UPDATE: NHL investigating Hossa, Pronger contracts

MurderOnIce wrote:Has Zoolander met an untimely demise?

Yeah I wanted to change my avatar, but keeping the nick didn't seem right without it.

Bass Destruction wrote:Anyone think Dale Tallon will seek his revenge??

Revenge for what? He's got a pretty sweet deal for the next three years.

hemlock wrote:This could open a can of worms. Zetterberg is signed until he's over 40 I believe. I suppose the NHL could say the same thing about the Wings and that contract. Any team who signs a player until they are 40 on a huge term is banking on the player not playing out the full deal. It's a pretty obvious tactic to lower the yearly cap hit. This is the league's fault anyway by having that stupid over 35 clause with regards to the cap hit. Someone should fine Bettman $5 million. The league left this loophole and now they expect the teams to not use it? Please....

The points our Members raise are all excellent...and gives rise to the question as to whether the reported 'investigation' is just political posturing.

Or perhaps sour grapes by teams who lost out in the bidding war for certain UFAs?

SpezDispenser wrote:Yeah, why would they let it go through in the first place?

Well, I suspect they probably heard rumblings after about a deal to retire early (if that is indeed the case).

Bass Destruction wrote:Anyone think Dale Tallon will seek his revenge??

HA! You think he planted something? He's still with the organization so I don't think it would do him any good to bring something like this to light.

The structure of this contract certainly is interesting... and does look geared to an "exit" after 8 years...

Term: 12 years
Total: $68.2M
Cap hit: $5.23M

Salary:
- Years 1 - 7: $7.9M/season
- Year 8: $4M/season
- Years 9 -12: $875K/season

After year 8, Hossa will be 38 years old...

But, who knows.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Burke raises the issue of lengthy contracts at this week's NHL BOG's meeting (on Wednesday, I believe), and now we have this.

Deal's like Hossa's exploit a loophole in the CBA, circumventing the clear intent of the salary cap. I hope the teams signing these deals get punished now, and that the loophole gets closed as quickly as possible. Make the salary cap hit stick for all players who retire after the age of 35, or even 30, regardless of at what age they signed the original contract.

I call Dungtorm.

This one is gonna be tough to stop though. If a player retires, the team should be able to get that cap hit off the books. Perhaps limiting the length of contracts? Or the rate at which the salary can decrease over the term of the contract?

shabbs wrote:This one is gonna be tough to stop though. If a player retires, the team should be able to get that cap hit off the books. Perhaps limiting the length of contracts? Or the rate at which the salary can decrease over the term of the contract?

Why, exactly, is that? I mean, it's pretty simple: don't sign a player for years you don't think he'll play. No need to limit the length of contracts or anything.

I propose just one simple rule: the full cap hit for any player who retires after the age of 30 remains on the team's books, regardless of at what age the deal was signed. Exceptions only in the instance where a player is forced into retirement by injuries, certified by a doctor independent of the team in question.

This is a stupid loophole and everyone knows it. The salary cap isn't going to ensure parity if teams can sign multiple players to deals that take them into the 40s and 50s -- nor will it survive long, as the revenue/expenses formula isn't being respected.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:This one is gonna be tough to stop though. If a player retires, the team should be able to get that cap hit off the books. Perhaps limiting the length of contracts? Or the rate at which the salary can decrease over the term of the contract?

Why, exactly, is that? I mean, it's pretty simple: don't sign a player for years you don't think he'll play. No need to limit the length of contracts or anything.

I propose just one simple rule: the full cap hit for any player who retires after the age of 30 remains on the team's books, regardless of at what age the deal was signed. Exceptions only in the instance where a player is forced into retirement by injuries, certified by a doctor independent of the team in question.

This is a stupid loophole and everyone knows it. The salary cap isn't going to ensure parity if teams can sign multiple players to deals that take them into the 40s and 50s -- nor will it survive long, as the revenue/expenses formula isn't being respected.

Well, a player can retire for any number of reasons, and at any time in theory... there needs to allowances for legitimate reasons beyond injury. I think setting a threshold at 30 is too soon. I can see 35 being a nice milestone.

