[Rumor] Jonathan Tavares to test UFA

[DeNiro]

26 minutes ago, BabychStache said:

Canucks may have to take a cap dump on to "repay" Florida for going down this route. 

 

The whole thing is stupid, it was legal under the CBA the deal was under. The NHL could have not approved the deal in the first place. 

Yep and the league is probably mad because we exposed a loophole that other NHL favourites were already exposing. 

 

No way they were going to make an example out of Chicago or Detroit though.

[mll]

9 hours ago, BabychStache said:

Canucks may have to take a cap dump on to "repay" Florida for going down this route. 

 

The whole thing is stupid, it was legal under the CBA the deal was under. The NHL could have not approved the deal in the first place. 

 

 

The NHL introduced a salary cap to level the playing field. Some teams decided to use this trick to artificially increase their salary cap.  Teams were warned well before the recapture rule was introduced that it was against the spirit of the CBA - see Daly's quote below.  

Pronger told the league he wanted a 4 year deal but Flyers wanted 7 to lower the cap hit.  Zetterberg last summer to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet saying he probably wouldn't play out his contract: "the only reason why we wrote such a long contact was because of the payroll. It is quite obvious that you try to fool the system."

 

It's understandable that other teams are upset.  Remove the last 2-3 seasons of those recapture contracts and most teams that went to the finals and even won Cups, wouldn't have been able to have the roster they had.  

 

Without the last 3 years of their deals Parise and Suter's cap hit would be 9.4M instead of 7.5M.  The Wild are getting artificially close to 4M more in cap space each season and they are so tight to the cap that at times they even limit themselves to a 21 player roster.  
 

Michael Russo asked Bill Daly about those recapture contracts re Parise, Suter back in November 2014.  From the Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/nhl-insider-parise-suter-contracts-might-cost-wild-down-the-line/282831691/

Quote

But why should it be allowed when the Wild and others didn’t break the rules?

 

“We were very up front with the clubs,” Daly said. “We told them we’re going to seek provisions in this CBA that will extract a cost for pushing the boundaries in this area, which is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the original system.

 

“So all the clubs were on notice for probably two years in advance of bargaining. This was covered in our general manager workshops, and the owners were told numerous times in board meetings. To suggest that anybody was really surprised by the fact that we negotiated that provision would be very unfair.”

 

[DrJockitch]

Daly's comments would make sense in a world where GMs have job security.  In the world of the NHL, the club will have to deal with the issues while the GM will probably be working for a different club by that time anyway.  So both handicaps what will no doubt be your former employer by the time it is a problem and aides you in your next job by handicapping one of your competitors.  Sounds like a policy that only screws the fans.  No wonder the NHL came up with it.

 

Interesting world, NFL is hostile to their players, NHL hostile to their fans (particularly the Canadian ones that keep them going).  

[oldnews]

On 5/25/2018 at 12:17 AM, mll said:

 

 

The NHL introduced a salary cap to level the playing field. Some teams decided to use this trick to artificially increase their salary cap.  Teams were warned well before the recapture rule was introduced that it was against the spirit of the CBA - see Daly's quote below.  

Pronger told the league he wanted a 4 year deal but Flyers wanted 7 to lower the cap hit.  Zetterberg last summer to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet saying he probably wouldn't play out his contract: "the only reason why we wrote such a long contact was because of the payroll. It is quite obvious that you try to fool the system."

 

It's understandable that other teams are upset.  Remove the last 2-3 seasons of those recapture contracts and most teams that went to the finals and even won Cups, wouldn't have been able to have the roster they had.  

 

Without the last 3 years of their deals Parise and Suter's cap hit would be 9.4M instead of 7.5M.  The Wild are getting artificially close to 4M more in cap space each season and they are so tight to the cap that at times they even limit themselves to a 21 player roster.  
 

Michael Russo asked Bill Daly about those recapture contracts re Parise, Suter back in November 2014.  From the Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/nhl-insider-parise-suter-contracts-might-cost-wild-down-the-line/282831691/

 

But why should it be allowed when the Wild and others didn’t break the rules?

