Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VoiceOfReason_

Any existing deal in excess of 5 years would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire!

70 posts in this topic

If it were as simple as that, it would be easy to argue you would not need both clauses?

By "grandfathering" I am suggesting teams would have the ability to trade players on contracts signed before the new CBA without penalty risk. And look at what will happen if not. Toronto trades for Lou. Then they give him a payout to retire after 3 years; here's a $5 mill coaching contract... Then we wear the cap hit.

But in reality, I am sure the players will not accept such a clause. They all hold some secret belief they can cash in like Suter and Parise at some point in their careers. And that theory actually works against them. If Parise (is forced by such a CBA) into a more reasonable contract there is likely more money for 2knd tier and depth players. Competitive teams will still spend to the cap, and it should help parity as you can afford stars and good role players. But I still see this as leaving it as a serious hindrance on players ability to negotiate. I doubt this clause makes the final cut for many reasons, but this the most important.

That would make no sense, since the CBA wouldn't allow anyone to sign a contract over 5 years as the NHL has proposed it anyway. Why bother having the clause if you've already grandfathered the old contracts and don't allow for any new ones to be created?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This clause would be a hindrance for the Canucks long term - but it would increase Luongo's trade value because all the red herrings about the term of his contract would become even less valid, actually a non-issue. All that a team would be acquiring would be the years that they want to pay for (in Luongo's case, at a bargain 5.3 milion). If that clause were to exist and apply to all existing contracts it would in effect be an attempt to rewrite the previous CBA after the fact - which I think is completely unrealistic to be honest - you simply can't retroactively apply the terms of 35+ contracts under the last CBA, AND add an additional non-transferrable aspect. Dream on Burke - and try looking forward instead of attempting to find favourable terms on which to poach Luongo.

If that nonsense were to ever fly, be prepared to pay a steep price if you want Luongo. The Canucks would need a lot of incentive to accept the contingency of the future cap. However, it could make the short term return very seriously signifcant - and in the sense that some people see the window as now or never...

Somehow I think if Burke got his way on this, Gillis would snub him and not even answer the phone if Burke came calling for Luongo - unless he is in fact prepared to strip mine his system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lifetime contract is for life. Bobby is a Canuck for life.

Bobby is our guy 'going forward'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo contract is NOT bad..........damn you haters and fake fans there are worse contract out there that affect their team...5.3 cap hit is a bargain

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were as simple as that, it would be easy to argue you would not need both clauses?

By "grandfathering" I am suggesting teams would have the ability to trade players on contracts signed before the new CBA without penalty risk. And look at what will happen if not. Toronto trades for Lou. Then they give him a payout to retire after 3 years; here's a $5 mill coaching contract... Then we wear the cap hit.

But in reality, I am sure the players will not accept such a clause. They all hold some secret belief they can cash in like Suter and Parise at some point in their careers. And that theory actually works against them. If Parise (is forced by such a CBA) into a more reasonable contract there is likely more money for 2knd tier and depth players. Competitive teams will still spend to the cap, and it should help parity as you can afford stars and good role players. But I still see this as leaving it as a serious hindrance on players ability to negotiate. I doubt this clause makes the final cut for many reasons, but this the most important.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is there to make teams think, twice, three times, four times, hell 30 times before handing out any big money contract.And players won't get big $'s...

You don't think reduced salaries would be attractive to owners?

:sick:

Why is it that if the contract is dealt to another team,that the original team gets stuck with the cap hit, if and when that player retires? Bettman is just being a complete idiot at this point and must have really lost his mind. The thing that baffles me the most is why are the owners behind this?

There has to be more to this..... Maybe it's baiting the players along with other concessions in order to get the deal done and will be taken off the table once the players say no to this proposal. This still doesn't really explain things, but I cant think of any other reason to do this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is there to make teams think, twice, three times, four times, hell 30 times before handing out any big money contract.And players won't get big $'s...

You don't think reduced salaries would be attractive to owners?

:sick:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the owners are even talking about this and not grandfathering in any existing contracts. It would be interesting to see whether the owners will get together and pull this clause if the players were to actually allow it to pass.

I don't see this stopping teams from taking a risk by signing exceptional players to these sort of cap-circumventing contracts. What I do see is a reduction in the number of players who will be offered these sorts of deals in the future.

For example: the Canucks manage to draft MacKinnon (yes, he falls that far down in the draft). They go through the required time up to his RFA period. MacKinnon makes it know he wants to stay here for his whole career, but he also wants to be paid. If you were Gillis, would you offer this guy a 5 year contract, or a 10 year deal?

On the other hand, would you offer a contract with a term any longer than 5 years to a lesser player?

regards,

G.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYI - DePietro

NJ - Kovalchuk

Nas - Weber

Min - Parise, Suter

Chi - Keith, Hossa

Det - Zetterberg, Franzen

Van - Luongo

TB - Lecavalier, Ohlund

LA - Carter

Buf - Ehrhoff

Phi - Bryzgalov, Briere, Timonen

NYR - Richards

Ott - Spezza

13 teams actually.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.