Vlas=d Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It doesn't matter the contract is a complete joke and it should be voided. which it doesn't look like it will be. It's worse then the Kovy deal when you look at it And I have feeling the MG thought that if he offered this contract that it would be voided I'm sure you will hear a lot of GM's say afterwards they thought it would of be voided and fined like the devils were with kovy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It doesn't matter the contract is a complete joke and it should be voided. which it doesn't look like it will be. It's worse then the Kovy deal when you look at it And I have feeling the MG thought that if he offered this contract that it would be voided I'm sure you will hear a lot of GM's say afterwards they thought it would of be voided and fined like the devils were with kovy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Kovy's deal was initially 17 yrs long and he would've been 44 yrs old. The deal was reduced to 15 yrs and he will be 42. Weber's deal is 14 yrs long and takes him to 40. It is not a problem based on what happened to Kovy. These long term deals are an advantage for high revenue teams like ours. Even the threat of them is an advantage. The canucks want this advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlas=d Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Kovy's deal was initially 17 yrs long and he would've been 44 yrs old. The deal was reduced to 15 yrs and he will be 42. Weber's deal is 14 yrs long and takes him to 40. It is not a problem based on what happened to Kovy. These long term deals are an advantage for high revenue teams like ours. Even the threat of them is an advantage. The canucks want this advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Kovy's deal was initially 17 yrs long and he would've been 44 yrs old. The deal was reduced to 15 yrs and he will be 42. Weber's deal is 14 yrs long and takes him to 40. It is not a problem based on what happened to Kovy. These long term deals are an advantage for high revenue teams like ours. Even the threat of them is an advantage. The canucks want this advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Voracek is mediocre and the only reason he has some value was because he had Jagr with him on the team. With Jagr gone you'll see the old Voracek. Yes, those days in Columbus where Howson couldn't get him out the door fast enough. He's the last thing we need on this team. Awful!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 that is irrelevant what is relevant is how it drops off from so suddenly from like 12-14million to 6million from 6million to 1million. These other contracts they ease into the 1million like 12 to 8 to 6 to 4 to 2-3 to 1. This Weber contract is purely ridiculous one of the most ridiculous contracts submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 its not that much different from Luongo's contract if you look at the tail years 6.7 -> 3.3 -> 1.6 -> 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyflyin Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The Kovalchuk contract was supposed to be the last of it's kind. 10 years max is what the NHL said it wanted. And even if the length is fine, it's the buyout years at the end that are the biggest problem. It's cap circumvention, there's no way to say that it's not. Also ridiculous signing bonuses, again is cap circumvention. If it weren't Snider making this contract it would be rejected. Basically he can manipulate Bettman to do whatever he wants by dangling his NBC contract in Bettman's face. Normally that would be a conflict of interest...Not in the NHL though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Mobile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nashville could still match and pay the 14 mil this year and as long as they trade him on July1 next year before midnight then they wont have to pay the bonus money, the team trading for him will have to ( as we seen in the heatley SJ trade). So i suspect if the canucks trade for him it would be around the value of 2 first round picks(one we can aquire with the luongo trade) a prospect and 2 roster players, I assume nashiville will want defence, Edler and Ballard. Edler would have to be signed before the trade, so having a NTC in the first year of his contract would be a deal breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlas=d Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nashville could still match and pay the 14 mil this year and as long as they trade him on July1 next year before midnight then they wont have to pay the bonus money, the team trading for him will have to ( as we seen in the heatley SJ trade). So i suspect if the canucks trade for him it would be around the value of 2 first round picks(one we can aquire with the luongo trade) a prospect and 2 roster players, I assume nashiville will want defence, Edler and Ballard. Edler would have to be signed before the trade, so having a NTC in the first year of his contract would be a deal breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What's the news been about the Preds matching or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The nhl felt that kovy's contract was circumvention because they felt that no player will realistically play at age 43 and 44. There's nothing the nhl could formally do to reduce the length of contracts until the cba came up. The nhlpa could've disputed the rejection but chose not to. Lidstron has just retired at 42 and Selanne will be 43 next yr so a player is playing at 43. If there is cap circumvention going on the nhl would have done something about all the other contracts like Lu, parise, suter, etc. They didn't do anything because they couldn't prove cap circumvention. It is simply teams working within the rules of the cba. How can you accuse Snider when Minn just signed two longterm, bonus laden, front loaded contracts? The nhl has let these contracts happen with others also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Suter and Parise`s contract was pretty much the max that I think the NHL would be willing to go with most teams. If they added one more year at 1 million like the Weber contract, it probably would have been rejected. Since 40 seems to be the cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 3 years of 1 million is not the same as almost 6 million in Luongo's finals 3 years. And it's not unreasonable to think Luongo could be a backup by that time. It's alot less likely that Weber will be a 39 year old defenseman with a 7.8 million dollar cap hit. They're buyout years plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 suter and parise's final three years are for two, one and one each year. Weber's final three years are one million each. These buyout years are acceptable to the nhl at this point and not considered cap circumvention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Canuck Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 A level playing field is a pipedream... those with the dough will always feel it's their right to buy whatever the need/want. Still not sure how signing bonuses count against the cap found this on NHL.com : The maximum combined signing bonus will be limited to 10% of the player's maximum annual compensation in any year... well that seems odd considering the 50+ Mill Shea will make over the next couple of years in signing bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Define cap circumvention and then you can come to your own conclusion whether it is or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.