League News: 2014-15 Around the League III

[CapitalsCupReality]

Do keep in mind the NHL issued a statement that these types of contracts were against the rules, and eventually did punish the Devils for a back-diving deal (though they later softened the punishment after Kovalchuk's "retirement"). The league's enforcement is haphazard (even if the previous CBA lacked proper mechanisms), and taking on a deal of this nature does incur risk. Heck, Chicago could still be screwed in the future if they are burdened by the recapture that was instituted well after they signed Hossa. Though, obviously, 2-3 cups is worth that pain down the road.

Kovalchuk's 17 year deal was signed at age 27, and was the longest in league history. There really wasn't an avenue to sign Backstrom or Ovechkin to even longer deals at an even younger age without enormous risk. If the Caps were to take advantage, it would have had to a Hossa-like addition via UFA.


I'm too lazy to dig through the CBA to see what mandates are required to LTIR a player (but keep mind how we had Orlov on LTIR long after he played his conditioning games in Hershey, so I don't think it's very stringent). All of those guys are indeed injured, but it's to the point where it's not expected they return at any point. This is most pressing in the case of Pronger, who has actually held two jobs in his post-player career (scout with Flyers and now in the NHL's DoPS) and has a 35+ contract. If Pronger retired, his 35+ contract would impact the Flyers' salary cap. Since he's on LTIR, it effectively doesn't (minus elimination of banking cap space and off-season limits). Even more to the point, the NHL has acknowledged he's no longer an active player by hiring him to the DoPS, which also means he's simultaneously under contract with the Philadelphia Flyers and the league itself (something that is expressively prohibited by the CBA). Neither the NHL nor the NHLPA are going to raise a stink about Pronger getting paid by two sources here, so there will be no fallout. As with the Kovalchuk deal, this is another example of the NHL enforcing its rules when it wants to and turning a blind eye when it doesn't.

Most players' contracts are insured (though Horton's was not), so them retiring does not cost the player any money.

Can you point me to that section of the CBA? I'd like to read how it's worded.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Brooks Laich is retiring this offseason?

Green meant to last year. And Kolzig meant to as well in 2008.

Integrity.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Most players' contracts are insured (though Horton's was not), so them retiring does not cost the player any money.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...-Covers-Player-Contracts-For-Seven-Years.aspx


This is a little dated, so not sure how accurate, but this seems to indicate that not all player contracts get insured.


NHL teams are "required to insure a handful of players through a 'temporary total disability' program administered by the league." Each team "pays a premium based on the salaries of its five highest-paid players, but is free to allocate that coverage how it wishes." NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said that "typically, a team will extend coverage to as many as seven players." Insurance coverage "kicks in when a player misses at least 30 games," and insuring a player under the league program "costs about 5[%] of his salary." But Hurricanes GM Jim Rutherford said, "When you get to a certain dollar amount, the premiums keep skyrocketing. I wish it was easier to get each (player) insured, but we can't do that."

 

[Brian23]

Because it was against 'the spirit' of the rules the same way the back diving NHL contracts were against 'the spirit' of the CBA and thus the league decided to do something about them.

I guess I am completely on board with the idea that just because you 'can' do something doesn't mean you should do something. Lots of things are within the rules/law but doesn't make them ok IMO.

So collusion between teams to follow their "own rules" vs. what they've bargained with with the PA.

That's as bad as the arguments for the Skin's and Boy's getting punished.

 

[Ajax1995]

Wait, the history of sports is littered with guys who got injured on the job, could no longer perform and decided to just give away their hard earned last contract? I disagree.

Because their contract was very likely insured and they got paid anyway so yes it has happened quite a bit. The teams are the ones asking the players not to retire and LTIRing them so they don't need to deal with the recapture penalties.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Because their contract was very likely insured and they got paid anyway so yes it has happened quite a bit. The teams are the ones asking the players not to retire and LTIRing them so they don't need to deal with the recapture penalties.

Seems logical and within the current rules, so if the contract happens to be insured (appears that not all are), then I have no issue with them staying on LTIR to not screw the team's salary cap.

 

[Ajax1995]

So collusion between teams to follow their "own rules" vs. what they've bargained with with the PA.

That's as bad as the arguments for the Skin's and Boy's getting punished.

I don't know what to tell you. The nature of how the NFL does it's cap numbers means a team could use an uncapped year to give itself a significant advantage in the following, capped, seasons. It is what it is and that was never going to be allowed. You want that one year advantage? Have at it but no gaming the system for the future.

 

[Ajax1995]

Seems logical and within the current rules...

Of course it is within the current rules or it wouldn't be allowed. I don't believe this discussion is about what is and what isn't within the rules.

Again, within the rules/law and right are not always the same thing IMO.

 

[Hivemind]

For reference, the league "investigated" the Hossa deal both when it was signed and again after the Kovalchuk ruling.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=4369897
http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/domino-effect-nhl-might-nix-luongo-hossa-deals

Additionally, and arbitrator upheld their initial nixing of the Kovalchuk deal as circumvention of the salary cap.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Of course it is within the current rules or it wouldn't be allowed. I don't believe this discussion is about what is and what isn't within the rules.

