UPDATE: NHL investigating Hossa, Pronger contracts

I just dont get why teams dont sign guys until their 70 at this point. Seriously, whats the difference?

If it's within the rules, it's within the rules.

Neely4Life wrote:I just dont get why teams dont sign guys until their 70 at this point. Seriously, whats the difference?

If it's within the rules, it's within the rules.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Watch Burke try to do that just to make a point.

He'll sign a $100M 70-year contract... cap hit: $1.429M/year. Sweet.

Think of the roster you could build!

Well, um, the NHL acts on the direction of the GMs, so they must be technically investigating each other.

It's not like the NHL executive acts unilaterally on league matters. These decisions are made by voting and present governors with no influence by the executive, other than their recommendations.

When does the NHL act based on vindictiveness? Never happens.

shabbs wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:I just dont get why teams dont sign guys until their 70 at this point. Seriously, whats the difference?

If it's within the rules, it's within the rules.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Watch Burke try to do that just to make a point.

He'll sign a $100M 70-year contract... cap hit: $1.429M/year. Sweet.

Think of the roster you could build!

Look for the NHL to move towards a contract/cap/luxury tax model that is something like the NBA's...by the time negotiations start re: the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

IMHO this might just be a smokescreen for that strategy to be unveiled.

Which would mean the end of the cap as we know it now.

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.

I had suggested this before - sign a deal that runs to age 50 but at league min after 37, with a NTC (not NMC). This would allow the cap to be pushed down to ridiculous levels, and the GM would be fairly comfortable that they could "force" the player to retire if need be by sending them down. As added security, have it go down in the middle, then rise a bit towards age 33 before dropping again so that the player can't retire right after the "big payout" years.

From ESPN, this article suggests there may be a new conflict brewing between the league and the NHLPA over player contracts, possibly starting with the Hossa and Pronger deals.

SOURCES: HOSSA, PRONGER DEALS PROBED
Scott Burnside, ESPN.com/July 31, 2009

Because of growing concerns over the manner in which teams are locking up top players to front-loaded, long-term contracts, the National Hockey League has launched an investigation into the recent signings of Marian Hossa and Chris Pronger, sources told ESPN.com.

The NHL will hire an outside firm to determine whether the Chicago Blackhawks and Philadelphia Flyers discussed a time line for Hossa's or Pronger's potential retirement before the long-term contracts were signed.

At the end of the investigation the NHL will decide whether to pursue charges against the the teams for circumventing the collective bargaining agreement. The teams could face fines, the loss of draft picks or both.

Hossa signed a 12-year deal with the Blackhawks that begins with payments of $7.9 million for the first seven years and finishes with four years at $1 million annually. The overall the cap hit for the Blackhawks is a completely manageable $5.275 million a year.

Hossa will turn 42 if he plays to the end of the contract, which raised red flags for the NHL and was one factor in calling for a probe of the deal.

The NHL is also concerned about the dramatic dropoff in the payments. The last four years at a $1 million a year represent just 6.3 percent of the total contract even though that's one third of the years on the deal.

The problem, from the league's perspective, is if a player is locked in to a deal for $1 million between the ages of 38 and 42 it could be incentive to retire because he cannot renegotiate.

One NHL executive suggested the average salary of most 40-year-old players is about $1 million a year, so the back end of the Hossa deal isn't out of line.

The Pronger deal is different because even if Pronger, who will turn 35 before the seven-year extension kicks in next summer, retires the Flyers will take an average cap hit of $5 million annually for the life of the contract. At least that's the league's take on the deal.

Still, the league is likewise examining the Pronger deal that has him making $7.6, $7.6, $7.2 and $7 million in the first four years, $4 million in the fifth year and then $525,000 in each of the last two years. That makes the cap hit manageable at a shade under $5 million annually.

The Blackhawks released a statement on Friday denying any violation of the CBA.
Philadelphia GM Paul Holmgren was available Friday.

