GM Hockey
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
GM Hockey

You are not connected. Please login or register

UPDATE: NHL investigating Hossa, Pronger contracts

+9
SeawaySensFan
rooneypoo
PKC
The Silfer Server
Hockeyhero22000
davetherave
PTFlea
shabbs
wprager
13 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 8]

rooneypoo


All-Star
All-Star

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.

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer

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.

Guest


Guest

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.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer

Well, if the cap hit is the constant and lives on even if the player retires, they can front load/back load that puppy all they want... the cap hit is what Rooney wants to stick around, and I agree with him it needs to be addressed.

Guest


Guest

shabbs wrote:Well, if the cap hit is the constant and lives on even if the player retires, they can front load/back load that puppy all they want... the cap hit is what Rooney wants to stick around, and I agree with him it needs to be addressed.
That is unfair. If a player retires due to injury that is unfair to the club.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer

RobbyJ wrote:
shabbs wrote:Well, if the cap hit is the constant and lives on even if the player retires, they can front load/back load that puppy all they want... the cap hit is what Rooney wants to stick around, and I agree with him it needs to be addressed.
That is unfair. If a player retires due to injury that is unfair to the club.
And that's why Rooney was saying there should be exclusions like retiring due to injury etc...

Guest


Guest

shabbs wrote:
RobbyJ wrote:
shabbs wrote:Well, if the cap hit is the constant and lives on even if the player retires, they can front load/back load that puppy all they want... the cap hit is what Rooney wants to stick around, and I agree with him it needs to be addressed.
That is unfair. If a player retires due to injury that is unfair to the club.
And that's why Rooney was saying there should be exclusions like retiring due to injury etc...
A constant salary removes all grey areas. Simple solutions are often the best solutions.

wprager

wprager
Administrator
Administrator

RobbyJ wrote:If they were worried about possible circumvention issues, they should not have registered it. I think that ship has sailed.

Not necessarily. They check whether it conforms to the CBA and, if it does, they let it through. Even then, they still make mistakes -- there was at least one case last year, the Leafs' I think. In this case (as in any other), if some new evidence comes out, they can easily say, "Whoa, back'er up".


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

wprager

wprager
Administrator
Administrator

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....

Huge difference, though. In Hossa's case (and I said this a long time ago) it's almost two contracts -- he makes over $53M in the first 8 years (over $6.5M average), then something like $3.5M over the last 4 years. If the cap and minimum salary keep going up he might well be close to league minimum over the last 4 years of the deal.


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

The Silfer Server

The Silfer Server
Veteran
Veteran

wprager wrote:
RobbyJ wrote:If they were worried about possible circumvention issues, they should not have registered it. I think that ship has sailed.

Not necessarily. They check whether it conforms to the CBA and, if it does, they let it through. Even then, they still make mistakes -- there was at least one case last year, the Leafs' I think. In this case (as in any other), if some new evidence comes out, they can easily say, "Whoa, back'er up".

You're right Prags, it happened to the Leafs with the Frogren case. The deal was deemed illegal or what not, and the Leafs were fined and penalized with the forfeiture of a draft pick. And that was after the contract was finalized.

wprager

wprager
Administrator
Administrator

How about this:

1. Constant salary over duration of contract
2. Remove the current 35 rule
3. Players retiring at 35 or earlier, cap hit comes off the books
4. Special dispensations for early retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity.

If players want more money up-front, arrange an interest-free loan like many companies do. Just make sure that the principal is paid down from the player's salary.


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

Guest


Guest

wprager wrote:How about this:

1. Constant salary over duration of contract
2. Remove the current 35 rule
3. Players retiring at 35 or earlier, cap hit comes off the books
4. Special dispensations for early retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity.


If players want more money up-front, arrange an interest-free loan like many companies do. Just make sure that the principal is paid down from the player's salary.
With constant salary any retiring player could come off the books whether for injury or any other reason. There would be no benefit to the club or player.

If players want more up front money sign a higher priced one or two year deal.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer

wprager wrote:How about this:

1. Constant salary over duration of contract
2. Remove the current 35 rule
3. Players retiring at 35 or earlier, cap hit comes off the books
4. Special dispensations for early retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity.

If players want more money up-front, arrange an interest-free loan like many companies do. Just make sure that the principal is paid down from the player's salary.
I still don't think we need the "constant salary" piece. Remember - this is hoping to deter GMs from arranging these types of deals, not the players. Having the cap hit remain will do that job.

