CBA

[Guest Sloth]

Large market teams have been able to go above the salary cap w/ incentives in a players contract. The money would only be given to the player if they achieved whatever benchmark they needed to hit. Isn't this year the year where that can no longer happen? Also, isn't this the last year of the CBA? If so, do we have anything to worry about?

[tom webster]

Large market teams have been able to go above the salary cap w/ incentives in a players contract. The money would only be given to the player if they achieved whatever benchmark they needed to hit. Isn't this year the year where that can no longer happen? Also, isn't this the last year of the CBA? If so, do we have anything to worry about?

 

The players union can eliminate that problem if they announce their intentions not to opt out after next year. Believe it or not, the NHLPA has expressed some concerns about how their members aren't getting a fair share under the current arrangement.

 

Also, the incentive deal has very limited effect. I know the Gary Roberts deal has to be accounted for different but Tampa isn't close to the cap.

[BetweenThePipes00]

It's not the last year, but the players COULD opt out ... they won't, but it has to be treated as the last year in case they do ... i'll try to find the link where I read that ...

[Guest Sloth]

It's not the last year, but the players COULD opt out ... they won't, but it has to be treated as the last year in case they do ... i'll try to find the link where I read that ...

 

I appreciate that. I hope the players and the owners know they can't show a hint of a problem. The NHL's image needs to continue getting better.

[Taro T]

If the NHLPA decides by mid-May that they want to opt out, this will be the last year of the CBA. If they don't, it will go through the '10-'11 season; with the players having an option to extend it through '11-'12. Technically, the deal will remain in effect after that unless one or both sides decide by mid-May of a particular year that they don't want the deal to continue.

 

Performance bonuses aren't that big of a deal as they are only available to a few classes of players (guys on entry level deals, guys over 35 signing 1 year deals, and guys coming off IR on 1 year deals). In the rare case where a bonus puts a team over the cap, the team's cap space is reduced by an equal $ amount the next year. This practice is allowable over the entire duration of the CBA.

 

Giving guys long contracts w/ big $'s up front and small ones at the end, is more of an issue for skirting the cap, IMHO. Especially when no one knows what system will be in place after '10-'11.

[carpandean]

Giving guys long contracts w/ big $'s up front and small ones at the end, is more of an issue for skirting the cap, IMHO. Especially when no one knows what system will be in place after '10-'11.

These are a complete joke and will cause the biggest problems. Look at Lecavalier's contract. He's a franchise player and will receive $10M for 7 seasons, plus another at $8.5M. That's eight prime years (28 - 36) of a franchise player. What's his cap hit? Just $7.7M!! How? They wrapped his grizzled old veteran years into the contract ($4M, $1.5M and $1M for a 37-39 year old.) If he's still productive at that point, those will probably be a little on the low end salary-wise and if he's not, that's cheap to buy out. Ri-di-cu-lous!!

[stenbaro]

These are a complete joke and will cause the biggest problems. Look at Lecavalier's contract. He's a franchise player and will receive $10M for 7 seasons, plus another at $8.5M. That's eight prime years (28 - 36) of a franchise player. What's his cap hit? Just $7.7M!! How? They wrapped his grizzled old veteran years into the contract ($4M, $1.5M and $1M for a 37-39 year old.) If he's still productive at that point, those will probably be a little on the low end salary-wise and if he's not, that's cheap to buy out. Ri-di-cu-lous!!

Why is it a complete joke..If I were a Lightning fan I would be extatic..They wrapped up their best player for 10 yrs with no team being able to come in and steal him..I think its a great move..The Sabres should be looking at players like pominville, Paillle and try and get them signed for 10 yrs at a reasonable salary..10 yrs for 70 mil is a steal....

[Guest Sloth]

Why is it a complete joke..If I were a Lightning fan I would be extatic..They wrapped up their best player for 10 yrs with no team being able to come in and steal him..I think its a great move..The Sabres should be looking at players like pominville, Paillle and try and get them signed for 10 yrs at a reasonable salary..10 yrs for 70 mil is a steal....

 

I agree w/ you on Pominville, but Paille hasn't earned it yet. I hope the Sabres can sign Pominville to a 7 or 8 year deal. Not only will that be good for the team, but it'd also be good for the organization. Sabres management has a bad reputation and it needs to be corrected. Vanek and Roy were signed long-term last year. If the Sabres can do the same w/ Pomminstein and Miller it'll help management's reputation tremendously.