For a number of years the NHL has been warning GMs that they will be watching these kinds of front-loaded, long-term contracts -- a warning that was expressly made again at the GMs meetings in Florida in March -- to try and curb what agents and GMs acknowledge is a loophole in the current collective bargaining agreement.

Although most people point to contracts tendered by the Detroit Red Wings earlier this year to top players like Henrik Zetterberg (12 years) and Johan Franzen (11 years) as other examples of what the league is trying to eradicate, it's believed the NHL has examined those deals and concluded they were negotiated within the spirit of the CBA.

Still, numerous sources believe the NHL's investigation is nothing more than a chill tactic by the league to try and bring GMs to heel.

These sources point out that both the Pronger and Hossa contracts were registered by the league which, they believe, suggests the contracts are compliant with the CBA.

If the league does try and sanction either of these teams, watch for the NHLPA to involve itself as they will view such punitive action as a move by the league to limit players' rights.

shabbs wrote: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.

But if he doesn't have a NTC/NMC, he can still agree to be sent down, then retire. Or (assuming he's is sent to the farm) he can not retire, but sit or be sat - act as a player/coach who doesn't play much. The cost to the organization at that point would be relatively small.

The key is that if he's sent down, he's still off the books.

MurderOnIce wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
I think they're emboldened by their "victory" against Balsillie and just want to bully people with their new muscles.

Hmm. What do you know? Bettman has Wing Dang Doodle tit.

Globe & Mail columnist James Mirtle, on his own blogsite, fires a few shots at the NHL regarding 'The Investigation'...

HOSSA 'INVESTIGATION' TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
James Mirtle, FromTheRink.com, July 31, 2009

More than four weeks after that behemoth 12-year contract was signed, Marian Hossa's deal is now apparently the subject of an investigation by the NHL.
Here's NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly (a very busy man these days) in an email to the Ottawa Sun's Bruce Garrioch:

"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."

You know what? I'm all for the league getting rid of these goofy, get-paid-little-when-you're-41 *wink wink* deals, but the horse is already out of the barn on that front — at least with this CBA. How can the NHL justify investigating Hossa's contract and not the 12-year, $73-million one Henrik Zetterberg signed in January?

What's the difference? That Hossa's a year and nine months older? That Zetterberg's deal pays him a pittance the final two years and Hossa's does the same in the last four?

The fact is, there's no limitation on this sort of thing in collective bargaining agreement, so any attempt at a crackdown now isn't going to get very far. It's a loophole, and it's a bad one, but I can't see punishing the Blackhawks for a misdeed when there are a pile of these things out there — in all different forms — already.

Fix it in 2011 by negotiating limitations in. Live with the mistake until then. Wear it as a hat.

Clearly this is all just posturing for the next round of CBA negotiations... they're making a stink and kicking dirt around but nothing will come of it, no one will be reprimanded... they're just setting the table for the negotiations.

As far as we know the league may be looking into the Zetterburg contract and a few others as well.

RobbyJ wrote:As far as we know the league may be looking into the Zetterburg contract and a few others as well.

But... but they're THE WINGS... surely the NHL won't question THE WINGS! The Hawks make for a much easier target...

shabbs wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:As far as we know the league may be looking into the Zetterburg contract and a few others as well.

But... but they're THE WINGS... surely the NHL won't question THE WINGS! The Hawks make for a much easier target...

Shabbs>you are correct.

It's possible that Hawks Prez John McDonough pi$$ed some people off during the whole 'RFA Gate' situation, which turned out to be of no discernable consequence (apart from getting Tallon canned).

McDonough's an abrasive, ruthless executive who has made the Hawks a huge success at the box office in no time at all...and maybe made a few other team execs look bad in the process...and then he signs Hossa right at the start of the UFA hunting season?

...so he's a VERY easy target.

And don't forget the Flyers...the Pronger contract is being scrutinized as well. Paul Holmgren isn't exactly a warm fuzzy type...and neither is Ed Snyder.

