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

Kessel Offer Sheet: Would you do it? (WITH A POLL)

+11
Acrobat
mattshock
shabbs
Riprock
PKC
spader
dennycrane
asq2
Jordo
wprager
PTFlea
15 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

POLL: Would you offer the sheet to Kessel if you were Burke?

Kessel Offer Sheet: Would you do it? (WITH A POLL) - Page 5 Vote_lcap227%Kessel Offer Sheet: Would you do it? (WITH A POLL) - Page 5 Vote_rcap2 27% [ 4 ]
Kessel Offer Sheet: Would you do it? (WITH A POLL) - Page 5 Vote_lcap273%Kessel Offer Sheet: Would you do it? (WITH A POLL) - Page 5 Vote_rcap2 73% [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 15

Poll closed

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 5]

Guest


Guest

SpezDispenser wrote:Remember that this is all orchestrated by Kessel's agent. He wouldn't do this unless he knew that Kessel wanted to go to TO - and that TO would offer the best offer. Chiarelli just messed this scenario up, he's been amazing so far, but he didn't take care of this the way he should have. His fault, I'm sure he takes the blame, but it'll all work out.

I'm wouldn't go that far... I agree that his agent (assuming this talk is at all factual) would have a major part to play in this, but I wouldn't go as far as saying Kessel wants to play in TO. Thats 100% baseless speculation. Maybe they're just using TO to get their number from Boston Shrug

PTFlea


Co-Founder
Co-Founder

cas wrote:
SpezDispenser wrote:Remember that this is all orchestrated by Kessel's agent. He wouldn't do this unless he knew that Kessel wanted to go to TO - and that TO would offer the best offer. Chiarelli just messed this scenario up, he's been amazing so far, but he didn't take care of this the way he should have. His fault, I'm sure he takes the blame, but it'll all work out.

I'm wouldn't go that far... I agree that his agent (assuming this talk is at all factual) would have a major part to play in this, but I wouldn't go as far as saying Kessel wants to play in TO. Thats 100% baseless speculation. Maybe they're just using TO to get their number from Boston Shrug

Well Kessel would have a bit of a say I would imagine. If it was a ploy to drive his price up a bit, that's fine, but at the same time, there's a very real chance he'll be a Leaf for the next 5 years, he'd realize that and probably had some dialogue about it I would imagine.

Guest


Guest

True, but if this is actually happening, would Kessel want to leave a team that has a relatively good shot at going on a long playoff run to go be a part of the rebuilding process elsewhere?

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder

I know...bigger role though? Shrug

Guest


Guest

Bigger than 1st line/1st pp forward? Who does this guy think he is? Dany Heatley?

Hey-Oh!

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder

Ahhhhh!

Acrobat

Acrobat
Veteran
Veteran

rooneypoo wrote:
Acrobat wrote:Re: the offer sheet - my understanding is that at that level, any missing picks can be deferred to the next year's draft, but Rooney can correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, it wouldn't be inconceivable to see the next shift in players' contracts be the "planned buyout" - imagine Kessel getting an offer sheet of 5/5/2/1, net cap hit 3.25. Then buyout after 2, so that there's 500K per year to be paid over next 4 years. Immediately re-sign to a 4 year 18M contract, and he's gotten 6 years at 5M per yr but cap hit is only 3.25 for two, then 5 for four. And you've stolen Kessel for far less than it would have otherwise taken.

It's similar to what happened with Alfie's contract.

Nope, it has to be the original picks for the next from the team making the offer sheet. That's why TB couldn't sign Meszaros to an offer sheet last year without first re-acquiring their pick from PIT.

Your other scenario doesn't make much sense, either. If you buyout a player, yeah, the REAL salary would be cheap, but you're still stuck with 2/3rds of the player's SALARY CAP figure spread over twice the remaining years on the deal. In the scenario you suggest, for instance, you'd have about $1 mil over the next four years counting against your cap.

Plus, a shrinking deal for a player of Kessel's caliber and age would certainly raise eyebrows over at the NHL -- especially if it was followed by a buyout in year 3. It would be a prime target for investigation.

Alfie's contract is a different beast altogether. We had to buyout the 3 option years remaining on his contract ($2.1 mil), which were a hold-over from the previous CBA. Anyway, if you mean that we're somehow getting some kind of break because Alfie's contract declines in the final years, that's not really true. He's going to be 40 years old at that point, after all.

In the example I provided, the numbers were chosen somewhat arbitrarily; it was the concept that would apply. The idea of a front-loaded deal isn't unreasonable, and in fact is similar to a contract like Horcoff's, which drops from $7M to 3M over the next 5 yrs - the numbers could be raised appropriately to ensure that the cap hit remains below the next threshold in terms of compensation for the offer sheet.

In regards to the buyout cap hit, this is included in the cap hit I described (salary would calculate to $4.5M per year, but cap hit is $5M per year due to buyout). If questioned, one could argue that it is a mutually-agreed-upon manner to allow renegotiation of the contract.

Precedent has already been set with this form of contract renegotiation. There is nothing explicit in the CBA that forbids it (although clearly the intent was not to allow this.) If the strongest argument against this being a valid maneuver is that it appears to be improper, then legally there is no basis for upholding any objections.

Acrobat

Acrobat
Veteran
Veteran

Also, this was the text from the CBA that I was referring to:

Clubs cannot acquire picks to use as compensation (with the exception being a Club's own draft selections that are traded and then re-acquired).
Clubs owing one (1) draft selection must have it available in the next draft.
Clubs owing two (2) draft selections in different rounds must have them available in the next draft.
Clubs owing three (3) draft selections in different rounds must have them available in the next draft.
Clubs owing two (2) draft selections in the same round, must have them available in the next three (3) drafts.
Clubs owing three (3) draft selections in the same round must have them available in the next four (4) drafts, and so on.

When a Club owes two (2) or more draft selections in the same round, the signing Club does not elect the years in which such selections shall be awarded to the Prior Club; rather, the selections next available will be transferred to the Prior Club (i.e., a Club that owes two (2) selections has them available in the next two (2) drafts –that is when they are transferred).


Note that this would only impact this situation if the offer sheet was over $4M per season:


OFFER SHEET COMPENSATION
$660,000 or below None
Over $660,000 to $1 million Third Round
Over $1 million to $2.0 million Second Round
Over $2.0 million to $3.0 million First Round and Third Round
Over $3.0 million to $4.0 million First Round, Second Round, and Third Round
Over $4.0 million to $5.0 million Two First Rounds, Second Round, and Third Round
Over $5 million Four First Rounds


Numbers above are not adjusted for annual inflation, so they are likely to be higher for this year.
I believe that my point is still valid, however.

BTW - these are copied directly from p38-39 of the CBA pdf file found at nhl.com :
http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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