1. Remove the current 35+ rule
2. Players retiring before the age of 35, cap hit comes off the books
3. Players retiring at the age of 35 or later, cap hit stays on the books
3. Special exception for retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity

Note: Age at contract signing has no bearing on these rules.

davetherave

davetherave
All-Star
All-Star

Greg Wyshynski at YahooSports offers this perspective...

NHL investigating Hossa deal: Scare tactic or taking a stand?

Greg Wyshynski, PuckDaddy/YahooSports.com, July 31, 2009

The first two questions that need to be asked about the NHL's investigation of Marian Hossa's contract would be "Why was it approved by the NHL in the first place?" and "Why, out of all of them, this contract?"

Like we pointed out last week, Hossa's is one of a handful of contracts that bring down their total cap hit by offering peanuts on the backend. He'll make $750,000 in the final year of his deal with the Chicago Blackhawks; that's $250,000 less than the whopping salaries of Johan Franzen(notes) and Henrik Zetterberg(notes) in their final years in Sweden with the Detroit Red Wings. All of these contracts were approved by the NHL, even though all of them are constructed the same way.

According to an email Bill Daly wrote to Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun, the difference here apparently is that Marian Hossa(notes) will be "past the age 40" at the end of his contract, while Zetterberg and Franzen will simply be 40 years old when theirs end. Whippersnappers!

From the Sun:

"We're trying to understand how it was negotiated and whether the intent and effect is to circumvent the cap," wrote Daly. "This was the first of the long-term contracts that took a player out past the age 40 and the value of the contract in its ‘out years' was dramatically lower than its early years.

"We want to know if the possibility of player retirement was ever discussed or even contemplated."

"The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end," a league executive said last night. "They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won't just go away. Lots of other GMs are supporting the league here."

There's no question about that. The GMs that have dabbled in the dark arts of cap circumvention through front-loaded, long-term deals are clearly in the minority; the rest of the League will likely work to close the loophole (even if, in the end, it's a constructive one with regards to keeping the NHL popular and marketable).

But with the CBA negotiation a few off-seasons away, this Hossa thing could be a handy scare tactic; something to remind the rest of the League that the NHL's on the scent of these odorous cap-hit-avoiding contracts.

Or there could be some sort of fire behind the smoke. The Blackhawks' front office upheaval has, no question, strained a few relationships. Pure speculation, but is there something tangible about the way the Hossa contract was negotiated that put this on the NHL's radar? Do they have a smoking gun?

The Sun reports that Chicago "could be facing a maximum fine of $5 million and the loss of draft picks" if it's proven that the Blackhawks discussed an early retirement plan with Hossa.

Which would be rather stunning, actually. If any team was going to get nailed for being sloppy on a cap-circumventing lifetime contract, wouldn't you have thought it would have been the Lightning and Vinny "$1 million salary in 2020" Lecavalier?

Guest


Guest

shabbs wrote:
wprager wrote:How about this:

1. Constant salary over duration of contract
2. Remove the current 35 rule
3. Players retiring at 35 or earlier, cap hit comes off the books
4. Special dispensations for early retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity.

If players want more money up-front, arrange an interest-free loan like many companies do. Just make sure that the principal is paid down from the player's salary.
I still don't think we need the "constant salary" piece. Remember - this is hoping to deter GMs from arranging these types of deals, not the players. Having the cap hit remain will do that job.

1. Remove the current 35+ rule
2. Players retiring before the age of 35, cap hit comes off the books
3. Players retiring at the age of 35 or later, cap hit stays on the books
3. Special exception for retirement brought on by injury or other incapacity

Note: Age at contract signing has no bearing on these rules.
Rather than hoping to deter, my way prevents them from doing it.

Tuk Tuk

Tuk Tuk
Veteran
Veteran

if Hossa did take this contract and make a deal to retire before its over, then I've lost alot of respect for a guy who used to be my favourite player.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer

RobbyJ wrote:Rather than hoping to deter, my way prevents them from doing it.
It's the cap hit that the GMs are concerned about... not the salary. And the cap hit doesn't change no matter how you slide and dice the salary. That was my point.

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Whatever closes the loophole works for me. Constant salaries would work, for sure. NHL players, their representatives, like those big paydays at the start of new deals, tho', I'd imagine.

Union-wise, it's always harder to take away something previously granted than to extend something already existing. Hence, why I suggested just extend the 35+ over for all NHLers, regardless of age, and with exceptions for medical reasons.

But if the NHL can make constant salaries work, that would solve the problem, absolutely.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 8]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum