Jump to content

The longer Nashville takes..... Is it a good or bad sign?


Guest jackhole

Recommended Posts

@ruxpin

I can appreciate the concern with helping out the smaller markets to compete. Nothing kills a sport worse than lack of parity. It's not fun for anyone if there are only a handful of significant clubs and all the rest are fodder. I thought when the league implemented the cap that they were taking the right steps. A deal like this has highlighted that further steps need to be taken in order to ensure that even the smaller markets have almost the same chance at getting a player as the bigger clubs. The RFA status of a player should be there to protect a team from losing that player to the open market. At the same time though what's to protect the player from getting fleeced by the team who owns his rights (not trying to imply that Weber was about to get fleeced). That's why I still am not sure how this is entirely terrible. But, that's not for me to decide, the new CBA will surely have a lot of these recently discovered issues ironed out.

I do continue to stand by the notion, however, that a team shouldn't have it's successes held against them. Corporation owned or not. No one is twisting Comcast's arm to own the Flyers and when a franchise proves to be not worth the investment, they can just as easily be sold by the same corporation. Just ask Comcast how they felt their investment in the Sixers was going http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2011/10/comcast_sells_76ers_to_group_l.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, not for nothing, don't big corporations who buy up teams do so because they see a tremendous value in their investment? The Flyers proved to be a tremendous value with huge earning potential so a company bought them to reap the rewards. What's stopping a big corp from making the same investment in the Preds? I don't completely disagree with your points but I still don't see why clubs with money should have that held against them. If the Preds were delivering the kind of revenue that makes them attractive to investment outside ticket sales, like sales of merch, tv ads, rink time books at Predators Skate zones (if they existed) and so on, then they could be attractive to outside investment as well.

I'm not saying "hold it against them" I'm saying that the Preds could afford to pay Weber $7.8M annually for 14 years. The fact that one club can put up $27M withot blinking an eye in a year in which there is a question of whether there will even be a season while the vast majority of the league can't is the salient point.

This is a legal offer under the CBA. I'm saying CHANGE THE CBA going forward.

I'd be for term limits on contracts and actual salary per year for contracts over a certain number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I disagree with this. The current structure of the RFA has made it through at least two CBAs. If your point above is true...and I'm actually sympathetic...then change it in the next CBA. IMO, it still doesn't change the fact that under the rules that are 15 years old, it is both legal AND, therefore, fair in terms of rules of known rules of engagement. If we're talking "fair" on some existential level, maybe. But I don't think THAT level is necessarily relevant.

This is, by all accounts, an "unprecedented offer" that breaks many "unwritten rules." As such, it could well be a game changer if not handled correctly.

Kovalchuk, Pronger, Hossa, etc. - this next CBA was headed for a showdown on this issue LONG before Suter, Praise and Weber.

I, for one, am fully in support of offer sheets and "poaching" RFAs from unsuspecting teams. I would just like more of a sense of a level playing field. Your post above is brilliant - as if I'd written it :ph34r:

The cap is one aspect, but there are obvious ways to circumvent the cap without "actually" circumventing it that can be tightened up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cap is one aspect, but there are obvious ways to circumvent the cap without "actually" circumventing it that can be tightened up.

I agree with this, in general, and also specifically how it relates to signing bonuses.

Rad, I'm seriously asking because i really don't think I remember: Were signing bonuses as flagrant (or did they exist at all?) before this year? I don't remember such absurd signing bonuses before now. It's almost NFLish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this, in general, and also specifically how it relates to signing bonuses.

Rad, I'm seriously asking because i really don't think I remember: Were signing bonuses as flagrant (or did they exist at all?) before this year? I don't remember such absurd signing bonuses before now. It's almost NFLish.

Bryz got a big signing bonus, actually.

They really bloomed into view in the past year or two as a way for players to hedge against the upcoming CBA madness (potential lost season) and also, I think, from the escrow provisions of withheld "salary" (could be wrong on last point).

We're seeing the practice refined to an art with this offer by Homer - and kudos to him for it. I just would like to see the field levelled going forward.

You know, after the Fllyers get Weber for picks :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, now that's well established that I clearly don't pay enough attention to these things...

They really weren't the Big Deal they are now before the agents started looking for ways to hedge their clients (and their) income from a lockout.

Also, too, the whole "not circumventing the cap" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as circumventing for one primary issue... Signing bonus weren't such an issue before, as @ruxpin states. Now... The league says the most a player can get, total, is $14 mil... That's bonus AND salary. In this contract, the trade restriction should Nashville match is 365 days, on calendar year. The Preds probably could pay the $14 mil then trade Weber later without that restriction. The problem is, the second $13 mil signing bonus is due July 1st... Not 365 days later. So in effect, by using signing bonus, Weber gets $27 mil within a 347 day period, which technically violates the single season max salary.

