Say it ain't so, Pav...<crickets>

[SpikeDDS]

Datsyuk is being strangely coy with his remarks when asked if he might leave and return to Russia after this season. That would be a BRUTAL blow to next season, as we would still be stuck with his $7.5M cap hit. We've seen this before, this speculation that he might bolt, and he ended up re-signing for 3 years. I think history has a tendency to repeat itself, and Pav will stay and play out his final season. It's hard for me to swallow the idea that he would leave the Red Wings in that situation.

 

Is the press making more of this than there is to generate a story?

[WordsOfWisdom]

If he were to leave, why would the Red Wings be stuck with a $7.5mil cap hit? It's either his contract is up and he's off the books, or he would be in violation of the terms of his NHL contract by leaving for a rival league, and the Red Wings could tear up his contract and pay him nothing. 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Well....given the current economic state of the KHL, one has to wonder why Datsyuk would even CONSIDER doing something like that.

 

I mean, I get it....he is from Russia, but if I am in his shoes, and want to return home, I play out my last season with Detroit, collect that nice American paycheck, invest wisely (he had been doing that all along...right? ), THEN go back home where, if he wants, he can play for the KHL (or simply retire and live back home), without the worry of money.

 

Of course, there could be lots of variables here, but frankly, unless he is completely comfortable financially right now, I don't see how you leave guaranteed millions on the table, having only a year left on a contract, to go to a situation in the KHL (again, assuming he will continue playing over there and not retiring), where it is a financial circus.

 

IMO, bad for him, bad for his family....not to mention, he's be screwing over the team that has treated him pretty much like royalty his entire career, by leaving them with a sizeable cap hit.

 

The Red Wings may be Tampa Bay rivals, but I certainly hope Datsyuk doesn't leave them in a lurch.

It wasn't right when Kovalchuk did it to the Devils (Kovy's decision was much more damaging of course), it wouldn't be right to do so here.

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

by leaving them with a sizeable cap hit.

 

I don't get it.  

 

If he leaves, he is violating the terms of his contract. He is being paid to play in the NHL for the Detroit Red Wings. The contract is a binding agreement between both parties. He HAS to play for Detroit and Detroit HAS to pay him for the specified number of years and dollars. If either party violates the contract, it is a breach. 

 

If he walks out on the Red Wings, the Wings owe him nothing and have $7.5mil to spend on another player. Oui oui yes/no?  

 

Why would it hurt the Red Wings? Why should it? Why would there be a cap hit for a player that isn't there? Why would there be a cap hit for a player that breached their contract? This isn't the same as a club sending a player down the minors or paying them to go away. This is a player walking away from a deal. 

 

 

[AJgoal]

40 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I don't get it.  

 

If he leaves, he is violating the terms of his contract. He is being paid to play in the NHL for the Detroit Red Wings. The contract is a binding agreement between both parties. He HAS to play for Detroit and Detroit HAS to pay him for the specified number of years and dollars. If either party violates the contract, it is a breach. 

 

If he walks out on the Red Wings, the Wings owe him nothing and have $7.5mil to spend on another player. Oui oui yes/no?  

 

Why would it hurt the Red Wings? Why should it? Why would there be a cap hit for a player that isn't there? Why would there be a cap hit for a player that breached their contract? This isn't the same as a club sending a player down the minors or paying them to go away. This is a player walking away from a deal. 

 

 

 

He signed an over-35 contract. It doesn't matter why he wouldn't be playing, the Wings would be on the hook for the cap hit.

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, AJgoal said:

 

He signed an over-35 contract. It doesn't matter why he wouldn't be playing, the Wings would be on the hook for the cap hit.

 

Wow.  

 

Why do the owners do this to themselves? 

 

I smell LOCKOUT! 

 

 

[BluPuk]

Gotta love those Euros and their "special" rules. What loyalty, what a team player. What character! Or is that what character? 

 

Would he leave and put Detroit in that position? Of course, he is not worth the money in the first place.

 

I gotta call 'em as I see 'em. 

[JagerMeister]

2 hours ago, BluPuk said:

Gotta love those Euros and their "special" rules. What loyalty, what a team player. What character! Or is that what character? 

 

Would he leave and put Detroit in that position? Of course, he is not worth the money in the first place.

 

I gotta call 'em as I see 'em. 

Is that you, Don Cherry?

[yave1964]

I think he will return for next season and then hang them up and go on a farewell tour of Mother Russia. Class act, just the press making something of nothing, IMHO.

