Could David Clarkson void his contract?

[Larcos_Unal]

bury him in the AHL, make the Marlies bench him every single game for a couple of years...get that retirement talk started.

 

[Luca]

bury him in the AHL, make the Marlies bench him every single game for a couple of years...get that retirement talk started.

Yes, i am sure that Clarkson would waive his NMC for that.

 

[Igy]

Every time I see a Clarkson topic that reminds me of his horrible contract, I puke a little.

 

[KGL]

Yes, i am sure that Clarkson would waive his NMC for that.

If the Leafs bench him every game you never know. Dude might just decide he wants to play hockey rather than sitting.

All hypothetical of course, we're stuck with this guy.

 

[Mess]

Here is something that you guys should consider and that is Clarkson's contract is not balanced and equal money $ throughout.

He made $4.75 mil last year, $5.5 mil this year & the $7.0 mil cash in his pocket in 2016-17 & 2017-18 then it drops off in the last 2 years as $4.75 mil and $3.25 mil in the final.

Essentially Leafs are going to be paying Clarkson $14 mil over the next two upcoming seasons and no NHL player in his right mind would walk away from that kind of money in his bank account on a guaranteed contract.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=TOR

 

[Banic]

Here is something that you guys should consider and that is Clarkson's contract is not balanced and equal money $ throughout.

He made $4.75 mil last year, $5.5 mil this year & the $7.0 mil cash in his pocket in 2016-17 & 2017-18 then it drops off in the last 2 years as $4.75 mil and $3.25 mil in the final.

Essentially Leafs are going to be paying Clarkson $14 mil over the next two upcoming seasons and no NHL player in his right mind would walk away from that kind of money in his bank account on a guaranteed contract.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=TOR

Unless a very rich company, let's say of the communications type, offered him an equally wealthy (or more so) cushy position as a "salesman" for the equal amount of time. He could potentially retire from hockey

 

[Lobstertainment]

Looking for someone with CBA knowledge.

Could Clarkson and the Maple Leafs mutually agree to void his contract?

Say Shanahan approached him about the team needing cap space, and promised to sign him at the same term, but at a lesser cap hit (say 3.25-3.75M).

Is that something that is allowed? Earlier in the season Kontiola mutually terminated his contract to go back to the KHL.

No, You used to be able to do this before the 2004 lockout, in that CBA they ended renegotiating contracts, it's set in stone. I think the only way a contract can be voided and have no cap hit is in the most unfortunate situation of a player passing away while under contract(IE. Boogaard, Rypien). It's possible there's other ways a contract could be voided but I don't know of them.

 

[Lobstertainment]

Unless a very rich company, let's say of the communications type, offered him an equally wealthy (or more so) cushy position as a "salesman" for the equal amount of time. He could potentially retire from hockey

That'd be interesting but there would still be a cap hit because of it. Devils still have a Kovalchuk cap hit, granted it's so small it's negligible but it's still there.

 

[Budsfan]

He could be traded, if we take back say 1.5-2 mill., another team may take him at 3.25-3.75 mill cap hit.

 

[Banic]

That'd be interesting but there would still be a cap hit because of it. Devils still have a Kovalchuk cap hit, granted it's so small it's negligible but it's still there.

Ya, but comparatively it's a better situation. You often see players retire and stay in the organization in whatever role.

 

[Sip]

Barring a huge injury the only way I see us getting rid if Clarkson is someone picking him up in an expansion draft. LOL.

 

[Erdinger]

Barring a huge injury the only way I see us getting rid if Clarkson is someone picking him up in an expansion draft. LOL.

My view is that the Leafs are just stuck with the contract and have to live with it. Just because they have to pay him doesn't mean they actually have to play him much the rest of this season. Just bench his ass and maybe next season he can come back and play like he did in the 3rd period in Ottawa without messing the tank up in this lost cause of a season.

 

[Warden of the North]

If teams made trade decisions based on stat sheets and offensive projections, then maybe.

But teams don't do that anymore - pro scouts watch these players. Teams will watch Clarkson and see what he can offer, what he can't offer, and make their determination that way.

And it has to be said - we've all watched Clarkson. It's really hard to define *what* he is, or what he provides regularly. That's the same thing that other teams will see.

Finally - on pace for 18 goals, isn't the same as scoring 18 goals. I highly doubt he gets there. 8 goals in 34 games? No chance IMO. Even if a PDO-fueled hot streak is around the corner.

Theres example every year of team basing contracts on stats sheets.

Us signing Clarkson and Vanek are the two that come to mind at the moment.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Unless a very rich company, let's say of the communications type, offered him an equally wealthy (or more so) cushy position as a "salesman" for the equal amount of time. He could potentially retire from hockey

I like this idea

 

[share]

Here is something that you guys should consider and that is Clarkson's contract is not balanced and equal money $ throughout.

He made $4.75 mil last year, $5.5 mil this year & the $7.0 mil cash in his pocket in 2016-17 & 2017-18 then it drops off in the last 2 years as $4.75 mil and $3.25 mil in the final.

Essentially Leafs are going to be paying Clarkson $14 mil over the next two upcoming seasons and no NHL player in his right mind would walk away from that kind of money in his bank account on a guaranteed contract.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=TOR

Thank you very much for that link. I have been lost for that information since cap geek folded. Again thank you.

 

[Erdinger]

That'd be interesting but there would still be a cap hit because of it. Devils still have a Kovalchuk cap hit, granted it's so small it's negligible but it's still there.

And only Lou Lamorello could get it by Bettman

 

[happyaccident]

Unless a very rich company, let's say of the communications type, offered him an equally wealthy (or more so) cushy position as a "salesman" for the equal amount of time. He could potentially retire from hockey

This is by far the best idea I've heard (much better than kidnapping). If all the "look, my daddy sent me to law school" types actually left such a loophole in the CBA, then it's up to our glorious corporate leaders to drive a truck through it, and don't apologize.

 

[Longshot]

1000% you could not do this from a CBA perspective. (setting aside the logical reasons why it wouldn't happen)

In the CBA its states the all contracts are guaranteed and non renegotiable in any way.

The only way out is a buyout from a team cap perspective and then the rules states you can't resign with your former team for 1 calendar year.

The only other option for Cap relief would be player retirement from the NFL and walking away from this contract (for players under age 35).

This.

The CBA doesn't even allow players to "restructure" their contracts like what happens in the NHL (Tom Brady recently did it).

And contrary to what many are saying in this thread - it's really not the league that wants it like this. It's the Player's Association. What does the league care if a team and a player mutually agree a contract is horrible and want to terminate it? It's the PA that is very firm with: "a contract is a contract."

Once it's signed it's official. They only way to get that contract off the books is a buy out, trading it to another organization or a retirement. Although, I'm not sure about the retirement thing anymore. I think the new CBA took steps to address the issue.

Prior to the most recent lock out teams were signing players to those big, massive "back diving" contracts that saw them get paid the majority of the actual value of the contract in the first few years with the later years being worth significantly less. The idea being the cap hit would be lessened and the player could retire in the final years of the deal and not lose much money. I'm pretty sure the league insisted on addressing that matter during the last negotiation. One of the reason's Roberto Luongo's value significantly changed after the lock out ended.

 

[bobber]

Can you imagine Clarkson still out there playing in five years? It's like an old Alfred Hitchcock movie being played over and over again in Toronto. Shanny will be bald from ripping his hair out.