The Flyers swiped Pronger away from the Ducks much to the consternation of many other teams...and did it with a very public and outrageous deal.

So could this 'investigation' be, in reality, part of a power play between different factions in the presumed 'united front' of NHL owners?

Or could it be just because it is very clear to every serious hockey fan that the Hossa deal was drawn up as a clear way to circumvent the CBA's salary cap and they should not be allowed to get away with it (in the NHL's eyes)?

notch4077 wrote:Or could it be just because it is very clear to every serious hockey fan that the Hossa deal was drawn up as a clear way to circumvent the CBA's salary cap and they should not be allowed to get away with it (in the NHL's eyes)?

You're either being facetious or sarcastic with that statement, my friend...as you conveniently ignore that both the Pronger and Hossa contracts are part of the NHL's inquiry.

You further ignore that no circumvention of the CBA has been found to this point, and yet you rush to make a judgement before you have the evidence.

As James Mirtle, Scott Burnside and Greg Wyshynski, just to name a few prominent hockey writers, have already pointed out--and this is all available for you to read in the above posts on this thread--your presumptions are unfounded.

Furthermore, partisanship is irrelevant in this issue. It doesn't matter if you cheer for the Hawks, Flyers, Wings, Senators or whoever. The decisions made, can impact any, and every team.

And regarding your snide remark about 'serious' hockey fans...you can obviously learn a few things from the many serious hockey fans here.

The first is learning respect for those who have a point of view different from your own.

When you're prepared to do that, we can have a serious and hopefully, mutually respectful, discussion on this topic.

davetherave wrote:

notch4077 wrote:Or could it be just because it is very clear to every serious hockey fan that the Hossa deal was drawn up as a clear way to circumvent the CBA's salary cap and they should not be allowed to get away with it (in the NHL's eyes)?

You're either being facetious or sarcastic with that statement, my friend...as you conveniently ignore that both the Pronger and Hossa contracts are part of the NHL's inquiry.

You further ignore that no circumvention of the CBA has been found to this point, and yet you rush to make a judgement before you have the evidence.

As James Mirtle, Scott Burnside and Greg Wyshynski, just to name a few prominent hockey writers, have already pointed out--and this is all available for you to read in the above posts on this thread--your presumptions are unfounded.

Furthermore, partisanship is irrelevant in this issue. It doesn't matter if you cheer for the Hawks, Flyers, Wings, Senators or whoever. The decisions made, can impact any, and every team.

And regarding your snide remark about 'serious' hockey fans...you can obviously learn a few things from the many serious hockey fans here.

The first is learning respect for those who have a point of view different from your own.

When you're prepared to do that, we can have a serious and hopefully, mutually respectful, discussion on this topic.

Can a mod move this to the random humour thread please?

This coming from the guy who told me I don't have the right to express my opinion on Don Waddell's tenure in Atlanta. It's more than a little tiresome to see you admonish other posters constantly Dave. Maybe it's just me, but the way you word things sounds very condescending. "You need to do this, you need to do that."

Hey, I guess I shouldn't complain since this post I responded to didn't include a 12000 word article when a simple link would do the trick.

shabbs wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:As far as we know the league may be looking into the Zetterburg contract and a few others as well.

But... but they're THE WINGS... surely the NHL won't question THE WINGS! The Hawks make for a much easier target...

I think this issue will be at the top of the owner's list of things to renegotiate. That and the ridiculous max salary. 20% for one player on a 20+ man roster is ridiculous. If the league is smart they find a way to scale that back. Looking back, the league broke the NHLPA, but the PA still got some nice concessions. The league will definitely need to go for the jugular on certain issues next time around.

I think this is all complete Dung on the NHL's part. They shouldn't interfere with players decisions. It is the player's every right to sign a contract, with whomever he wants, wherever he wants, for as much or little as he wants and for as long or short as he wants. Do you think Hossa is upset? Chicago? Maybe the greedy agents and Buttman, but who gives a Dung what they want.