Pseudo-restructuring?

Status
Not open for further replies.

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,815
13,312
I didn't see a thread (in this section anyway) about this and I'm curious.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...7&call_pageid=1044442959412&col=1044442957278

The average of a player's salary remaining on his contract is applied to the cap each season. For example, if a player has a three-year deal paying him $2 million, $3 million and $4 million, $3 million will apply each year for purposes of the cap.

I say pseudo-restructuring, because the existing terms don't change but what happens if you add extra years at a different value to a contract by way of an extension? The players would still receive what is owed them but the cap impact changes.

Obvious examples would be Lidstrom, Sakic, and Sundin among others. These are guys expected to finish out their playing days with their existing teams and all three no doubt will be paid less with their next contracts. Could a multi year extension at a lower amount lessen the cap impact of the existing year?

Example a 3 year $12M extension on Lidstrom's existing $7.6M deal would lower his cap figure to just below $5M for this year BUT obviously raise it over the $4M for the next three years. This "double-edged sword" quality makes it not a cap loophole, but since the actual payments don't change also not a restructuring.

Would this work? Because I think this is an avenue a select few GMs with a select few cases ought to be able to utilize.
 

Phil333

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
997
0
New York City
As far as I can tell, this is not possible. Only old contracts will be dealt with this way. Once a player signs an extension, it is a new contract. The NHL will probably treat it as even if a player signs an extension, it is basically them playing out their old contract under those terms then getting a new contract with pre arranged figures as soon as the old one "runs out." It won't actually run out, but this is how it will probably work for cap purposes.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,815
13,312
So an extension is an entirely new contract and not an addition to the old one? If that is a technical difference, yeah it makes sense why it wouldn't work. But if it isn't a technical difference...
 

WalterSobchak

Blues Trololol
Mar 11, 2004
11,659
26
Where men chunder
www.larddesigns.com
You beat me to it.

Contract Average to count against Cap

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-The average salary from an entire contract is what will count against the salary cap and not the actual salary from that very season. So a deal that starts at $4 million, then goes to $5 million and ends up at $6 million counts as $5 million a year against the cap.

I wonder, is this going to work so that it works for the length of the contract or is it figured on a year by year basis.

If it is the entire length of the contract, it would probably work retro-active...which sucks for my Blues and Their Weight/Tkachuk contracts.
____________________________

Restructuring is creating a new contract. In the regular world, you can renegotiate a loan, but it becomes a new loan. I think same principle
 

ColoradoHockeyFan

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
9,368
0
Denver area
Phil333 said:
As far as I can tell, this is not possible. Only old contracts will be dealt with this way.
Did you gather that from the article norrisnick referenced? Because that certainly doesn't seem to be specified. If it's not the case, then norrisnick makes a pretty good point about a possible strategy.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,815
13,312
ZaphodBeeblebrox said:
Restructuring is creating a new contract. In the regular world, you can renegotiate a loan, but it becomes a new loan. I think same principle

Well, that might not actually matter (unless of course contract extensions are banned along with contract restructurings). It doesn't really matter if it is a new contract provided that all four years (in my adding 3 years to Lidstrom's contract example) are included in the new deal and would still average out to just shy of $5M.

If it is kept differentiated as two consecutive contracts it wouldn't work, but if they combine as one (either added to the old one or rewritten as a new one) it ought to work.

Unless this is a scenario the league/'PA wanted to keep out of the CBA but I don't really see why. It isn't a loophole since you can't change the values to beat the system, and if you unbalance it too much you end up with a $5M cap impact on a $1M contract.
 

coolguy21415

Registered User
Jul 17, 2003
9,285
0
I would think that extensions will work the same as they do in the NFL, where if you have x years left on your contract, and you sign a y year extension, the x years become null/void? This might only work in the NFL because they can cut without compensation (and therefore the 'extension' would effectively be a new contract), but I don't see why an extension would be seen as a new contract. There's no advantage to it for anyone really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->