Helene St. James Cleary could be re-signed, but not play

[Bench]

I still laugh about this scenario because it's clear-cut cap circumvention. It allowed the Wings to negotiate the cap hit in the first year that wouldn't have been possible had they averaged it out. It's a risk for the player should he get injured, so I don't think we'll see this type of thing become common, but the spirit of the cap was entirely compromised that season in order to fit Cleary and Alfredsson.

 

[Hugh Mongusbig]

I still laugh about this scenario because it's clear-cut cap circumvention. It allowed the Wings to negotiate the cap hit in the first year that wouldn't have been possible had they averaged it out. It's a risk for the player should he get injured, so I don't think we'll see this type of thing become common, but the spirit of the cap was entirely compromised that season in order to fit Cleary and Alfredsson.

Correct, but having KFH as your GM has some benefits. Its like when a ref gives the benefit of the doubt to a well respected veteran player.... The league will just turn a blind eye to the whole thing.

 

[Henkka]

I still laugh about this scenario because it's clear-cut cap circumvention. It allowed the Wings to negotiate the cap hit in the first year that wouldn't have been possible had they averaged it out. It's a risk for the player should he get injured, so I don't think we'll see this type of thing become common, but the spirit of the cap was entirely compromised that season in order to fit Cleary and Alfredsson.

It really would not have affected anything to our cap numbers.

If Cleary would have had a 3-year deal worth 1.75M + 2.5M + 1M = 5.25M total (2nd year bonus money partially as normal salary on 3rd year to have cap compliant highest and lowest year), his caphit would have been 1.75M on each year.

So basicly, not any circumvention did happen at season 2013-14. Caphit would have been the same 1.75M for that 1-year or 3-year contract. And when the second year would have been 750k cheaper, we would have zero bonus average transferred to this year's cap, which did happen partially from that 1-year, 1.5M + 1.0M bonus deal.

So as for now, we have that 740k bonus overage from season 2014-15 at current season numbers, which would not be there (number would be zero) if Cleary would have had that speculative 3-year-deal.

Cleary was 34-year old on that summer 2013, when this speculative Philly-offer and "promise" did happen, so if we would have him now, we could get that full waiver help when waiving him down, like now is the speculative "plan" we are talking about. That +35 rule for only 100k happens only, if the player was already 35-year old when he signs a multi-year contract. Like Sammy was. Waiving Cleary down does the same, it leaves us a 800k cap penalty (as kind of same the bonus overage from last season) and 950k waiver help of remaining 1.75M current caphit.

In reality, it's just moving same numbers in a different way, because those 1-year contract have given different flexibility with bonuses. But doesn't make a difference for a 3-year deal, with speculated numbers. Could be ~60k here and there, but other factors could have used to have numbers fit. There's no any earth-quakening circumvention in here.

 

[Winger98]

It really would not have affected anything to our cap numbers.

If Cleary would have had a 3-year deal worth 1.75M + 2.5M + 1M = 5.25M total (2nd year bonus money partially as normal salary on 3rd year to have cap compliant highest and lowest year), his caphit would have been 1.75M on each year.

So basicly, not any circumvention did happen at season 2013-14. Caphit would have been the same 1.75M for that 1-year or 3-year contract. And when the second year would have been 750k cheaper, we would have zero bonus average transferred to this year's cap, which did happen partially from that 1-year, 1.5M + 1.0M bonus deal.

So as for now, we have that 740k bonus overage from season 2014-15 at current season numbers, which would not be there (number would be zero) if Cleary would have had that speculative 3-year-deal.

Cleary was 34-year old on that summer 2013, when this speculative Philly-offer and "promise" did happen, so if we would have him now, we could get that full waiver help when waiving him down, like now is the speculative "plan" we are talking about. That +35 rule for only 100k happens only, if the player was already 35-year old when he signs a multi-year contract. Like Sammy was. Waiving Cleary down does the same, it leaves us a 800k cap penalty (as kind of same the bonus overage from last season) and 950k waiver help of remaining 1.75M current caphit.

