Marian Hossa has played his last game

[Man Bear Pig]

The verbal dance he's doing in this article protects the Hawks from cap recapture penalties so well that I'd nominate him for the 2019 Selke ...

a great two-way talker. 200 foot talking game.

 

[JaegerDice]

Even 36 year old Crosby, which I believe will be his age when the deal expires, will be a damn good NHLer. And his salary will be marginal to his cap hit at the time. Any scorn you have towards Crosby now or in the future of this contract is just idiotic.

Hossa was still a damn good hockey player the year he LTIRetired. He had like 26 goals and his usual monster possession stats last season.

And 1million salary vs a 5.8 cap hit compared to 3m salary vs a 8.7mil cap hit is not the gigantic difference you seem to be positioning it as.

Crosby's contract is every bit the cap circumventing contract that Hossa's is.

Which is fine. The entire 'cap recapture' nonsense was garbage from the moment it was conceived. The contracts were both within the rules and approved by the NHL at the time.

The only people who have a problem with these deals are fans of teams too stupid to take advantage of them. Boo hoo.

 

[Paper]

Crosby's contract is every bit the cap circumventing contract that Hossa's is.

No. No it's not. Use some critical thinking. When Crosby's contract expires, he will be younger than Hossa was when he 'retired.' No one, not the NHL, not the fans, not Penguins and I'm certain not Crosby expect him to retire prior to his 35th birthday. Even if he retires prior to his contract, we would be looking at one year top. And in doing so he would be giving up 3M. But we're probably equally likely to see him sign an additional contract after.

Hossa's contract:
Age 37 - 7.9M
Age 38 - 4M
Age 39 - 1M
Age 40 - 1M
Age 41 - 1M
Age 42 - 1M

Hossa's contract goes until he is 42. 42. That is quite the difference between Crosby's contract. They are simply not comparable, at all, by anyone using any sort of logic. Many people, including everyone on HF expected Hossa to be out of the league by his 39th birthday, and he was.

But here. Suter, Parise, Weber, all have contracts that will expire when they are 40+, and all have several years where they make 1M. These are all very comparable contracts to Hossa if you want to argue that other teams had equally cap-circumventing contracts. We don't need to make it seem like Crosby's contract is worse than it is to make that argument.

 

[JaegerDice]

No. No it's not. Use some critical thinking. When Crosby's contract expires, he will be younger than Hossa was when he 'retired.' No one, not the NHL, not the fans, not Penguins and I'm certain not Crosby expect him to retire prior to his 35th birthday. Even if he retires prior to his contract, we would be looking at one year top. And in doing so he would be giving up 3M. But we're probably equally likely to see him sign an additional contract after.

Hossa's contract:
Age 37 - 7.9M
Age 38 - 4M
Age 39 - 1M
Age 40 - 1M
Age 41 - 1M
Age 42 - 1M

Hossa's contract goes until he is 42. 42. That is quite the difference between Crosby's contract. They are simply not comparable, at all, by anyone using any sort of logic. Many people, including everyone on HF expected Hossa to be out of the league by his 39th birthday, and he was.

But here. Suter, Parise, Weber, all have contracts that will expire when they are 40+, and all have several years where they make 1M. These are all very comparable contracts to Hossa if you want to argue that other teams had equally cap-circumventing contracts. We don't need to make it seem like Crosby's contract is worse than it is to make that argument.

Obviously, the only purpose of the 3M years at the end of Crosby's contract are to drive the cap hit down. That's the same purpose of the 1m years at the end of Hossa's contract. Rest assured, both contracts are arranged for the exact same practical purpose for the team. Suggesting otherwise is of course, nonsense.

 

[Paper]

For some perspective. If Crosby had an three additional 1M years tacked on after his current contract expired, similar to Hossa's contract, bringing him to his 40th birthday (so still younger than Hossa is when his contract ends), his cap hit would have been 7.1M. That's where you could start making the argument that Crosby's contract is equally as broken as Hossa.

 

[JaegerDice]

For some perspective. If Crosby had an three additional 1M years tacked on after his current contract expired, similar to Hossa's contract, bringing him to his 40th birthday (so still younger than Hossa is when his contract ends), his cap hit would have been 7.1M. That's where you could start making the argument that Crosby's contract is equally as broken as Hossa.

Or, you could point out that without the 3m years attached to Crosby's current contract, his annual cap hit would be closer to 12mil per year.