[WordsOfWisdom]

13 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

I think he will return for next season and then hang them up and go on a farewell tour of Mother Russia. Class act, just the press making something of nothing, IMHO.

 

I agree with this, but I still think the NHL needs to close this loophole. 

 

Not that I'm an expert on law or anything, but I could draft a better contract in five minutes than anything the NHL brass ever could in a lifetime. 

[SpikeDDS]

23 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I agree with this, but I still think the NHL needs to close this loophole. 

 

Not that I'm an expert on law or anything, but I could draft a better contract in five minutes than anything the NHL brass ever could in a lifetime. 

Well, I don't know if it is the EXACT same thing, but the Red Wings are stuck with Johan Franzen's cap hits for several years, even if his career is already over due to concussions. That's an additional $4-5M cap hit. In fact, I think the ONLY reason Franzen has not retired yet is because the Red Wings are trying to lessen his cap hit by keeping him on LTIR. It's stupid! They are both idiocy.
 

BTW, the speculation is that Datsyuk might bolt for family reasons. And as far as the contract goes, if he goes to Russia, what court will convict him for his breach of contract? You think Putin will enforce anything a US court decides?

 

I'm hoping that have is right. This wouldn't be the first time that the press has made a big deal out of Pav's silence. I hope that he finishes out the contract. I don't see him remaining in the NHL after that. He will go home then. But family is still family.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure what the advantage of these over-35 contracts are for either side, but these contracts just seem to suck.

[radoran]

The issue with "over 35" contracts is, quite simply, that the owners and GMs don't trust each other not to try to circumvent the cap with them.

 

See: Pronger, Chris and contracts like Kovalchuk, Hossa, etc. that stretch beyond age 40.

 

They might do better with a term limit on over 35 contracts to keep them honest, but then you have to get the NHLPA to agree.

 

And while there may be many people who "could write a better contract" the question isn't in the writing, it's in getting all the parties to agree.

 

The CBA negotations are a real "sausage factory" in that regard, trying to satisfy many competing and in many cases conflicting interests.

 

When you add in the problems of a KHL option which doesn't at all have to take into account NHL contracts, then you are in real undiscovered country...

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

Well, I don't know if it is the EXACT same thing, but the Red Wings are stuck with Johan Franzen's cap hits for several years, even if his career is already over due to concussions. That's an additional $4-5M cap hit. In fact, I think the ONLY reason Franzen has not retired yet is because the Red Wings are trying to lessen his cap hit by keeping him on LTIR. It's stupid! They are both idiocy.

 

Agreed. So here is me in charge of drafting the next CBA:

• PLAYER FRIENDLY OPTION: Players who are unable to play as a result of a permanent/career ending injury will be paid out their remaining salary on an annual basis until their contract expires, but this salary will not count toward the salary cap of their respective team. *OR*
• TEAM FRIENDLY OPTION: The remaining term of the contract is null/void and the player can collect money from insurance as a result of their injury, but the team would no longer be responsible for paying salary to a player that will never play again.

 

3 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

BTW, the speculation is that Datsyuk might bolt for family reasons. And as far as the contract goes, if he goes to Russia, what court will convict him for his breach of contract? You think Putin will enforce anything a US court decides?

 

His paycheques are coming from Detroit. The moment he leaves for Russia, the paycheques stop coming. It doesn't matter what Russia does. The Red Wings file a "breach of contract" motion. The NHL looks at it and says "Yup. He left. That's a breach. Contract terminated." Datsyuk then goes to the NHLPA and fights it. Under the current retarded system he wins (until the next lockout when this gets changed -- poorly of course -- leaving more loopholes for future lockouts). Under what I proposed above, it's fixed already. Don't ya just love the NHL?  

 

He could also go to the NHLPA to fight it and the NHL could refuse to recognize that provision in the CBA and tear up the current agreement. Then it could go to proper litigation in a real court system and the NHL could effectively re-write the CBA through the courts to account for this "unforeseen" circumstance and claim some sort of business hardship or operating impediment. ie: That teams can no longer ice a competitive NHL franchise because of the salary cap and the fact that they are being bogged down by player contracts to players that are no longer in the league either through their own choice or through permanent injury. They might have a legitimate case.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

Continuing my point above...

 

It sounds kind of hard to believe, but the NHL as a whole could be sunk (right now) if say, 100 players (of above average pay) left the game immediately and went to play in Russia. That would sink the league because teams could no longer afford to ice a 20-man roster. They would all be bumping up against the cap and would have no option to take those 100 players off the books. 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

My head hurts. 

 

 

[JagerMeister]

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

My head hurts. 