In reality, it's just moving same numbers in a different way, because those 1-year contract have given different flexibility with bonuses. But doesn't make a difference for a 3-year deal, with speculated numbers. Could be ~60k here and there, but other factors could have used to have numbers fit. There's no any earth-quakening circumvention in here.

how the numbers work out in the end isn't the point, though. The point is that it was essentially a handshake deal to sign Cleary for one year at whatever amount they could afford with the promise to make it up later. That should be a huge deal as it goes against the very premise of the cap, and is something that wouldn't have been ignored if it had been for a player who was any good.

 

[HockeyinHD]

how the numbers work out in the end isn't the point, though. The point is that it was essentially a handshake deal to sign Cleary for one year at whatever amount they could afford with the promise to make it up later. That should be a huge deal as it goes against the very premise of the cap, and is something that wouldn't have been ignored if it had been for a player who was any good.

Depends on the level of credulity you're willing to extend regarding the idea of ex parte-ish communications.

Personally, I think that sort of stuff happens all the time.

Like, for instance, signing Hossa for one season. Think that just dropped out of the clear blue sky after the Cup in 2008? Agents rep guys from 4 or 5 different teams constantly. There's third party information shared all over the place.

And even if there's not, if contrary to human nature everyone demonstrates the ethical purity of Mother Teresa, then saying something like 'we'll take care of you, Dan' isn't even remotely cap circumvention or tampering. Unless they are specifically talking about unwritten terms, with actual numbers and everything, saying something like that is as cap circumventing as saying 'we have a winning culture' means you're going to cheat to win a Cup.

 

[InjuredChoker]

It really would not have affected anything to our cap numbers.

If Cleary would have had a 3-year deal worth 1.75M + 2.5M + 1M = 5.25M total (2nd year bonus money partially as normal salary on 3rd year to have cap compliant highest and lowest year), his caphit would have been 1.75M on each year.

So basicly, not any circumvention did happen at season 2013-14. Caphit would have been the same 1.75M for that 1-year or 3-year contract. And when the second year would have been 750k cheaper, we would have zero bonus average transferred to this year's cap, which did happen partially from that 1-year, 1.5M + 1.0M bonus deal.

So as for now, we have that 740k bonus overage from season 2014-15 at current season numbers, which would not be there (number would be zero) if Cleary would have had that speculative 3-year-deal.

Cleary was 34-year old on that summer 2013, when this speculative Philly-offer and "promise" did happen, so if we would have him now, we could get that full waiver help when waiving him down, like now is the speculative "plan" we are talking about. That +35 rule for only 100k happens only, if the player was already 35-year old when he signs a multi-year contract. Like Sammy was. Waiving Cleary down does the same, it leaves us a 800k cap penalty (as kind of same the bonus overage from last season) and 950k waiver help of remaining 1.75M current caphit.

In reality, it's just moving same numbers in a different way, because those 1-year contract have given different flexibility with bonuses. But doesn't make a difference for a 3-year deal, with speculated numbers. Could be ~60k here and there, but other factors could have used to have numbers fit. There's no any earth-quakening circumvention in here.

that contract is against the CBA. can't have more than 50% difference between the lowest and highest salary, including bonuses. either 2 mil the highest or 1.25 mil the lowest.

 

[Henkka]

that contract is against the CBA. can't have more than 50% difference between the lowest and highest salary, including bonuses. either 2 mil the highest or 1.25 mil the lowest.

No, it would not have been against the CBA.

Because, we wouldn't have ever seen a 2.5M second year, because Holland would have structured it in a different way (anything between 2.3M to 1.15M). He would have structured that same money inside the CBA rules, like he did with these 1-year things. But the effect to our cap doesn't change anywhere with a 1.75M caphit.

There's really nothing to see in here.

No one did care less about Semin 1-year deals from 2010 to 2013. Why wasn't that a hard criminal investigation hand-shake circumvention?

So far, 1-year deals are not banned.

 

[InjuredChoker]

semin and his agent wanted to take all those 1 yr deals.

 

[Bench]

semin and his agent wanted to take all those 1 yr deals.

Semin also didn't have highly advertised handshake agreements to make up contract differences from other teams that involved multi-year deals. I'm not sure how it compares.

The Cleary scenario is so funny because it is cap circumvention and has been advertised as such. It's always been clear that Cleary left money on the table and that the Wings, due to the handshake agreement, would make it up to him. That's against the rules.

