Will Ehrhoff's contract hold up?

[pokerandpucks]

He has 3 years tacked on at $1 mil. Wasn't that the issue with the Kovalchuk deal? Or is 3 years at an extremely cheap salary ok?

http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=121

Click to read more...

 

[sh724]

The league will probably allow it since he will only be 38/39 when it expires. Part of the issue with Kovy was how old he would have been at the end of the contract

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He has 3 years tacked on at $1 mil. Wasn't that the issue with the Kovalchuk deal? Or is 3 years at an extremely cheap salary ok?

http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=121

It's how old the player is at the end of these contracts. Kovalchuk's was clear circumvention because he would have been 44 at the end of it. Ehrhoff ending the deal at 38 is passable. People thinking this is worse or even comparable to Kovy's deal are not looking at it completely. Buyout won't be an option at the tail end of this deal either since the savings are minimal. Burying him in the farm is plausible depending on the stipulations of his movement clause but unless the NHL has firm reason to believe that Ehrhoff does not have plans to play through the contract, which would be highly difficult to prove, they will accept this contract.

 

[WingsOverAvs]

It stands as signed IMO. Kovalchuck's deal had him playing well into his 40's and the last 5 years or so of the deal had him playing for damn near the league minimum. The end of Hossa's contract is similar to this

 

[pokerandpucks]

Yeah, I found the new rule. It's a good contract, the new rule is the end of a deal after e certain ag can't be below $1 mil a year, stuff about averaging the 3 highest salary years, etc.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...-The-NHL-NHLPA-CBA-amendment-i?urn=nhl-267414

I was hoping it'd be voided and he'd listen to other offers. Oh well.

 

[finchster]

This contract minus the huge signing bonus isn't that different from the Frazen or Zetterberg deals which also end at 1m at age 40 I believe. The NHL didn't even investigate these deals when they looked into long term deals, which leads me to believe this deal will be accepted.

 

[MasterDecoy]

i still think these ridiculously long term contract are ********. there should be a hard limit on how many years can be in a single contract.

i don't like it

 

[kdb209]

This contract minus the huge signing bonus isn't that different from the Frazen or Zetterberg deals which also end at 1m at age 40 I believe. The NHL didn't even investigate these deals when they looked into long term deals, which leads me to believe this deal will be accepted.

Signing bonuses are treated exactly like salary w.r.t. the cap - the money is just paid earlier (typically on 7/1).

The signing bonus in year one just gets Error some money a bit earlier.

The signing bonus in year two is really Strike/Lockout/Rollback insurance.

The $5M signing bonus will be paid on 7/1/12 - under the current CBA - and will be paid even if there is a strike/lockout on 9/15/12 (when the CBA expires) that wipes out the season. In addition, it will be paid before any hypothetical new-CBA salary rollback - only the $3M salary (prorated if there is a shortened season) would be subject to any rollback in year 2.

 

[Fourier]

I doubt this one even gets a sniff from the league unless someone sends in some sort of smoking gun. The league has pretty much given in to contracts ending before the player is 40.

 

[BadHammy*]

i still think these ridiculously long term contract are ********. there should be a hard limit on how many years can be in a single contract.

i don't like it

I agree. I hope there's a hard limit in the next CBA.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The signing bonus in year one just gets Error some money a bit earlier.

A bit early in the relationship to give him that nickname, isn't it?

 

[kdb209]

A bit early in the relationship to give him that nickname, isn't it?

He's had that nickname since back with the Sharks - usually followed by "shoots high and wide".

 

[RandV]

Yeah of course it's going to hold up, some people just can't get a clue when it comes to these contracts. If you wanted to put a positive spin on them, they're sort of an unofficial franchise contract. The teams get some immediate benefit with the lower cap hit, but they assume a long term risk (see: Rick DiPietro). Effectively it's a minor form of cap circumvention, but a line is drawn where reasonable doubt can be made. If a player plays for the full length of his contract whether with the original team or another then everything balances out and there is zero cap circumvention, that only happens when a player retires before the contract is done.

So as long as a team signs a player up to an age where even if unlikely he could still be playing, there isn't really anything the league can do about it. For the dozen or so players on these contracts, you'd have to think at least 1 or 2 will still be playing right till the better end, meaning the league would have been completely unjustified if they voided them.

So the GM's have a good thing going to skirt around the cap with a few players, and this is where the Devils broke. A goalie could play a few more years than a skater (Roloson for example), but there's no way Kovalchuk will be going till he's 45. If the league didn't put a stop to this, it would've been an open invitation for the next team to push that limit even further. So an upper age limit is established, where it can reasonably be believed that the player could still be playing. Ootherwise before you know it teams will be trying to sign a guy till he's 60.