 

 

Its ok, with this you know that you have exerted more mental effort to improve the NHL then the NHL has.

[radoran]

17 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Agreed. So here is me in charge of drafting the next CBA:

• PLAYER FRIENDLY OPTION: Players who are unable to play as a result of a permanent/career ending injury will be paid out their remaining salary on an annual basis until their contract expires, but this salary will not count toward the salary cap of their respective team. *OR*
• TEAM FRIENDLY OPTION: The remaining term of the contract is null/void and the player can collect money from insurance as a result of their injury, but the team would no longer be responsible for paying salary to a player that will never play again.

 

 

His paycheques are coming from Detroit. The moment he leaves for Russia, the paycheques stop coming. It doesn't matter what Russia does. The Red Wings file a "breach of contract" motion. The NHL looks at it and says "Yup. He left. That's a breach. Contract terminated." Datsyuk then goes to the NHLPA and fights it. Under the current retarded system he wins (until the next lockout when this gets changed -- poorly of course -- leaving more loopholes for future lockouts). Under what I proposed above, it's fixed already. Don't ya just love the NHL?  

 

He could also go to the NHLPA to fight it and the NHL could refuse to recognize that provision in the CBA and tear up the current agreement. Then it could go to proper litigation in a real court system and the NHL could effectively re-write the CBA through the courts to account for this "unforeseen" circumstance and claim some sort of business hardship or operating impediment. ie: That teams can no longer ice a competitive NHL franchise because of the salary cap and the fact that they are being bogged down by player contracts to players that are no longer in the league either through their own choice or through permanent injury. They might have a legitimate case.  

 

The Wings won't have to pay him.

 

His number will count against the cap.

[BluPuk]

On April 6, 2016 at 10:40 AM, JagerMeister said:

Is that you, Don Cherry?

 

Why do you ask that @JagerMeister? Can a U.S. born player just pick a team he wants to finish his career with and go play there right away while ignoring the fact that his current team will have to be suffer for it? Can any Canadian born player do that? ( well, OK, maybe Nylander because he's going to Europe!!)

Like I said - I just call 'em as I see 'em. 

[radoran]

54 minutes ago, BluPuk said:

 

Why do you ask that @JagerMeister? Can a U.S. born player just pick a team he wants to finish his career with and go play there right away while ignoring the fact that his current team will have to be suffer for it? Can any Canadian born player do that? ( well, OK, maybe Nylander because he's going to Europe!!)

Like I said - I just call 'em as I see 'em. 

 

Yes, if any of them want to jet off to the KHL or the Swedish Elite League, for example, they can pick their team and head out.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, radoran said:

 

The Wings won't have to oay him.

 

His number will count against the cap.

 

Yeah that's what I mean. Under the terms of a "logical" /well thought out contract, if player X signs a 2-year contract and leaves after year 1 to play for another team in a rival league, what should happen is:

• Breach of contract occurs
• Contract is torn up (null/void)
• Team no longer pays player for year 2 (since player is not there)
• Player's year 2 salary does not count against the salary cap. The contract is deleted. Cap space freed. (Like deleting a file on your hard drive.)

If I'm a GM, and my star player of any age (who is expected to make $10mil next year) bolts for the KHL, then I should have that $10mil free to spend on another player for next season. It should not count against the salary cap. Why would it? Then you have phantom players on your roster. It makes absolutely no sense. 

 

The current system punishes everyone. The Red Wings wouldn't be able to ice a product that is as competitive. Another player wouldn't get to play in the NHL because the Wings couldn't afford to sign him, or he'd have to sign for the league minimum. They should call it a "suicide clause" in the contract, because it allows teams to shoot themselves in the head. 

[radoran]

30 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Yeah that's what I mean. Under the terms of a "logical" /well thought out contract, if player X signs a 2-year contract and leaves after year 1 to play for another team in a rival league, what should happen is:

• Breach of contract occurs
• Contract is torn up (null/void)
• Team no longer pays player for year 2 (since player is not there)
• Player's year 2 salary does not count against the salary cap. The contract is deleted. Cap space freed. (Like deleting a file on your hard drive.)

If I'm a GM, and my star player of any age (who is expected to make $10mil next year) bolts for the KHL, then I should have that $10mil free to spend on another player for next season. It should not count against the salary cap. Why would it? Then you have phantom players on your roster. It makes absolutely no sense. 

 

The current system punishes everyone. The Red Wings wouldn't be able to ice a product that is as competitive. Another player wouldn't get to play in the NHL because the Wings couldn't afford to sign him, or he'd have to sign for the league minimum. They should call it a "suicide clause" in the contract, because it allows teams to shoot themselves in the head. 