Now... The way the rules are written is where the flaw is. They have used two different standards in that trade clause is 365 days rather than just saying the next season. If they'd just required the following season, Nashville would be weighing a $14 mil investment and trade rather than $27 mil.

Rux I completely understand your angle on this. And like I said its smart on Holmgren's part to use this LEGAL offer to get Weber. I just chafe at the idea that there's a way to handcuff a franchise because the max salary can be inflated this way but the trade restriction remains in effect, nearly doubling Weber's actual salary in the same 365 day period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as circumventing for one primary issue... Signing bonus weren't such an issue before, as @ruxpin states. Now... The league says the most a player can get, total, is $14 mil... That's bonus AND salary. In this contract, the trade restriction should Nashville match is 365 days, on calendar year. The Preds probably could pay the $14 mil then trade Weber later without that restriction. The problem is, the second $13 mil signing bonus is due July 1st... Not 365 days later. So in effect, by using signing bonus, Weber gets $27 mil within a 347 day period, which technically violates the single season max salary.

Now... The way the rules are written is where the flaw is. They have used two different standards in that trade clause is 365 days rather than just saying the next season. If they'd just required the following season, Nashville would be weighing a $14 mil investment and trade rather than $27 mil.

Rux I completely understand your angle on this. And like I said its smart on Holmgren's part to use this LEGAL offer to get Weber. I just chafe at the idea that there's a way to handcuff a franchise because the max salary can be inflated this way but the trade restriction remains in effect, nearly doubling Weber's actual salary in the same 365 day period.

Hey, thanks for the more involved explanation. Seriously. It made it ...for the stupid reader...a little easier to understand where you're coming from. And now that I more clearly understand what you're saying, it makes it a bit harder to disagree with you. Since I prefer to disagree, could you please refrain from clarity and go back to being (for me) vague?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Polaris922

More to your point. I have to agree the two payments make the situation out-of-control cumbersome on smaller market, smaller-walleted, teams. If this is not a violation of the current rules--and with your point in mind I'm not as sure, but it still does seem to be within the rules--the rules really do need to be changed so this practice is not repeated. It won't help Nashville, obviously, but going forward it really could damage the league profoundly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could also be because they don't have a horse in this race. It's Nashville or Philly. They can have all the interest they want, but why they would state it publicly when it's not an option is beyond me.

I was posting that in response to a post about Weber being sent to us or the Rangers in a trade. On my phone it looked closer together but now I see it's a page or so apart. Lol. I'm on vacation at the beach and my service isn't so good. On the bright side.. I got to drive past Wells Fargo Center! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as circumventing for one primary issue... Signing bonus weren't such an issue before, as @ruxpin states. Now... The league says the most a player can get, total, is $14 mil... That's bonus AND salary. In this contract, the trade restriction should Nashville match is 365 days, on calendar year. The Preds probably could pay the $14 mil then trade Weber later without that restriction. The problem is, the second $13 mil signing bonus is due July 1st... Not 365 days later. So in effect, by using signing bonus, Weber gets $27 mil within a 347 day period, which technically violates the single season max salary.

Now... The way the rules are written is where the flaw is. They have used two different standards in that trade clause is 365 days rather than just saying the next season. If they'd just required the following season, Nashville would be weighing a $14 mil investment and trade rather than $27 mil.

Rux I completely understand your angle on this. And like I said its smart on Holmgren's part to use this LEGAL offer to get Weber. I just chafe at the idea that there's a way to handcuff a franchise because the max salary can be inflated this way but the trade restriction remains in effect, nearly doubling Weber's actual salary in the same 365 day period.

But it's NOT circumventing the cap. Brad Richards made 20 million in a 364 day period. The league ruled that that was acceptable, even though it was greater than 20% of the cap. This is no different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was posting that in response to a post about Weber being sent to us or the Rangers in a trade. On my phone it looked closer together but now I see it's a page or so apart. Lol. I'm on vacation at the beach and my service isn't so good. On the bright side.. I got to drive past Wells Fargo Center! LOL

Ew...sorry. (not ew to the WFC...ew to the drive)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's NOT circumventing the cap. Brad Richards made 20 million in a 364 day period. The league ruled that that was acceptable, even though it was greater than 20% of the cap. This is no different.