This wasn't a "earn it and show me" contract like Semin. It was known all along Cleary would get 3 years but the Wings, and after signing Weiss and Alfredsson that off-season, they couldn't afford the 3 year cap hit that was offered by Philly. So here we are. Going into September of 2015 with the team still debating what to do with Dan Cleary.

 

[Henkka]

You guys are crazy when you say it was cap circumventing, when there's no single act, which would be cap circumventing.

Going with 1-year deals is not illegal, period. If Holland says that we can't offer multi-year-deal in our team situation and only possible way is to go year-by year, so ****ing what? It's realism, nothing else.

If Philly offered 3 year, they offered. We could offer too, with less money, like Cleary has now got going year-by-year. Less money in any case. There was no cap space for those rumoured crazy Philly numbers (2.75M caphit for 3 years?) at any point. Cleary hasn't got that much for a single year or these 2 years combined, and we haven't had that kind of space for any year.

Come on, wake up from this off-season crap and start creating some real topics to discuss. This is like telling that Earth is the centerpiece of the Solar system.

When there's no circumvention, there's no circumvention. Everything went just like the CBA allowed to go.

 

[Bench]

You guys are crazy when you say it was cap circumventing, when there's no single act, which would be cap circumventing.

Going with 1-year deals is not illegal, period. If Holland says that we can't offer multi-year-deal in our team situation and only possible way is to go year-by year, so ****ing what? It's realism, nothing else.

If Philly offered 3 year, they offered. We could offer too, with less money, like Cleary has now got going year-by-year. Less money in any case. There was no cap space for those rumoured crazy Philly numbers (2.75M caphit for 3 years?) at any point. Cleary hasn't got that much for a single year or these 2 years combined, and we haven't had that kind of space for any year.

Come on, wake up from this off-season crap and start creating some real topics to discuss. This is like telling that Earth is the centerpiece of the Solar system.

When there's no circumvention, there's no circumvention. Everything went just like the CBA allowed to go.

It's such a non-issue the league didn't bother with an investigation that likely would have been a dead end, but make no mistake, there are provisions that say any verbal agreements for future contracts are against the rules. Here you go.

Paragraph 19 of the Standard Player's Contract

19. The Club and the Player represent and warrant that there are no undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written and that there are no promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, supplements or understandings of any kind between the Player or his Certified Agent and the Club that have not been disclosed to the NHL, with regard to: (i) any consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available during the term of the SPC or thereafter; and/or (ii) and future renegotiation, extension, amendment or termination of this SPC.

It's against the rules. Under the table agreements are bad for the NHL salary cap, the players union, all of it. If Cleary was a star player getting star money, this would be an issue. Instead it's funny the Wings paid so much cash last season for a healthy scratch and still haven't ruled out his return for this year.

My theory is the NHL caught wind of this and went "Meh."

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Basically, it's like jaywalking right in front of a police officer.

Yeah, it's illegal, but how many times will you ever be stopped by an officer for it? Now, if you make a habit of it or try to jaywalk across an expressway (routinely advertising you are doing contracts like this or do it with a star player), the police will be on you in a second.

Just like the lifetime deals were equivalent to going 5 MPH over the speed limit (Zetterberg, Franzen who were expected to play the whole deal), 10 MPH (Hossa with the talk of early retirement), or blowing past at 50 MPH (first Kovalchuk contract that got NJ punished)

The league generally will avoid punishment unless you embarrass them or they have it forced upon them that they need to do something.

 

[Eastopia]

It's such a non-issue the league didn't bother with an investigation that likely would have been a dead end, but make no mistake, there are provisions that say any verbal agreements for future contracts are against the rules. Here you go.



It's against the rules. Under the table agreements are bad for the NHL salary cap, the players union, all of it. If Cleary was a star player getting star money, this would be an issue. Instead it's funny the Wings paid so much cash last season for a healthy scratch and still haven't ruled out his return for this year.

My theory is the NHL caught wind of this and went "Meh."

