Question about contracts and the expiring CBA

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Pantokrator, Jul 5, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. Pantokrator

    Pantokrator Who's the clown?

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    102
    Location:
    Semmes, Alabama
    I apologize for my ignorance up front.

    I have been reading in several articles how teams "need to be careful" in handing out contracts because of the CBA expiring, as if to suggest that if for some reason the CBA reduced the salary cap, the teams would be stuck with the new contracts. Is this what the concern is? And if so, why wouldn't there be a clause to buy out the contracts like last time?

    I don't understand why teams should care about the new CBA when figuring out contracts now, since it seems any new CBA would have a clause to deal with any possible situation. Am I missing something more serious?
     
  2. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Because there are many unknowns.
    - how the cap is calculated could change - resulting in a lower cap.
    - how individual cap hits are calculated could change.
    - there is no guarantee that there will be a round of compliance buyouts like after the last lockout (which did not count against the cap).
    - there is no guarantee that existing contracts will be grandfathered in under the existing rules - after the last lockout, some terms were grandfathered in (option years) and some were not (min & max salary).

    For example, a team could sign a player to a front-loaded deal, assuming that they could send the player down at the end to avoid the cap hit, only to find the rules changed that all or part of that AHL salary may count against the cap.
     
  3. Pantokrator

    Pantokrator Who's the clown?

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    102
    Location:
    Semmes, Alabama
    Thanks for the feedback.

    I can't imagine that the NHL would allow for teams to be hampered by the old CBA.

    Let's just say that if a team spent 60 million, and the Cap was reduced to 50 million; the NHL would just tell them they had to jettison players in order to get below the cap? That has trouble written all over it. I don't see how a CBA like that would ever go through. Last time it was pretty much the owners vs. the players. This time it will be owners vs. owners, and I can't see big market clubs the likes of Toronto, Montreal, New York, Detroit, Philly, and Chicago allowing something like that to go through.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"