 

“We were very up front with the clubs,” Daly said. “We told them we’re going to seek provisions in this CBA that will extract a cost for pushing the boundaries in this area, which is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the original system.

 

“So all the clubs were on notice for probably two years in advance of bargaining. This was covered in our general manager workshops, and the owners were told numerous times in board meetings. To suggest that anybody was really surprised by the fact that we negotiated that provision would be very unfair.”

Daly can claim that they warned about these provisions, but the reality, regardless, is that they were legal under the existing CBA at the time, and the NHL themselves approved them, making a retroactive penalty, whether they indicated an intent to create one, inappropriate regardless.   They should have rejected those contracts at the time and forced franchises to negotiate in good faith with respect to the cap. 

The extent to which his point is valid is the extent to which Lawrence Gilman et al should be considered to have hamstrung the franchise.

What pisses me off is that the penalties will come to future management groups that had nothing to do with those deals, and to teams that have literally not a player remaining from that era on their roster. 

The whole thing is absurd from start to finish.   The NHL needs to find a creative remedy / alternative to the joke that is the "Luongo" rule.

 

 

[Tower102]

Can anybody tell me why they can't just have the cap hit be equal to the salary, so the cap changes with the salary. It solves the issue of the back diving contract, as well as actually being able to align a players value to their cap hit. You have a young guy that is good but shows promising signs of being great, then have a contract that goes up in the later years and the cap hit follows that. Or for a guy like Thornton, he can be signed to a contract that dives because we all figure his play will dive and that way his cap hit actually follows that drop in value rather than being low early and high late.

[saucypass]

5 hours ago, Tower102 said:

Can anybody tell me why they can't just have the cap hit be equal to the salary, so the cap changes with the salary. It solves the issue of the back diving contract, as well as actually being able to align a players value to their cap hit. You have a young guy that is good but shows promising signs of being great, then have a contract that goes up in the later years and the cap hit follows that. Or for a guy like Thornton, he can be signed to a contract that dives because we all figure his play will dive and that way his cap hit actually follows that drop in value rather than being low early and high late.

The only problem is that this idea makes too much sense for the NHL to adopt. Sorry, no common sense allowed. 

[The_Rocket]

10 hours ago, Tower102 said:

Can anybody tell me why they can't just have the cap hit be equal to the salary, so the cap changes with the salary. It solves the issue of the back diving contract, as well as actually being able to align a players value to their cap hit. You have a young guy that is good but shows promising signs of being great, then have a contract that goes up in the later years and the cap hit follows that. Or for a guy like Thornton, he can be signed to a contract that dives because we all figure his play will dive and that way his cap hit actually follows that drop in value rather than being low early and high late.

You can structure the contract to have multiple players have low salaries at the same time that way. E.G. Canucks could have signed bo to a 6 yr contract with 15 mill in the first season the 1 mill each season after. Then the next season do the same for boeser, then pettersson etc. Pretty soon, you have multiple top players on your team taking up very low salary cap. Then you can go all kn on FA like tavares/kane/carlsson and whoever. I guess the league finds that unfair

[D-Money]

11 hours ago, Tower102 said:

Can anybody tell me why they can't just have the cap hit be equal to the salary, so the cap changes with the salary. It solves the issue of the back diving contract, as well as actually being able to align a players value to their cap hit. You have a young guy that is good but shows promising signs of being great, then have a contract that goes up in the later years and the cap hit follows that. Or for a guy like Thornton, he can be signed to a contract that dives because we all figure his play will dive and that way his cap hit actually follows that drop in value rather than being low early and high late.

Back-diving contracts are already fixed. Now in each contract no single year can be less than 50% of the highest year (i.e. if the player makes $10M one year, no other single year of the contract can be less than $5M).

 

Cap recapture sort of addresses the older ones, but Chicago is currently making a farce of that rule with Hossa.