bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
There are actually only a couple other contracts that take the players into their 40s and past the point where it can be reasonably expected that they'll still play.
Goaltending conundrum
- Thread starter Redleaf
- Start date
There are actually only a couple other contracts that take the players into their 40s and past the point where it can be reasonably expected that they'll still play.
Corn Flake
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
In the last CBA discussions they had no problem telling Toronto to stick it when they brought in the cap and cancelled the season. They won't have a problem doing it again I am sure of that.
Pretty sure as well that when the Kovalchuk contract mess went down that the league told them very clearly that there was no guarantee the new CBA wouldn't cause a contract like that to be a monstrous albatross... say if they took away the ability to dump the contract in the minors, no cap hit for retired players who signed before 35 years old, etc. etc.
Like I've said 100 times.. you take on that contract you better be prepared to take the cap hit for the FULL length of it, and if it works out that you don't have to then you got lucky.
bustaheims
Active member
Corn Flake said:
Like I suggested as a possibility a little while ago, I wouldn't be surprised to see a change to the 35+ rule to include all players over the age of 35, regardless of when the contract was signed. They didn't grandfather the 35+ rule when they introduced the current CBA, there's no reason to expect they'd do so now if they made changes to it.
bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
Even still, there aren't that many of them. There are only 39 players current signed past the 15/16 season. About half don't last past the 16/17 or 17/18 seasons. So, in reality, we're talking about ~15 contracts league-wide, most of which end with players just reaching their late 30s. Sure, there's a risk, but in these cases, it's no more risk than signing any player to a multiyear contract.
The issue with the league isn't the long-term contracts, it's the cap circumvention contracts. If a players signs a 10 year deal and plays the entire thing, it's not cap circumvention, because the cap savings at the beginning of the contract is paid back in cap overpayments at the end (in relation to actual salary). What the league would be looking to prevent are cap circumvention or retirement contracts like those handed out to Luongo, Kovalchuk and, to a lesser degree, Hossa (I'd include Pronger's as an example, but, since his is a 35+ contract any way, that cap hit sticks around even if he retires - though, the Kovalchuk rule would impact his as well, were it not grandfathered in).
Etiam Vultus
New member
The league must have figured out by this time that the long term contracts can be used for cap circumvention in many ways. For illustration purposes only, assume the following:
- Cap is set at $69 million.
- Team signs 23 players in the prime of their careers. All contracts are for $45 million over 15 years, with an average cap hit of $3 million per year. Thus, the total is $69 million this year and within the cap.
- All contracts call for a cash payment of $7 million per year for the first five years and $1 million per year for the last ten years. Thus, the team will actually be spending $161 million per year for the next five years, well above the cap limit.
- At the end of five years, the team trades the 23 players on its roster to teams trying to get to the cap floor and who value players making only $1 million per year, but a cap hit of $3 million per year.
- The Team signs 23 new players and begins the cycle over again.
Obviously this is an extreme example, but shows how the cap maximum and cap floors could both become meaningless unless the next collective agreement does something about this loophole.
- Cap is set at $69 million.
- Team signs 23 players in the prime of their careers. All contracts are for $45 million over 15 years, with an average cap hit of $3 million per year. Thus, the total is $69 million this year and within the cap.
- All contracts call for a cash payment of $7 million per year for the first five years and $1 million per year for the last ten years. Thus, the team will actually be spending $161 million per year for the next five years, well above the cap limit.
- At the end of five years, the team trades the 23 players on its roster to teams trying to get to the cap floor and who value players making only $1 million per year, but a cap hit of $3 million per year.
- The Team signs 23 new players and begins the cycle over again.
Obviously this is an extreme example, but shows how the cap maximum and cap floors could both become meaningless unless the next collective agreement does something about this loophole.
bustaheims
Active member
Etiam Vultus said:
Well, the 50/100 rule from the current CBA exists to help prevent such a scenario. In fact, the contracts you describe would already be illegal.
maplesyrup
New member
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
Pavelec is pending RFA with a big $ offer from KHL. It will take $4mil\multi years to keep him in NHL. Pay or trade him...Jets only options.
Couple thoughts/questions;
1. Would anyone consider Pavelec at that price?
2. How close to sending Reimer home to Manitoba does he get us to Pavelec?
3. Is Pavelec even a significant enough upgrade over Reimer?
Pavelec is pending RFA with a big $ offer from KHL. It will take $4mil\multi years to keep him in NHL. Pay or trade him...Jets only options.
Couple thoughts/questions;
1. Would anyone consider Pavelec at that price?
2. How close to sending Reimer home to Manitoba does he get us to Pavelec?
3. Is Pavelec even a significant enough upgrade over Reimer?
Disregarding salary, if it was a 1 for 1 swap of players (Pavelec/Reimer) than yeah, I'd probably do it. I saw Pavelec stand on his head a number of times last season. He looks to me like he has the makings of potentially becoming a real strong starting goalie (more so than Reimer in my estimation).
However, given the contract demands ($4M plus), PLUS the fact we'd have to give up more in terms of assets in a trade (I don't know how much more but I'd wager a guess that it is considerably more) than I'm not very interested. I don't doubt Pavelec is, and will be, better but I'm not sure by how much.
However, given the contract demands ($4M plus), PLUS the fact we'd have to give up more in terms of assets in a trade (I don't know how much more but I'd wager a guess that it is considerably more) than I'm not very interested. I don't doubt Pavelec is, and will be, better but I'm not sure by how much.
bustaheims
Active member
If Pavelec really insists on a $4M per contract, I hope he enjoys his time in the KHL.
maplesyrup
New member
James Mirtle @mirtle
Harding gets a three-year contract to stay in Minnesota. UFA goalies left: Brodeur, Roloson, Mason, Ellis, Gustavsson, Hedberg, Clemmensen
Harding gets a three-year contract to stay in Minnesota. UFA goalies left: Brodeur, Roloson, Mason, Ellis, Gustavsson, Hedberg, Clemmensen
The Red Polar Bear
New member
I hadn't even thought about it until someone brought it up, but the idea of getting Backstrom from MIN is growing on me. Run with him and one of the young guys, then if one of them steals the job, trade him at the deadline. Otherwise, re-sign him.
maplesyrup
New member
The Red Polar Bear said:
Yeah, I suggested that in the re-signings thread. I was again the idea of Backstrom but then though that we might be able to get roughly the same calibre of assets back at the deadline for him if need be.
bustaheims
Active member
I didn't see it myself, but, apparently, on That's Hockey, Dreger said the Leafs are comfortable going with a Reimer/Scrivens tandem next season if they can't find a deal that's to their liking. So, no overpaying for Luongo or any other goalie that's out there.
BlueWhiteBlood
New member
bustaheims said:
More posturing... A lot of leaks today.
Zee
Active member
bustaheims said:
Heard him on Blue Breakfast this morning say roughly the same thing. Something like "I wouldn't be surprised if the Leafs went with Reimer/Scrivens tandem if price for Luongo is not to their liking". Still sounds more like Dreger just speculating as opposed to having any real source (despite the fact that Nonis is his brother in law)
bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
Maybe, but it's in-line with the kind of stuff Burke has been saying all along - he's not going to panic and overpay when there are other options available to him. The way things are playing out, it may turn out the Luongo doesn't get dealt at all and Schneider ends up being moved instead.