 

[Paper]

Obviously, the only purpose of the 3M years at the end of Crosby's contract are to drive the cap hit down. That's the same purpose of the 1m years at the end of Hossa's contract. Rest assured, both contracts are arranged for the exact same practical purpose for the team. Suggesting otherwise is of course, nonsense.

There's a lot of reasons why a player would want a front-loaded contract without cap circumvention. Accounting for most contracts would want that for a player because of interest incurred on several million over a decade+ is substantial. Similarly, teams would want to backload contracts nearly as much as possible. And seeing as Crosby has such an infinity for the 87, the way his contract is structured gave him a 8.7M, that was probably more important than the 3M to Crosby.

Again, you're talking about Crosby retiring before his 37th birthday, and Hossa playing until he is 42. They aren't comparable. And if the only reason Crosby is making 3M on his last year was so he would retire, you're talking 1 year. A savings of less than 0.5M a year in cap space, just over 9.1M compared to his current 8.7M

Hossa's added four years of 1M saved the Hawk's over 2M a year. Remove those years from his contract and Hossa's cap hit would have been 7.5M. That's the difference, the degree to which it was used. That's why they aren't comparable. I'm not sure if you're just bad at math or don't understand the logic that different degrees can make something worse.


But again, I gave you three other contracts that are as bad as Hossa's. Use them in your example instead of Crosby's and no one would be arguing against you.

 

[Paper]

Or, you could point out that without the 3m years attached to Crosby's current contract, his annual cap hit would be closer to 12mil per year.

Okay, so now we're arguing that Crosby is expected to retire when he is 33. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Penguins wanted when he signed that contract.

 

[JaegerDice]

There's a lot of reasons why a player would want a front-loaded contract without cap circumvention. Accounting for most contracts would want that for a player because of interest incurred on several million over a decade+ is substantial. Similarly, teams would want to backload contracts nearly as much as possible. And seeing as Crosby has such an infinity for the 87, the way his contract is structured gave him a 8.7M, that was probably more important than the 3M to Crosby.

Again, you're talking about Crosby retiring before his 37th birthday, and Hossa playing until he is 42. They aren't comparable. And if the only reason Crosby is making 3M on his last year was so he would retire, you're talking 1 year. A savings of less than 0.5M a year in cap space, just over 9.1M compared to his current 8.7M

Hossa's added four years of 1M saved the Hawk's over 2M a year. Remove those years from his contract and Hossa's cap hit would have been 7.5M. That's the difference, the degree to which it was used. That's why they aren't comparable. I'm not sure if you're just bad at math or don't understand the logic that different degrees can make something worse.

Crosby is making 3m on his last three years, and rest assured, it was to get his cap hit under the 12 million per year that it would have been without those extra 3 years attached. Did they make sure the math worked to ensure it equalled 8.7 for the sake of Crosby's numerical fetish? Sure. But that that point you're talking about fiddling with the margins.

 

[JaegerDice]

Okay, so now we're arguing that Crosby is expected to retire when he is 33. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Penguins wanted when he signed that contract.

35ish actually, which isn't a particularly young age for a player who has made a fair amount of money to retire at. If he wants to sign another contract, great. The point remains, a 12 million dollar player was signed for 8.7 due to putting some incredibly cheap years on the tail end of the deal. This was widely practiced in the NHL for good reason, it's simple math. It comes down to the NHL to getting all butt-hurt over teams taking advantage of it.

 

[Paper]

Crosby is making 3m on his last three years, and rest assured, it was to get his cap hit under the 12 million per year that it would have been without those extra 3 years attached. Did they make sure the math worked to ensure it equalled 8.7 for the sake of Crosby's numerical fetish? Sure. But that that point you're talking about fiddling with the margins.

Take a step back for a second dude. You're now arguing that when Crosby and the Penguins signed that contract, with the three years of 3M, they expected him to retire prior to those 3M taking effect? You're going to sit here and argue with a straight face that the Penguins and Crosby expected him to retire at 34? Lol. Okay bud, we both know you don't believe that.

The difference is, when the Hawks and Hossa signed that contract, they did expect (or at least realize it was a very real possibility) that he would be retired before he turned 39, as is normal in the NHL, meaning those four extra years were simply and entirely for cap circumvention.

