Clarkson for horton

[rdowdall]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

I thought the cap was to link on ice spending with league revenues so that even the poor teams can survive in the cap business environment.  The cap has less to do with parity and more to do with allowing the poor teams to survive and hopefully thrive.  If it was only to keep the rich teams from gaining a competitive advantage than there would only be an upper limit and no lower limit.

in any case this example benefits both the rich and poorer team.  The rich team takes the dead money and the poor team takes the more useful contract.

But it's a cap circumvention that can cause the cap to get out of whack because as long as the bad contract is with Blue Jackets they are not going to go out and sign another player to a 5 million dollar contract.  Now that that the Leafs have 5 million more to go over the cap, they could conceivably go out and sign another player to 5 million.  That's an extra 5 million dollar contract that would not have existed if Clarkson had stayed in Toronto.

How is it cap circumvention?  If the Blue Jackets don't make the deal they still have a bad contract (Horton's) but are unable to spend to improve their team because they can't afford it like the Leafs can.  How are you circumventing the cap to swap contracts? Just because one is on LTIR?  The Blue Jackets accepted that it was worth more to have Clarkson in the lineup with his hit rather than Horton out of it without the hit. What's being circumvented?

You are giving the Leafs the ability to spend over the cap.  They did not have the ability to do so before the trade.  Through the use of their extra revenue, they have bought the ability to spend more money on players.  The Leafs cap is now essentially 75 million as opposed to 70 million, which it wasn't before.  It's the same situation as how some people complain about the fact that Pronger hasn't retired yet because if he does, then that puts the Flyers in cap hell.

But how is that cap circumvention if the CBA allows for that to happen?  That would seem to be the opposite of cap circumvention and instead be using the cap and the CBA rules to your advantage.

I think you have to look at what is driving the deal.  Did the Leafs trade Tyler Bozak for Nathan Horton's contract?  If David Clarkson had been scoring at a 30 goal clip, would this deal have happened?  These things can't be proved in a court of law, but the result of this deal gives the Leafs cap relief. 

How were the back diving contracts cap circumvention?  There was nothing in the CBA that prevented them at first either.  It was a loophole that was exposed through an ingenious signing.  Once more teams started to take advantage of that loophole, the league stepped in and closed the loophole.

I will admit that the use of this loophole will probably be lessened because the variables that need to occur in order for it to happen are greater, but that doesn't mean it's not a loophole.

 

[rdowdall]

So what happens if Horton retires, I would have thought that if Pronger retires, that settles the deal in regards to cap with Flyers? Sorry don't know the rules on this

Pronger can't retire because if he does his full contract counts against the cap because it took effect after he was 35.  If it had happened before he was 35 he could retire.

 

[sneakyray]

Columbus can't go out and spend an extra $5 million on another player anyway.

The leafs probably won't either...at least not for a couple more years. That's why it doesn't matter whether the leafs have Horton or the jackets. An injured player on lair creates extra cap space. Just because Columbus wasn't going to use it doesn't mean the cap space isn't there anymore.

 

[TML fan]

Columbus can't go out and spend an extra $5 million on another player anyway.

The leafs probably won't either...at least not for a couple more years. That's why it doesn't matter whether the leafs have Horton or the jackets. An injured player on lair creates extra cap space. Just because Columbus wasn't going to use it doesn't mean the cap space isn't there anymore.

Real money is involved. THAT was the concern for Columbus.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

No it isn't.  The cap is just suppose to lower salaries and provide "cost certainty".  They didn't care about competitive imbalances during cba negotiations.

 

[cw]

I think if it were TOR-NYR trading LTIR room for assets, the league may not be too excited about blessing that.

The precedent has been set and, unless the league can come up with specific sections of the CBA it violates (of which, there are none), there's nothing they can really do about it.

But isn't there the all encompassing "Thou shall not circumvent the cap" clause in the CBA?  Also, back diving contracts started out, and then when they started to become more common, the league stepped and put a stop to it.  So yes, this has happened once, but if it becomes common place, then they may put a stop to it.

Over time, they may well do that - in the next CBA or one after that. But it's a legit transaction now that I believe was contemplated from the very first CBA.