[carpandean]

Why is it a complete joke..If I were a Lightning fan I would be ecstatic..They wrapped up their best player for 10 yrs with no team being able to come in and steal him..I think its a great move..The Sabres should be looking at players like pominville, Paillle and try and get them signed for 10 yrs at a reasonable salary..10 yrs for 70 mil is a steal....

Of course a Lightning fan would be ecstatic; they're the ones benefiting from the ridiculous loophole. The are getting a $10 million player for a $7.7 million cap hit per season. Sure, in eight years, they might have to pay a small penalty to buy him out if he's not worth the cap hit, but the money is so small (fraction of the $2.5 million total salary for the last two years), that I'm sure it doesn't bother them. As I've suggested before, they need something along the lines of "no contact year may have a salary less than half (or maybe a higher %) of any other year in that contract."

 

As for what the Sabres should do, these contracts work best for guys in their prime (28-30 years old), who have proven themselves to be top-tier players over several years. That way, you can pay them their current high salary (here, $10M) into their mid-30's and then drop it off substantially in their final few years. The Sabres don't have anybody who fits that mold. Drury and Briere were close (obviously Philly gave Danny that type of contract). The guys the Sabres have are too young and too unproven. Pominville has had two very good years, which suggests that he might be very good, but he's not proven like Lecavelier is ... yet. $70 million is a lot to risk based on two years and, while we're not "small market", we're not the Rangers or Toronto either. Now, had Vanek not received the big offer sheet and instead signed a reasonable 3 years deal, then posted 120-150 goals (assuming the pressure of the big contract got to him last year), he would have been a perfect candidate for such a contract. Depending on their progress, the Sabres might think about playing those types of games with Vanek or Roy when their current deals are up (both will be 31 and either could prove to be a big star.)

[R_Dudley]

Giving guys long contracts w/ big $'s up front and small ones at the end, is more of an issue for skirting the cap, IMHO. Especially when no one knows what system will be in place after '10-'11.

 

Great read all learned some things, thanks.

 

The one item above from Taro still has me wondering.

If/when the CBA expires/ends are these contracts legal grandfathered documents that no matter how it evolves/changes that they are binding and stay in effect/place ? Or are they just possibly contracts that will only count for the next few years while current CBA is in place which means who cares if it's 10 or twenty years for that matter it's all a rouse?

[Taro T]

Great read all learned some things, thanks.

 

The one item above from Taro still has me wondering.

If/when the CBA expires/ends are these contracts legal grandfathered documents that no matter how it evolves/changes that they are binding and stay in effect/place ? Or are they just possibly contracts that will only count for the next few years while current CBA is in place which means who cares if it's 10 or twenty years for that matter it's all a rouse?

My guess is that the next CBA will retain the core framework of the current one but with (more or less minor) modifications as there are things both sides don't like about the current deal but (IMHO) it is much better than anything they've had in the past.

 

If the next CBA retains the flavor of this one (i.e. keeps a cap and I don't see that going away completely), the contracts players are currently signing will remain in effect and enforceable. Even in a major restructuring, the union probably wouldn't want existing deals voided. If there is major restructuring of the CBA AND the union agrees to void or alter these deals, then they'd go away. Kind of similar to the way all pre-lockout contracts got knocked back by 24% and guys like Yashin had their deals cut by even more to fit under the individual contract max.

 

PS, all this is pure conjecture on my part. I'm not a lawyer, although I've been told I play one on the internet. ;)

[stenbaro]

Of course a Lightning fan would be ecstatic; they're the ones benefiting from the ridiculous loophole. The are getting a $10 million player for a $7.7 million cap hit per season. Sure, in eight years, they might have to pay a small penalty to buy him out if he's not worth the cap hit, but the money is so small (fraction of the $2.5 million total salary for the last two years), that I'm sure it doesn't bother them. As I've suggested before, they need something along the lines of "no contact year may have a salary less than half (or maybe a higher %) of any other year in that contract."

 

As for what the Sabres should do, these contracts work best for guys in their prime (28-30 years old), who have proven themselves to be top-tier players over several years. That way, you can pay them their current high salary (here, $10M) into their mid-30's and then drop it off substantially in their final few years. The Sabres don't have anybody who fits that mold. Drury and Briere were close (obviously Philly gave Danny that type of contract). The guys the Sabres have are too young and too unproven. Pominville has had two very good years, which suggests that he might be very good, but he's not proven like Lecavelier is ... yet. $70 million is a lot to risk based on two years and, while we're not "small market", we're not the Rangers or Toronto either. Now, had Vanek not received the big offer sheet and instead signed a reasonable 3 years deal, then posted 120-150 goals (assuming the pressure of the big contract got to him last year), he would have been a perfect candidate for such a contract. Depending on their progress, the Sabres might think about playing those types of games with Vanek or Roy when their current deals are up (both will be 31 and either could prove to be a big star.)

Let me ask you this..If the Sabres offered Paille a 10 yr 30 million dollar contract would you be pissed?? Not me...And he might take that... A very promisng young 2 way player with the chance to sign a 30 million dollar deal..Not that far fetched he would take it..If its a loophole then the SAbres and their players should be taking full advantage of it..Its there for a reason they should use it..I dont understand why we arent doing it..If you can lock up a player you have a very good idea where they are going to end up as far as production goes then lock him up till he retires..No reason not to..Dont sign him for 2 yrs then have to go through this all over again next year..LOL...Just because you offer him a ten yr deal doesnt meen you have to give him 7 mill a year..

[awill29]

Let me ask you this..If the Sabres offered Paille a 10 yr 30 million dollar contract would you be pissed?? Not me...And he might take that... A very promisng young 2 way player with the chance to sign a 30 million dollar deal..Not that far fetched he would take it..If its a loophole then the SAbres and their players should be taking full advantage of it..Its there for a reason they should use it..I dont understand why we arent doing it..If you can lock up a player you have a very good idea where they are going to end up as far as production goes then lock him up till he retires..No reason not to..Dont sign him for 2 yrs then have to go through this all over again next year..LOL...Just because you offer him a ten yr deal doesnt meen you have to give him 7 mill a year..

 

Paille just broke out and had a 19 goal season last year. 3M in today's NHL gets you about 25 goals, if you're lucky. I don't think that Paille, his agent, or anybody thinks that Paille will level off soon and have a mediocre career. He's not just going to sign his career away for that low a sum.

[BetweenThePipes00]

And even if he did take it, what happens if 5 years from now he is Tim Connolly, always nicked up but playing 50 games one year and 25 the next ... not career-ending injuries, just stuff that keeps him out of the lineup half the time .... they would be on the hook for $10 million in cash to buy him out and he'd still be on the cap, although not for the full amount, for the next 5 years. It's a loophole, but there is risk to just signing all your guys to 7-10 year deals.

I'm not saying it is a fine rule and should just stay that way forever, but it's not unfair ... every team has it at their disposal and someone is going to get burned by it.

[carpandean]

I'm not saying it is a fine rule and should just stay that way forever, but it's not unfair ... every team has it at their disposal and someone is going to get burned by it.

It's only unfair because large market teams can afford to pay the buyout amount. Sure, the Sabres will almost always have the cap space for it, but they can't afford to pay the extra millions above the salaries of the guys on the roster. For several larger teams, that extra cash is a drop in the bucket, reducing the risk of such a contract. It's an unforeseen (at least I hope it was) loophole that is allowing some teams to get higher price players under the cap than they should be able to.

 

And, to answer the question, I don't think 10 x $3M would be a smart move by either side. In 2007, had they signed Drury to a front-weighted seven year contract with a lower cap hit (say, $6M, $6M, $6M, $6M, $3.5M, $1.5, $1M for a $4.28M cap hit), I would have been all for it, but that was a different situation. I would have loved for them to play those games then. While I still think they overpaid, I do have to give Philly credit for setting up Briere's contract they way they did.

[BetweenThePipes00]

It's only unfair because large market teams can afford to pay the buyout amount. Sure, the Sabres will almost always have the cap space for it, but they can't afford to pay the extra millions above the salaries of the guys on the roster. For several larger teams, that extra cash is a drop in the bucket, reducing the risk of such a contract. It's an unforeseen (at least I hope it was) loophole that is allowing some teams to get higher price players under the cap than they should be able to.

 

And, to answer the question, I don't think 10 x $3M would be a smart move by either side. In 2007, had they signed Drury to a front-weighted seven year contract with a lower cap hit (say, $6M, $6M, $6M, $6M, $3.5M, $1.5, $1M for a $4.28M cap hit), I would have been all for it, but that was a different situation. I would have loved for them to play those games then. While I still think they overpaid, I do have to give Philly credit for setting up Briere's contract they way they did.

Agreed, the large market teams do have an advantage, but that's inevitable due to the guaranteed contracts ... teams, large market or small, have to have SOME way of getting a guy off their cap ... if they eliminated the buyout you could cut guys and they'd be off the cap but you'd still have to pay them 100% of their guaranteed contract, and that would still benefit the teams with the most money ... basically, there is no way to entirely level the playing field unless they are going to take all revenues and split them 30 ways, which will never happen.

