Ryan Callahan has degenerative back disease and is recommended that he retire

[Tawnos]

That's not a punishment, if a team signs a player to a lengthy term and the end of it doesn't count against the cap, then that team has gotten an unfair advantage over the other teams. How is that hard to understand at all?

You're talking about forcing a team to pay a penatly, so yes it is a punishment.

I understand it fine, I just don't agree with it. Mostly because I don't agree that they got an unfair advantage when literally every other team can do the same thing. Tampa happens to be in this situation (and Chicago before that, etc), but the mechanism is available to everyone.

The team gains from signing a players long term, it keeps the AAV down. Signing a player that have a injury history and a tough playing style to a long contract that ends at the age of 35 is a a gamble and should have some consequence. To be clear, I’m not insinuating that TB cheated or anything, I don’t think there’s anything shady about this situation. But I think the rules should be changed in the next CBA so maybe that when a player retire for whatever reason after age 33 or something, the remaining contract must be bought out or something.

Yes, signing a player to a contract like that is a gamble, but there really shouldn't be much of a penalty for things that are outside of a team's control. While the gamble went bad in the last year of his deal, it was through no fault of the team's.

There is a small penalty here, in that Callahan's contract will either prevent the Lightning from making a significant deadline acquisition, as contenders often do, or they'll have to give something up for another team to take his LTIR'd contract. Their situation is no longer flexible. It doesn't need to go beyond that.

 

[General Disarray]

Why doesn't EDM GM do this too?

 

[Blackjack]

You're talking about forcing a team to pay a penatly, so yes it is a punishment.

I understand it fine, I just don't agree with it. Mostly because I don't agree that they got an unfair advantage when literally every other team can do the same thing. Tampa happens to be in this situation (and Chicago before that, etc), but the mechanism is available to everyone.

No, it's not a punishment, its simply assessing his salary against the cap like every other player. That's not a punishment, that's just accounting. Are you being obtuse? Small market teams cannot do the same thing. They cannot pay players to sit on LTIR while going out and signing other players. That's the whole theory of having a salary cap to begin with, teams don't all have the same resources.

Yes, signing a player to a contract like that is a gamble, but there really shouldn't be much of a penalty for things that are outside of a team's control. While the gamble went bad in the last year of his deal, it was through no fault of the team's.

Whose fault is it when good players perform poorly after signing big contracts? It's not about fault, it's about counting every contract against the cap so the cap actually means something.

There is a small penalty here, in that Callahan's contract will either prevent the Lightning from making a significant deadline acquisition, as contenders often do, or they'll have to give something up for another team to take his LTIR'd contract. Their situation is no longer flexible. It doesn't need to go beyond that.

The benefit of not having to get under the cap this year is far greater than the inconvenience of not being able to add even more salary at the deadline.

 

[Kane One]

No, it's not a punishment, its simply assessing his salary against the cap like every other player.

Except he’s not like every other player when he’s no longer playing.

 

[Blackjack]

Except he’s not like every other player when he’s no longer playing.

Oh.

 

[Kane One]

Oh.

Sorry I made you use your brain. My apologies.

 

[Blackjack]

Sorry I made you use your brain. My apologies.

Oh don't worry, you don't have anything to apologize for.

 

[Tawnos]

No, it's not a punishment, its simply assessing his salary against the cap like every other player. That's not a punishment, that's just accounting. Are you being obtuse? Small market teams cannot do the same thing. They cannot pay players to sit on LTIR while going out and signing other players. That's the whole theory of having a salary cap to begin with, teams don't all have the same resources.

Whose fault is it when good players perform poorly after signing big contracts? It's not about fault, it's about counting every contract against the cap so the cap actually means something.

The benefit of not having to get under the cap this year is far greater than the inconvenience of not being able to add even more salary at the deadline.

Any time you have a situation where a player who isn't playing for you, is hitting your cap, and it wasn't your choice... that's a form of penalty and a penalty is a form of a punishment.

"assessing his salary against the cap like every other player" is pretty stupid since his situation isn't like every other player's.

Small markets can absolutely do the same thing, since when a player is on LTIR, the team isn't losing that money... an insurance company is compensating them for it. It's why a team like Ottawa doesn't mind bringing in a player like Gaborik or Clarke MacArthur.

 

[Blackjack]

Any time you have a situation where a player who isn't playing for you, is hitting your cap, and it wasn't your choice... that's a form of penalty and a penalty is a form of a punishment.

A player that's in the press box rather than the ice is not playing for you and his salary is hitting the cap. Not everyone contributes, for all different reasons. That's not a penalty, it's simply not allowing a team to enjoy the younger productive years of a players contract and then absolve themselves of cap penalties in the later, less productive years.

"assessing his salary against the cap like every other player" is pretty stupid since his situation isn't like every other player's.

Everyone's situation is different. Everyone's salary should count against the cap.

Small markets can absolutely do the same thing, since when a player is on LTIR, the team isn't losing that money... an insurance company is compensating them for it. It's why a team like Ottawa doesn't mind bringing in a player like Gaborik or Clarke MacArthur.

Do we know that insurance is paying Callahan's salary? Or is that just speculation? I'm very skeptical, for example, that there's an insurance company out there paying for Marian Hossa's pad allergy.

 

[Tawnos]

A player that's in the press box rather than the ice is not playing for you and his salary is hitting the cap. Not everyone contributes, for all different reasons. That's not a penalty, it's simply not allowing a team to enjoy the younger productive years of a players contract and then absolve themselves of cap penalties in the later, less productive years.



Everyone's situation is different. Everyone's salary should count against the cap.



Do we know that insurance is paying Callahan's salary? Or is that just speculation? I'm very skeptical, for example, that there's an insurance company out there paying for Marian Hossa's pad allergy.

Every contract in the league is insured against injury to some degree.

 

[Kane One]

Every contract in the league is insured against injury to some degree.

This is why players have now have to wear visors. After the recent injuries with Staal and Pronger, insurance companies no longer wanted to cover facial injuries when it could have been avoided with a visor.

 

[Crede777]

Every contract in the league is insured against injury to some degree.

Not Nathan Horton.

 

[LightningStrikes]

To me, the answer is very simple: all one-way contracts should count against the cap according to how much money the team pays the player in that year. No LTIR, no burying contracts in the minors, no AAV. Just count the money as its paid. If a player retires or is injured, whatever money the team continues to pay them on their contract counts against the cap, whatever money the player forfeits does not count against the cap.

The owners won't do this because they want the loopholes.

A team pays a player (and keeps him on their books) to actually play though. Your proposal completely contradicts this fundamental basis of how things work in pro sports. LTIR is a thing for a reason, otherwise the quality of the product (= actual hockey being played which people in NA and all around the world pay good money for to watch in person or at home) would decrease considerably - and with it the success of the team(s), the league and eventually the sport in an already unfavorable market situation in NA and Europe (competing against more popular sports as football, soccer, baseball, basketball, individual sports...).

Imagine every team having to work around unforseeable injuries and their cap hits during the season. Have fun watching beer leaguers and equipment managers lace them up and play against the McDavids, MacKinnons and Kucherovs of the world because the team of the injured player can't put better players on their roster (although they're available in their system or via trade or FA) because they have reached their cap limit because they have to keep their star player's cap hit on the books who is going to miss several months due to a broken bone, a concussion or a torn ACL that requires surgery.