They are not circumventing CBA dollars like the 40+ contracts (that have close parallels) because every dime of CBA dollars is getting accounted for in a way the CBA anticipated and prescribed.

Columbus didn't intentionally throw $36 mil at Horton expecting his career to be over and them stuck with paying that contract for nothing for six years. But teams did throw contracts at 40+ situations where they expected the player was going to retire long before his contract was over (which circumvented the cap calculation for that player's cap salary).

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

 

[cw]

I don't see the league stopping it. If you overegulate the game then teams would be stuck with these horrible contracts (Clarksons) forever and the teams would be saddled in relation to their caps without relief.
Sort of like trying to close every loophole for the rich.

That's the point of the cap though, to stop the rich from spending with a free will.  It's supposed to level the playing field and normalize player contracts.  So if a rich team does destroy their cap because of a bad signing, that's on the team.  It means that rich team can't go out and sign another bad contract, and another bad contract and so on and so forth.  The cap won't work if the rich teams can get out of their bad decisions.

No it isn't.  The cap is just suppose to lower salaries and provide "cost certainty".  They didn't care about competitive imbalances during cba negotiations.

I'd phrase it differently. They cared some about competitive balance and talked about improving it. But they were never set on making things EXACTLY fair in the CBA for all 30 teams to achieve "perfect" competitive balance - because the bigger market teams would never stand for it, etc.

Their intent was to improve the situation to help the smaller market teams and that's what they did.

 

[rdowdall]

Columbus didn't intentionally throw $36 mil at Horton expecting his career to be over and them stuck with paying that contract for nothing for six years. But teams did throw contracts at 40+ situations where they expected the player was going to retire long before his contract was over (which circumvented the cap calculation for that player's cap salary).

No, but by the same token the Leafs threw $36 million at Clarkson expecting a certain type of player in a really really badly laid out contract.  There is no doubt that the Leafs wanted to get out of this deal.  They found someone who was willing to do so in Columbus.  I think it will be telling to see what happens with the Horton contract going forward.  If the Leafs keep it, I have a feeling that they have been told that if they try and move it for prospects to a team that is up against the cap, that the League may step in.  The fact that this deal was badly laid out contract for badly spent money is the only thing that saved it I think.

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

The 40+ contracts could be considered that as well, as the real dollars going to the player were less than the cap hit.  That contract could help a team get to the floor without having to pay out the dollars. 

 

[Highlander]

So if Horton retired today the Leafs would be off the hook for the 30 million whilst getting rid of Clarkson. Wow.
Now Horton lives in real pain according to reports.  He can have surgery to alllieviate his suffering but it is tantamount to saying "enough is enough" and admitting retirement, thus cutting him off from millions in income.
How much are you willing to suffer and for how long for money?
He has already make millions from his many years in the league, how much more does he need?  Interesting question.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

He could have surgery and admit that he'll never play again and he could still choose not to retire.

 

[Joe S.]

If we're going to scrutinize something it should be pronger, who hasn't retired but somehow has a job working for the nhl.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.  Cap circumvention issues in the past were virtually exclusively to the benefit of a single team per incident, always the wealthy ones, and mid-cap and low-cap teams weren't happy and voiced their complaints.  Horton/Clarkson is a transaction that benefits both a wealthy and a poor team.  I think other teams, both rich and poor, are a lot less likely to squawk about it because they can envision circumstances where they might themselves benefit from such a transaction.  I can't see the league closing a loophole of sorts if it turns out that very few teams may want it closed.

 

[rdowdall]

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.  Cap circumvention issues in the past were virtually exclusively to the benefit of a single team per incident, always the wealthy ones, and mid-cap and low-cap teams weren't happy and voiced their complaints.  Horton/Clarkson is a transaction that benefits both a wealthy and a poor team.  I think other teams, both rich and poor, are a lot less likely to squawk about it because they can envision circumstances where they might themselves benefit from such a transaction.  I can't see the league closing a loophole of sorts if it turns out that very few teams may want it closed.