Again, within the rules/law and right are not always the same thing IMO.

I guess I don't get your moral outrage then...it's legal, it's within the system, and all parties agreed to the system that governs them.

Sounds like you just want other teams to experience pain for what's usually a freak injury. I sure would want the Caps to be screwed if a big name were lost to a career-ending injury. Would YOU??!?!?

 

[Ajax1995]

I guess I don't get your moral outrage then...

What moral outrage? The subject came up and I expressed an opinion on it.

And one more time, legal does not equal right IMO. I don't in any way expect everyone to agree with that premise.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

What moral outrage? The subject came up and I expressed an opinion on it.

And one more time, legal does not equal right IMO. I don't in any way expect everyone to agree with that premise.

When I see someone saying "legal doesn't mean right", for the large part, that's moral outrage in my book (or at least a toned down online version of it). Like there's some higher authority other than the legal system we should all be adhering to when making business decisions. Aight....moving on.

 

[artilector]

Hawks didn't do anything IMO, just were smarter than most teams.

 

[Stewie G]

I wonder how quickly the NHL would have jumped in if it were a franchise like Florida were the first to try to game the system like that. I have a suspicion that the practice would have stopped sooner.

 

[Hivemind]

I wonder how quickly the NHL would have jumped in if it were a franchise like Florida were the first to try to game the system like that. I have a suspicion that the practice would have stopped sooner.

Calgary was the first to try it with Kipprusoff, though it wasn't quite as blatant as some of the deals that followed. The funniest was Holmgren screwing up Pronger's deal thinking it wouldn't be a 35+. The most egregious was Kovalchuk's initial deal, with four years at $525K tacked onto the end.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Calgary was the first to try it with Kipprusoff, though it wasn't quite as blatant as some of the deals that followed. The funniest was Holmgren screwing up Pronger's deal thinking it wouldn't be a 35+ . The most egregious was Kovalchuk's initial deal, with four years at $525K tacked onto the end.

That was stunning. And for me it really pulled back the curtain a bit on what GMing in the NHL actually is. IIRC he figured it out when reporters started asking about it.

 

[Hivemind]

Holmgren often got a lot more flak than he deserved (he was doing what his owner asked of him), however, he had several awful CBA blunders in his tenure (Pronger 35+, not being able to sign Hyka, Talbot's initial deal being rejected, etc).

 

[Ajax1995]

Hawks didn't do anything IMO, just were smarter than most teams.

The first time maybe they were smarter but once they did the cat was out of the bag and everyone had the knowledge to do it. But everyone didn't. Why? It certainly wasn't because they didn't appreciate how long back diving contracts could be beneficial to their cap situations.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

The first time maybe they were smarter but once they did the cat was out of the bag and everyone had the knowledge to do it. But everyone didn't. Why? It certainly wasn't because they didn't appreciate how long back diving contracts could be beneficial to their cap situations.

Between July 2009 and July 2010, who was out there that merited a similar contract? The cap structure is only half of it, you need to find a player like Keith or Hossa to offer it to as well.

The Blackhawks did it twice in a 6 month period and then the league shut it down.

edit: Holmgren tried with Pronger but forgot about the whole 35 year old thing. ha.

 

[Ajax1995]

Between July 2009 and July 2010, who was out there that merited a similar contract?

I find it hard to believe nobody signed or resigned during that period could have gotten a similarly structured deal. I mean anyone under 35 who was signing a deal long enough to reasonably get them to retirement time could have had a few low cost years tacked onto the end of to bring the cap hit down.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

What are you suggesting Millhaus that everyone else in the league DIDN'T do it because it was legal withing their system, but somehow wrong? I find that notion laughably naive.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

I find it hard to believe nobody signed or resigned during that period could have gotten a similarly structured deal. I mean anyone under 35 who was signing a deal long enough to reasonably get them to retirement time could have had a few low cost years tacked onto the end of to bring the cap hit down.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=34751

Yes anyone could have gotten one. But looking at the signings that happened, I don't know how good an idea it would be for a club trying to get an advantage out of the arrangement like Chicago did.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Malkin, Nash & Kessel all subjects of rumors. From Friedman and McKenzie.

 

[Ajax1995]

What are you suggesting Millhaus that everyone else in the league DIDN'T do it because it was legal withing their system, but somehow wrong? I find that notion laughably naive.

I 100% believe some teams did not do similar deals for that reason but nowhere even remotely close to everyone.

I find the idea that nobody else was smart enough, especially after it had already happened elsewhere, or if they were the opportunity simply didn't arrive laughably naive so I guess that leaves us in similar spots.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

I 100% believe some teams did not do similar deals for that reason but nowhere even remotely close to everyone.

I find the idea that nobody else was smart enough, especially after it had already happened elsewhere, or if they were the opportunity simply didn't arrive laughably naive so I guess that leaves us in similar spots.

Feel free to point out players that could have been smartly locked up on the cheap.

I'll volunteer Moulson and Callahan, but you really wouldn't be saving all that much money. Boychuk made sense if you had a crystal ball.