 

The current system DOES punish everyone. It's DESIGNED to do that.

 

It's also not a part of the "contract" per se - it's a part of the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement under which the contract was negotiated.

 

The issue is signing, for example, a seven year deal with a 35 year old that pays

$7.6
$7.6
$7.2

$7.2
$4
$575K
$575K

 

And getting a $7M player for a $4.9M cap hit for 4 years who then walks away from the final 2-3 years of the deal.

 

For example.

 

That's not "fair" to the other 29 teams in the league and the CBA is designed to protect their interests.

 

That's been mitigated somewhat with the new rules about how far apart the highest and lowest paid years can be - but you can still lower the overall cap number of a player and then have him walk away from the final years of the contract. That's cap circumvention 101.

 

You could also have situations where players sign with an "unwritten" agreement to leave after X number of years, getting big money for several years at a lower cap hit.

 

IF all GMs and players were simply honest and played fair, they wouldn't need the penalty for the "over 35" player. As it is, they unfortunately do.

 

The Wings could easily have decided not to sign Datsyuk for three years. Datsyuk could have taken a lower term. Instead the Wings offered a three year deal paying:

 

$10M

$7M

$5.5M

 

to get a $7.5M cap hit. They benefitted from the length of the deal to get a player who "made" $17M over two years ($8.5M avg annual value) at a cap hit $1M/year lower. In that context, they were able to bring in a Jurco, Shehean, Larkin, Pulkkinen or Athanasiou this season because they were getting the benefit of an $8.5M player at a $7.5M cap hit..

 

That said, I could see the NHL deciding that they will void the cap hit in this situation and give the Wings a "cap recapture" penalty instead. Whether that's kosher under the CBA is another question entirely.

 

Lastly, they could also negotiate a situation where no player contracts can be extended past age 40, for example. So a "35 year old" couldn't sign a seven year deal. That said, that wouldn't help in the Datsyuk situation as Datsyuk would be walking away at age 38. I would argue that the "cap recapture" penalty could also replace the "over 35" rule, but at the same time I'm 99% sure there would be a GM who would find a way to circumvent the rules for the benefit of their team to the detriment of the other 29.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

The issue is signing, for example, a seven year deal with a 35 year old that pays

$7.6
$7.6
$7.2

$7.2
$4
$575K
$575K

 

And getting a $7M player for a $4.9M cap hit for 4 years who then walks away from the final 2-3 years of the deal.

 

Problem solved:

• All NHL contracts will pay players at a uniform rate over the lifetime of the contract.

Thus, a 5-yr contract for $50m will be $10m/yr. 

 

 

[radoran]

Just now, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Problem solved:

• All NHL contracts will pay players at a uniform rate over the lifetime of the contract.

Thus, a 5-yr contract for $50m will be $10m/yr. 

 

 

 

That could certainly work, yes.

 

Why do you think they didn't set it up that way? I, for one, don't see any reason other than to allow certain teams to try to circumvent the cap.

 

Most likely the same teams that were demanding the cap in the first place...

[WordsOfWisdom]

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

That could certainly work, yes.

 

Why do you think they didn't set it up that way? I, for one, don't see any reason other than to allow certain teams to try to circumvent the cap.

 

Most likely the same teams that were demanding the cap in the first place...

 

I agree. They build it to fail. They try to get clever and cute, and they're not qualified for the task.

 

I could re-write the existing CBA, cutting out 50+ pages of garbage, and saving 400+ hours of negotiation by just simplifying things. Simplification alone would solve nearly all that ails the NHL and the NHLPA. They make things difficult for themselves. That's why it's both funny and painful to watch how they work.  

 

Sidenote: As an engineer, I see this stuff happen all the time in the workplace. Left to their own devices, people will always devise the most complicated solution to a problem -- one that almost never works. It takes a highly trained individual to produce the simplest and most effective solution to any problem.  

 

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I agree. They build it to fail. They try to get clever and cute, and they're not qualified for the task.

 

I could re-write the existing CBA, cutting out 50+ pages of garbage, and saving 400+ hours of negotiation by just simplifying things. Simplification alone would solve nearly all that ails the NHL and the NHLPA. They make things difficult for themselves. That's why it's both funny and painful to watch how they work.  

 

And that's IMO why they designed the "punishment" into the system instead of simply having it be fairly designed from the beginning.

 

They all KNOW they are going to try to cheat the system and they all want the opportunity to do so.

 

I like hockey in spite of the NHL. Not because of it.