 

[JaegerDice]

Take a step back for a second dude. You're now arguing that when Crosby and the Penguins signed that contract, with the three years of 3M, they expected him to retire prior to those 3M taking effect? You're going to sit here and argue with a straight face that the Penguins and Crosby expected him to retire at 33? Lol. Okay bud, we both know you don't believe that.

The difference is, when the Hawks and Hossa signed that contract, they did expect (or at least realize it was a very real possibility) that he would be retired before he turned 39, as is normal in the NHL, meaning those four extra years were simply and entirely for cap circumvention.

I have no idea when they expect Crosby to retire, I'd assume they'd talk to him about it before signing him until 2025.

If you think there was no chance, than why didn't they do the simple thing and sign him for 8.7 mil every single year of the deal. Obviously, since there's no chance of Crosby retiring, there was no problem with that.

Unless of course there was a problem with that...

Like say, the fact that they signed the contract very shortly after the whole Crosby concussion hubbabaloo, and they really had no idea how long this guy had at full health....

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Then he shouldn't have taken the job with the league.

Why not?

 

[Paper]

I have no idea when they expect Crosby to retire, I'd assume they'd talk to him about it before signing him until 2025.

But 10 seconds ago you were arguing that the 3M/year years Crosby had were to circumvent the cap. That only works if he retires before then. If he plays them, that's not circumventing the cap...Lol. If you think those were cap circumventing years, which we know you don't believe, then you're arguing that you expected Crosby to retire before his 35th birthday, which again you don't believe. So why argue it?

Suter, Weber, Parise, there's a lot of retirement contracts. Zetterberg's another possible example. Injury or not, Franzen likely wasn't going to finish his now that he makes 1M at 39. We just saw Datsyuk leave on his, somewhat. No point arguing a contract that is no where near as erogenous as those.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Or, you could point out that without the 3m years attached to Crosby's current contract, his annual cap hit would be closer to 12mil per year.

That amount was attached because Crosby wanted his cap hit to be 8.7mil. If he wasn’t so superstitious it wouldn’t be that way.

 

[JaegerDice]

That amount was attached because Crosby wanted his cap hit to be 8.7mil. If he wasn’t so superstitious it wouldn’t be that way.

Oh, I agree the final number came out the way it did because Crosby is a superstitious guy. But there's a reason it was done with 3 years of 3 mil at the end, and not a simple 8.7mil guaranteed every year of the deal. Agreed?

 

[Paper]

Luoungo, Keith, Pronger, Savard, there is at least a dozen of far better examples to use. Using Crosby is just trolling.

 

[JaegerDice]

But 10 seconds ago you were arguing that the 3M/year years Crosby had were to circumvent the cap. That only works if he retires before then. If he plays them, that's not circumventing the cap...Lol. If you think those were cap circumventing years, which we know you don't believe, then you're arguing that you expected Crosby to retire before his 35th birthday, which again you don't believe. So why argue it?

Suter, Weber, Parise, there's a lot of retirement contracts. Zetterberg's another possible example. Injury or not, Franzen likely wasn't going to finish his now that he makes 1M at 39. We just saw Datsyuk leave on his, somewhat. No point arguing a contract that is no where near as erogenous as those.

Right. But coming right off of concussion issues that sidelined his career and may have cast some doubt on his long-term impact, it's crazy to suggest that the contract was structured as it was for the sake of a number, when the team could have reached the same number by giving him 8.7mil every year of the deal. The only reason to structure a deal with real salary cratering at the end is if you're unsure of whether those years will be played, or want those years to be easily tradeable.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

But 10 seconds ago you were arguing that the 3M/year years Crosby had were to circumvent the cap. That only works if he retires before then. If he plays them, that's not circumventing the cap...Lol. If you think those were cap circumventing years, which we know you don't believe, then you're arguing that you expected Crosby to retire before his 35th birthday, which again you don't believe. So why argue it?

Suter, Weber, Parise, there's a lot of retirement contracts. Zetterberg's another possible example. Injury or not, Franzen likely wasn't going to finish his now that he makes 1M at 39. We just saw Datsyuk leave on his, somewhat. No point arguing a contract that is no where near as erogenous as those.

They were clearly added to circumvent the cap. Whether they planned on him retiring or not is irrelevant. They just weren't as blatant about it as say Chicago who made it quite obvious with Hossa and Keith. The point is they added several lo value years to the end of the deal to lower the cap hit. Its likely he plays them, but it doesn't change the fact the only reason they exist was to lower his cap hit in a way that is now illegal.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Oh, I agree the final number came out the way it did because Crosby is a superstitious guy. But there's a reason it was done with 3 years of 3 mil at the end, and not a simple 8.7mil guaranteed every year of the deal. Agreed?