It will be interesting to see how the NHL approaches this one.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:This one is gonna be tough to stop though. If a player retires, the team should be able to get that cap hit off the books. Perhaps limiting the length of contracts? Or the rate at which the salary can decrease over the term of the contract?

Why, exactly, is that? I mean, it's pretty simple: don't sign a player for years you don't think he'll play. No need to limit the length of contracts or anything.

I propose just one simple rule: the full cap hit for any player who retires after the age of 30 remains on the team's books, regardless of at what age the deal was signed. Exceptions only in the instance where a player is forced into retirement by injuries, certified by a doctor independent of the team in question.

This is a stupid loophole and everyone knows it. The salary cap isn't going to ensure parity if teams can sign multiple players to deals that take them into the 40s and 50s -- nor will it survive long, as the revenue/expenses formula isn't being respected.

Rooney,

It's even simpler than that. You can scrap the 35+ rule. Multiyear contracts must be for the same value every year. No more front loading, back loading, escalating, decreasing contracts. Dipietro's deal is structure like that.

shabbs wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:This one is gonna be tough to stop though. If a player retires, the team should be able to get that cap hit off the books. Perhaps limiting the length of contracts? Or the rate at which the salary can decrease over the term of the contract?

Why, exactly, is that? I mean, it's pretty simple: don't sign a player for years you don't think he'll play. No need to limit the length of contracts or anything.

I propose just one simple rule: the full cap hit for any player who retires after the age of 30 remains on the team's books, regardless of at what age the deal was signed. Exceptions only in the instance where a player is forced into retirement by injuries, certified by a doctor independent of the team in question.

This is a stupid loophole and everyone knows it. The salary cap isn't going to ensure parity if teams can sign multiple players to deals that take them into the 40s and 50s -- nor will it survive long, as the revenue/expenses formula isn't being respected.

Well, a player can retire for any number of reasons, and at any time in theory... there needs to allowances for legitimate reasons beyond injury. I think setting a threshold at 30 is too soon. I can see 35 being a nice milestone.

It will be interesting to see how the NHL approaches this one.

for me, Hossa may potentially play almost all the contract.....the one that the NHL should REALLY be targeting is Chris Pronger's deal. It's way more obvious and WAAAAY more rediculus considering his age. Historically the refs have given him a free pass and now the league too? he's crap...I hope philly starts tanking....

Pronger's deal isn't an issue. The Flyers screwed up and they are stuck with the cap hit even if he retires.

Pronger's 7-year extension is interesting too, but the decrease in salary is no where near as rapid as Hossa's...

The extension will begin in 2010-11. He will make $7.6 million in the first two years, $7.2 million in 2012-13, $7 million in 2013-14, $4 million in 2014-15, and $525,000 in both 2015-16 and 2016-17.

The extension takes him to age 42.

EDIT: And since it's a 35-plus contact, it's on the books no matter what he does.

RobbyJ wrote:
Rooney,

It's even simpler than that. You can scrap the 35+ rule. Multiyear contracts must be for the same value every year. No more front loading, back loading, escalating, decreasing contracts. Dipietro's deal is structure like that.

Hey, as long as teams are accountable for the cap hits they agree to with their players, we can work this anyway you want. I have no problem with frontloading, backloading, escalating, etc., deals. My problem is with teams using long, frontloaded deals to circumvent the clear intent of the CBA.

I Diddle hate weaselly lawyer bull-Dung like this.

RobbyJ wrote:Pronger's deal isn't an issue. The Flyers screwed up and they are stuck with the cap hit even if he retires.

Yeah, that is one hell of a mess. They better hope he plays until the end.

rooneypoo wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:
Rooney,

It's even simpler than that. You can scrap the 35+ rule. Multiyear contracts must be for the same value every year. No more front loading, back loading, escalating, decreasing contracts. Dipietro's deal is structure like that.

Hey, as long as teams are accountable for the cap hits they agree to with their players, we can work this anyway you want. I have no problem with frontloading, backloading, escalating, etc., deals. My problem is with teams using long, frontloaded deals to circumvent the clear intent of the CBA.

I Diddle hate weaselly lawyer bull-Dung like this.

GM's will always find ways to get around deals. With constant salaries throughout the contract term, it wouldn't matter if a player retires at 25 or 55.