But it would benefit the Leafs and Chicago if the Leafs turned around and traded Horton to Chicago for prospects.  Again there is nothing to prevent them from doing that either.  And lets say that in a couple of years Chicago isn't up against the cap anymore so they trade him to some other cap team for prospects.  What I am saying is that if teams try and treat Horton as some sort of cap relief token ring, the league will step in and stop it.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.  Cap circumvention issues in the past were virtually exclusively to the benefit of a single team per incident, always the wealthy ones, and mid-cap and low-cap teams weren't happy and voiced their complaints.  Horton/Clarkson is a transaction that benefits both a wealthy and a poor team.  I think other teams, both rich and poor, are a lot less likely to squawk about it because they can envision circumstances where they might themselves benefit from such a transaction.  I can't see the league closing a loophole of sorts if it turns out that very few teams may want it closed.

But it would benefit the Leafs and Chicago if the Leafs turned around and traded Horton to Chicago for prospects.  Again there is nothing to prevent them from doing that either.  And lets say that in a couple of years Chicago isn't up against the cap anymore so they trade him to some other cap team for prospects.  What I am saying is that if teams try and treat Horton as some sort of cap relief token ring, the league will step in and stop it.

Why would it benefit Chicago if they traded Horton there for prospects?

 

[rdowdall]

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.  Cap circumvention issues in the past were virtually exclusively to the benefit of a single team per incident, always the wealthy ones, and mid-cap and low-cap teams weren't happy and voiced their complaints.  Horton/Clarkson is a transaction that benefits both a wealthy and a poor team.  I think other teams, both rich and poor, are a lot less likely to squawk about it because they can envision circumstances where they might themselves benefit from such a transaction.  I can't see the league closing a loophole of sorts if it turns out that very few teams may want it closed.

But it would benefit the Leafs and Chicago if the Leafs turned around and traded Horton to Chicago for prospects.  Again there is nothing to prevent them from doing that either.  And lets say that in a couple of years Chicago isn't up against the cap anymore so they trade him to some other cap team for prospects.  What I am saying is that if teams try and treat Horton as some sort of cap relief token ring, the league will step in and stop it.

Why would it benefit Chicago if they traded Horton there for prospects?

They would get 5 million in LTIR cap relief.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

As well, this is a crude form of revenue sharing - wealthy teams helping a smaller market team less well off. Over 40+ contacts did none of that.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.  Cap circumvention issues in the past were virtually exclusively to the benefit of a single team per incident, always the wealthy ones, and mid-cap and low-cap teams weren't happy and voiced their complaints.  Horton/Clarkson is a transaction that benefits both a wealthy and a poor team.  I think other teams, both rich and poor, are a lot less likely to squawk about it because they can envision circumstances where they might themselves benefit from such a transaction.  I can't see the league closing a loophole of sorts if it turns out that very few teams may want it closed.

But it would benefit the Leafs and Chicago if the Leafs turned around and traded Horton to Chicago for prospects.  Again there is nothing to prevent them from doing that either.  And lets say that in a couple of years Chicago isn't up against the cap anymore so they trade him to some other cap team for prospects.  What I am saying is that if teams try and treat Horton as some sort of cap relief token ring, the league will step in and stop it.

Why would it benefit Chicago if they traded Horton there for prospects?

They would get 5 million in LTIR cap relief.

Well, you've left out the crucial part of the equation, in that Chicago would also have to move a bad contract to Toronto for that to be of any value to Chicago.  Otherwise they're just paying Horton an enormous amount of money for no good reason.

 

[Joe S.]

They would get 5 million in LTIR cap relief.

Only if they sent 5 million worth of contracts back in the trade.

 

[rdowdall]

They would get 5 million in LTIR cap relief.

Not necessarily.  They could do this deal in the offseason, when they are aloud to go over, then place Horton on LTIR before the season starts.  You have to spend to the cap in order to take advantage of the LTIR.

Only if they sent 5 million worth of contracts back in the trade.

 

[Joe S.]

I think you're overthinking this.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

They would get 5 million in LTIR cap relief.

Only if they sent 5 million worth of contracts back in the trade.

Not necessarily.  They could do this deal in the offseason, when they are aloud to go over, then place Horton on LTIR before the season starts.  You have to spend to the cap in order to take advantage of the LTIR.