The reason was to front load it for Crosby’s benefit. The Pens aren’t saving anything cap wise. Crosby will play out the entire contract.

 

[Paper]

Oh, I agree the final number came out the way it did because Crosby is a superstitious guy. But there's a reason it was done with 3 years of 3 mil at the end, and not a simple 8.7mil guaranteed every year of the deal. Agreed?

Many players, including young players who have 100% intention of fulfilling the entirety of their contract, would prefer front-loaded contracts. Stamkos makes 9.5M in the early years, 6.5M in the last years. You going to argue that they expect him to retire at 32?

That's not because they expect to retire. Everyone wants to be paid more quicker. Investment opportunities and interest on that money, especially when we're talking millions, is not an insignificant amount. Crosby being paid high in his first years is probably a far more likelier reason (since he's doing them a favour of going for his 8.7M) then either him or the Penguins expecting him to retire before his contract is up. Hell, do you think the Penguins would want Crosby to have retired (cap-hit or not) before his contract expired? I doubt it, they still likely expect Crosby to be solid at 36 (remember that, by that time, the elite players will be being paid 12-15M, he doesn't need to be elite at 8.7M).

So no, not every year that is lower than the cap-hit is for the express purpose of cap circumventing with the expectation that the player wouldn't have played those years. Hossa, Pronger, Savard, Ehrhoff, Suter, Weber, Parise, Luongo, Kovalchuk, those ones can be argued that the last years were simply and entirely added with the expectation (at the time) that the player would be retired before then. That's the difference with Crosby, and why the argument is entirely stupid.

 

[JaegerDice]

The reason was to front load it for Crosby’s benefit. The Pens aren’t saving anything cap wise. Crosby will play out the entire contract.

The problem with that is there's no actual benefit to getting guaranteed cash up front instead of guaranteed cash later unless you think the cash on the back-end has less likelihood of being paid out.

Unless Crosby was planning on buying something really expensive in 2014, of course. Anybody know of any 400 foot yachts he bought?

 

[JaegerDice]

Many players, including young players who have 100% intention of fulfilling the entirety of their contract, would prefer front-loaded contracts. Stamkos makes 9.5M in the early years, 6.5M in the last years. You going to argue that they expect him to retire at 32?

That's not because they expect to retire. Everyone wants to be paid more quicker. Investment opportunities and interest on that money, especially when we're talking millions, is not an insignificant amount. Crosby being paid high in his first years is probably a far more likelier reason (since he's doing them a favour of going for his 8.7M) then either him or the Penguins expecting him to retire before his contract is up. Hell, do you think the Penguins would want Crosby to have retired (cap-hit or not) before his contract expired? I doubt it, they still likely expect Crosby to be solid at 36 (remember that, by that time, the elite players will be being paid 12-15M, he doesn't need to be elite at 8.7M).

So no, not every year that is lower than the cap-hit is for the express purpose of cap circumventing.

Are you honestly arguing a drop from 12 million in the first year to 3 million in the last 3 is the same as the drop from 9.5 to 6.5?

 

[Fish on The Sand]

The reason was to front load it for Crosby’s benefit. The Pens aren’t saving anything cap wise. Crosby will play out the entire contract.

Structuring the contract like that was basically the difference between being able to add Kessel or not. In other wordas, it won them 2 cups. That contract would now be illegal and they wouldn't have been able to add Kessel so yes, they did circumvent the cap. Just because it wasn't total BS like Hossa/Keith doesn't mean it didn't serve the same purpose.

 

[Paper]

The problem with that is there's no actual benefit to getting guaranteed cash up front instead of guaranteed cash later unless you think the cash on the back-end has less likelihood of being paid out.

Okay, well I'm going to help you out tremendously today. You'll thank me in the future.

Look up how to invest. Get your money to work for you. If you don't think there's a difference between 3M now or 3M in 10 years, that shows a great lack of understanding of finances. Which explains a lot of your arguments this thread, and makes it a lot more easier for me to understand now.

You just don't have a grasp on why money now is more important than money later. And unfortunately that's not unusual, but hopefully you're young enough to change that and start learning about interest rates and investments.