout the franchise’s history, losing hasn’t been tolerated (except for that three or so year period starting in 1990 when Jay Snider and Russ Farwell were in charge). They’re undoubtedly taking a substantial risk this offseason, but I don’t think all of a sudden they’ll be content with not making the playoffs. Hell, you saw what happened to Clarkie and Hitch with a 1-6-1 start in ‘06-07 after a disappointing ’05-06 playoffs. If this group doesn’t live up to internal expectations (who knows what they are exactly, but “making the playoffs” is one of them), then heads will roll. But not until then.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Laviolette’s head notwithstanding. Coaching changes don’t count as major in this organization anymore, it seems.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
AAV
wouldnt it solve this whole mess of long deals that wont be played out by making the cap hit whatever the player is actually making that year instead of the AAV?
No, because that would make fitting some years under the cap even more incredibly impossible.
Assistant Masthead Power Person on Down Goes Spezza as ItsAFez66
I'm the Pronger. DUH, WINNING.
Chem and Gus to the restaurant.
Ian Laperriere (EE-an luh-PAIR-ee-YAIR), proper noun
Definition: Bad-assery on skates
I thought John Nash solved that already.
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 4, 2011 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Grigori Perelman proved the Poincaré Conjecture in 2003 which is the only one out of the original seven Millennium Prize Problems.
Well shit – what am I doing wasting my time here then??? :)
Maxime Talbot - in the Orange and Black ... better than chocolate and peanut butter!
by MaximumTalbot on Jul 4, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
And refused the prize.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Jul 4, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Man, this is an example of truly impressive bureaucratic bullshit. There’s no intent to circumvent the cap here. In all honestly, this rule shouldn’t even apply to contracts under 3 million. But hey, there’s a whole lot of “ratard” in this league
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 1:04 AM EDT reply actions
There’s no intent to circumvent the cap here.
I beg to differ. Three years, $7 million is the contract with two years added on? It’s not egregious, but he’s worth $2.33 mil per year until age 30, then he’s only worth $1 mil?
Any time you see “$1 mil, $1 mil” at the end of a contract, it’s circumventing the cap. Not illegal, mind you, but it’s clearly to drive down cost with very little likelihood of that person playing on your team in those years.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 4, 2011 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m having trouble following you there, Geoff was talking about Talbot.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 4, 2011 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions
So the Flyers are trying to save 500k, while they overspend in other areas on their team?
If I’m the NHL board I look at this deal, acknowledge that it was a minor infraction and let it go, because I look at the Flyers recent deals in its entireties, and I realize that the Flyers have a poor notion of cap management
What I’m saying is, “If they really think 500k is really going to be the difference between success and bust, the Flyers are poorly mistaken”
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
it’s the other bad contracts that will sink them. Saving 500k on Talbot will be scooping a bucket of water out of their sinking ship, while Breezy and co’s conrtract are icebergs shredding the sides of the Flyers cruise ship
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Right, but you’re excusing the circumvention because it’s small, you aren’t saying there is no circumvention.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 4, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
If the circumvention is small, then I believe there’s no intent to get one over on the Cap.
Is there a violation of the rule? Yes. Is the act the initial target audience of the rule? no
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
If the circumvention is small, then I believe there’s no intent to get one over on the Cap.
This is what I don’t get. You’re saying circumvention – getting one over on the Cap – isn’t circumvention, as long as it’s only a small circumvention.
Circumvention is circumvention. You either broke the rules, or you didn’t. This isn’t an interpretation issue, this is a clear cut, 5th grade word problem, and the Flyers got it wrong.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 4, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
The problem is, the circumvention helps both the large cap and small cap teams.
Say you have a player signed for 5, 5, 3, 3, 1, 1. His cap hit will be $3m per year. Just for the sake of argument, say his production is on the level of 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2 over the course of that contract.
The large cap team signed the guy originally. They pay more than his cap hit, getting a player whose talent exceeds his cap hit at that time (they’re paying $5m, he’s worth $4m, but the cap hit’s only $3m). A few years down the road, in the last two years, age starts to take its toll and he’s no longer quite worth his cap hit – his hit is $3m, but an average $2m player can replace his production. However, since he only costs $1m in actual cash, for a team trying to reach the floor, he’s worth it, since you get $2m of production from $1m of cash outlay, and there’s a “bonus” $2m of cap hit that you don’t have to spend to reach the floor.
Basically, with the way the cap/floor is structured, there’s incentive on the part of both big-cap and small-cap teams to collude in allowing these sort of contracts to exist.
Bob.
Was this supposed to be a reply to me?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 4, 2011 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Sort of – just trying to explain why nobody seems to care about these circumventing deals unless they’re really egregious. Everyone eventually benefits from those deals, so nobody’s terribly concerned about them.
Bob.
Fair enough, and good point.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 5, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
But this isn’t just about ‘cap circumvention’ or bureaucratic BS, it’s also a basic rule of multi-year contracts. This is a simple provision that we just straight up dropped the ball on and got it wrong. It was just stupidity, because we had every opportunity to do it correctly, and maybe even double check it before faxing in the paperwork. It’s shameful, but it’s not the bureaucracy’s fault that we broke a simple, clearly posted rule. If somebody gets a speeding ticket for going 72 in a 65 mph zone, it’s easy for them to cry foul and say “but I didn’t break the law by that much!”. But the sign was right in front of them and they still chose to speed, so the cop or the judge doesn’t have to let them off without punishment every time.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 4, 2011 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
and so what about 66 in a 65? That’s still breaking the law. All I’m asking for is police discretion instead of a black and white system. The NHL’s ability to look at a contract and say yay or nay, despite having laws in place. Now before you say if the law is broken, why have it, it’s because I believe in judging the intent of an individual. The infraction here is so negligible that I believe a warning is required with the contract being passed through as is.
To me there’s a huge difference between the Kovalchuk and Pronger deals, than the Max Talbot deal
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
But this is a very simple provision, and it applies to all contracts evenly. This is not some big confusing rule. I’ve already heard reports that they don’t expect the penalties to be imposed; but to say that a simple rule just doesn’t apply when the contract is under $3M is crazy. They may not get punished, but the contract is still void and they need to submit a new one.
You can get a ticket for going 66 in a 65, and you might not get punished (but there’s still a tiny chance you will). But you still have to take the time and go to court to have them let you out of it. The Flyers have to take the time and submit a new contract.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 4, 2011 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
you’re partially right, to say that if a contract is under 3 million and the rules shouldn’t apply is unreasonable. But I am going to say that the rule in its nature is targeting the bigger contracts, and this contract is just a casualty
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Understood. But it’s still rejected and they need to submit a new one; and the fact that they got it wrong is stupid. Of all the things you can get wrong when reading the CBA, that’s a really pitiful one. It’s one of the few things in plain, obvious language.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 4, 2011 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
touche
I eat sentimentality for breakfast, but stats stop me dead in my tracks
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 4, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
1.25... that's almost like 1.125, right!?
It's a hockey, you know. it's only... it's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
Steve Carell was a good choice to play Max, but he’s no Max.
It's in his wheelhouse!!
Carlos Ruiz, My Nickname is Chooch.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