By the strict definition of "circumvent":

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+circumvent&qpvt=circumvent&FORM=DTPDIA

1. get around restriction: to find a way of avoiding restrictions imposed by a rule or law without actually breaking it

2. outwit somebody: to anticipate and counter somebody's plans

I think it actually comes pretty close, if not matches, both definitions...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's NOT circumventing the cap. Brad Richards made 20 million in a 364 day period. The league ruled that that was acceptable, even though it was greater than 20% of the cap. This is no different.

I agree with the "this is no different." I do think the Richards thing, and possibly the Weber, Suter, and Parise things are probably circumventing the cap. In "legal" and somewhat established ways (although the ante keeps getting raised), but probably in a loop-hole sense that should probably be closed in the next CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantically, yes, but not by NHL precedent, which is what really matters when you're talking about something happening in the NHL.

Did you *really* just say "NHL precedent" and "really matters" in the same sentence?

Put your analyst on danger money, baby.

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where contracts are concerned, they've stood on precedent pretty consistantly. Discipline on the other hand...

They really haven't. They forced the Flyers into the Gratton "trade". They agreed to a limit (with the NHLPA) on some specifics of long term contracts (% of pay in % of length of term) after Kovalchuk. They made the ruling on Pronger's 35+ (which could have been interpreted differently).

I would prefer to see more RFA action, to tell you the truth. But if it's done like this you wind up with teams that simply will never have a shot. If for no other reason than players will refuse to sign long term deals - as these two players did - because they can cash in with one of the few teams that can afford to overpay them in the short term and put off $20.6M in cap space for a team 11 years from now to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of those situations would be the precedent. Where have they interpreted each one differently later down the road?

Aside from recently pointing out that by the actual definition of the word it is "circumvention" and that the league has created a new deinfition of "circumvention" I have said all along that this is a perfectly legal offer under the NHL rules.

And that they need to establish a new precedent.

(For what it's worth, the Gratton "precedent" could easily have been invoked here. It was a late night fax that may or may not have arrived at the correct time and place that was at issue, which was the 11:59 electronic league filing of it's day. The Flyers were cleared but virtually forced to make the trade. Not the precedent you really want to be citing here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as circumventing for one primary issue... Signing bonus weren't such an issue before, as @ruxpin states. Now... The league says the most a player can get, total, is $14 mil... That's bonus AND salary. In this contract, the trade restriction should Nashville match is 365 days, on calendar year. The Preds probably could pay the $14 mil then trade Weber later without that restriction. The problem is, the second $13 mil signing bonus is due July 1st... Not 365 days later. So in effect, by using signing bonus, Weber gets $27 mil within a 347 day period, which technically violates the single season max salary.

Now... The way the rules are written is where the flaw is. They have used two different standards in that trade clause is 365 days rather than just saying the next season. If they'd just required the following season, Nashville would be weighing a $14 mil investment and trade rather than $27 mil.

Rux I completely understand your angle on this. And like I said its smart on Holmgren's part to use this LEGAL offer to get Weber. I just chafe at the idea that there's a way to handcuff a franchise because the max salary can be inflated this way but the trade restriction remains in effect, nearly doubling Weber's actual salary in the same 365 day period.

But since the NHL season runs from July 1st to June 30th the following year, it wouldn't violate the single season max salary. Weber would get $13 million bonus this wednesday the 25th which would be part of his max salary for 2012/13 season and $13 million on July 1st next year which would be considered part of his 2013/14 max salary. That's where the NHL might have to change the wording regarding these types of bonuses, maybe it will have to state that the day you sign the contract, your bonus portion of the contract can't be paid for another 365 days from the day you sign.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from recently pointing out that by the actual definition of the word it is "circumvention" and that the league has created a new deinfition of "circumvention" I have said all along that this is a perfectly legal offer under the NHL rules.

Now we're wandering into Kuato territory. They set their precedent for what is not circumvention when they permitted the Richards deal - they did not erase any prior precedent in the process. A word oftentimes will have its meaning somewhat modified from the dictionary definition within the context of a contract or CBA in order to give it a stricter definition and context. Therefore, the Flyers are not "circumventing" the cap in the NHL's definition of the word (unless they change it), which again, is all that matters.

Not that I disagree that the league needs to work on a fix for this kind of move.

And the Gratton fax really has nothing to do with this. The Lightning's argument was that they had completed a trade with Chicago prior to receiving the faxed contract, and that the faxed contract was illegible. The arbitrator ruled that the fax was legible, and that it arrived prior to the conclusion of the trade agreement. As far as I am aware, the Predators have not stated that a trade agreement was reached with any other club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...