No, you're wrong about that. You need to keep in mind the disclosure qualifier:

Paragraph 19 of the Standard Player's Contract

19. The Club and the Player represent and warrant that there are no undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written and that there are no promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, supplements or understandings of any kind between the Player or his Certified Agent and the Club that have not been disclosed to the NHL, with regard to: (i) any consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available during the term of the SPC or thereafter; and/or (ii) and future renegotiation, extension, amendment or termination of this SPC.

So this is only saying that you can't make them without disclosing it to the league. Assuming Holland did disclose whatever agreement he had with Cleary then it should be legal unless you have some other part of the CBA to point to that changes this.

 

[jkutswings]

My theory is the NHL caught wind of this and went "Meh."

Or laughed so hard when they saw the money Detroit was giving to a scrub that they fell out of their chairs. Why punish a franchise for punishing itself? Especially when they might do it yet again.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It's such a non-issue the league didn't bother with an investigation that likely would have been a dead end, but make no mistake, there are provisions that say any verbal agreements for future contracts are against the rules. Here you go.

Here's the part of what you quoted that matters:

" with regard to: (i) any consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available during the term of the SPC or thereafter; and/or (ii) and future renegotiation, extension, amendment or termination of this SPC."

If you have a specific discussion about terms, of any kind, you're circumventing the cap.

It is incredibly unlikely Holland did this, because 1) it's stupid and 2) it's pointless.

All Holland has to do to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish vis a vis Cleary is say 'We want you to stay in organization for a long time, Dan.'

That's it. There's no discussion of terms, no verbal agreement in principal, no regimented consideration of payment in kind.

Heck, he can even have a completely frank and open discussion of options during the course of normal negotiations.

Cleary: "I want a 3 year deal at x."
Holland: "Can't do a 3 year deal at x. How about a 1 year deal at y and we'll go from there and re-evaluate? We want you to stay in the organization for a long time, Dan.'
Cleary: 'Deal.'

There you go. Unspoken agreement on generalities that isn't circumvention in any way accomplished in under 40 words. You could almost tweet it.

 

[Bench]

Unspoken agreement on generalities that isn't circumvention in any way accomplished in under 40 words.

How do ironclad handshake agreements fit into that? Like the one where Dan Cleary gets a huge bonus in his 2nd year for showing up 10 times.

I'm not sure how anybody doesn't see how that goes against the point of the salary cap and averaged salaries. It's why cap hit doesn't simply correspond to actual salary year to year. By promising (and delivering) Cleary a nice salary last year, the Wings saved money in the 1st year. It's pretty simple.

As for the point about disclosure, I guess. I mean, the NHL obviously knows about it and doesn't care. It's a pittance in terms of the cap saved for the Wings and the result was they overpaid a healthy scratch. But make no mistake, if this was more money for a higher profile player, we'd be seeing more smoke about it.

And that's why it's funny. It's why I posted about it in the first place. It's funny the Wings have bent over backwards and potentially broke the rules for Dan Cleary. You can't make this stuff up. Sometimes life imitates art.

 

[Eastopia]

How do ironclad handshake agreements fit into that? Like the one where Dan Cleary gets a huge bonus in his 2nd year for showing up 10 times.

I'm not sure how anybody doesn't see how that goes against the point of the salary cap and averaged salaries. It's why cap hit doesn't simply correspond to actual salary year to year. By promising (and delivering) Cleary a nice salary last year, the Wings saved money in the 1st year. It's pretty simple.

As for the point about disclosure, I guess. I mean, the NHL obviously knows about it and doesn't care. It's a pittance in terms of the cap saved for the Wings and the result was they overpaid a healthy scratch. But make no mistake, if this was more money for a higher profile player, we'd be seeing more smoke about it.

And that's why it's funny. It's why I posted about it in the first place. It's funny the Wings have bent over backwards and potentially broke the rules for Dan Cleary. You can't make this stuff up. Sometimes life imitates art.

They didn't care when Ottawa did it with Daniel Alfredsson either...

 

[Winger98]

They didn't care when Ottawa did it with Daniel Alfredsson either...

The league didn't appear to want to do anything about those career long contracts handed out under the last CBA until for it they came down on the Devils. The league might not care, or maybe something just hasn't rubbed them the wrong way enough to make them smack at it.