[stenbaro]

And even if he did take it, what happens if 5 years from now he is Tim Connolly, always nicked up but playing 50 games one year and 25 the next ... not career-ending injuries, just stuff that keeps him out of the lineup half the time .... they would be on the hook for $10 million in cash to buy him out and he'd still be on the cap, although not for the full amount, for the next 5 years. It's a loophole, but there is risk to just signing all your guys to 7-10 year deals.

I'm not saying it is a fine rule and should just stay that way forever, but it's not unfair ... every team has it at their disposal and someone is going to get burned by it.

You can throw any possible scenario for injuries you want..What ifd he never gets injured and doesnt miss a game..All I am saying is lock him him up for as long a period possible for the least amount of money he will sign for..He is gonna be a heckuva hockey player for a ong time..

[Taro T]

Let me ask you this..If the Sabres offered Paille a 10 yr 30 million dollar contract would you be pissed?? Not me...And he might take that... A very promisng young 2 way player with the chance to sign a 30 million dollar deal..Not that far fetched he would take it..If its a loophole then the SAbres and their players should be taking full advantage of it..Its there for a reason they should use it..I dont understand why we arent doing it..If you can lock up a player you have a very good idea where they are going to end up as far as production goes then lock him up till he retires..No reason not to..Dont sign him for 2 yrs then have to go through this all over again next year..LOL...Just because you offer him a ten yr deal doesnt meen you have to give him 7 mill a year..

I would not have been happy if the Sabres had given Paille a 10 year $30MM deal. There is way too much variability in how his career will play out at this point in the career for that deal to make sense for either side. His game is best when he is playing physical, but he's not big enough to be the prototypical power forward. If he ends up becoming injury prone or plateauing at the current level, he isn't close to being worth $3MM. If he keeps developing and becomes another Jochen Hecht, then with inflation factored in, he's probably worth a bit more than $3MM/year in 6+ years. If the leadership he displayed in junior comes out in the pros then he could be worth even more than that down the road.

 

People are ticked currently that Max makes over $3MM/year and he was basically a point/game player the year before he signed his deal and the 1st year of it. Imagine the howls if Paille never regains the leadership role (due to injuries or whatever) and remains a career 35-45 point player, or what having an 82 gpy 35 ppy player making $3MM does to the salary structure, or on the other extreme how does it affect his motivation if he's the top pk forward and scoring 60 ppy when the going rate for that type of player is $5MM+ and he can't renegotiate another deal for 5 more years.

 

It's only unfair because large market teams can afford to pay the buyout amount. Sure, the Sabres will almost always have the cap space for it, but they can't afford to pay the extra millions above the salaries of the guys on the roster. For several larger teams, that extra cash is a drop in the bucket, reducing the risk of such a contract. It's an unforeseen (at least I hope it was) loophole that is allowing some teams to get higher price players under the cap than they should be able to.

 

And, to answer the question, I don't think 10 x $3M would be a smart move by either side. In 2007, had they signed Drury to a front-weighted seven year contract with a lower cap hit (say, $6M, $6M, $6M, $6M, $3.5M, $1.5, $1M for a $4.28M cap hit), I would have been all for it, but that was a different situation. I would have loved for them to play those games then. While I still think they overpaid, I do have to give Philly credit for setting up Briere's contract they way they did.

Like BtP wrote, the only way to have a truly "fair" system is with full revenue sharing across all 30 teams (and that hoses the big market guys and will never happen). Whether it be having the ability to eat more player costs on mistakes or have larger front offices and/or scouting staffs and/or more expensive coaches; the big guys will always have more resources available to them. The thing is, for the last few years, having the resources available hasn't been a slam dunk that a team will get it done (if it was, it'd be Detroit v TO/NYR every year). Having the resources can nearly as easily make you fat, drunk, and happy (TO) as it can make you a champ (Detroit).

 

The current system is far from perfect, but I don't see it getting totally overhauled in the next CBA, and I think it is the closest the league has ever come to getting a system that works for the teams and players.

[X. Benedict]

Let me ask you this..If the Sabres offered Paille a 10 yr 30 million dollar contract would you be pissed?? Not me...And he might take that... A very promisng young 2 way player with the chance to sign a 30 million dollar deal..Not that far fetched he would take it..If its a loophole then the SAbres and their players should be taking full advantage of it..Its there for a reason they should use it..I dont understand why we arent doing it..If you can lock up a player you have a very good idea where they are going to end up as far as production goes then lock him up till he retires..No reason not to..Dont sign him for 2 yrs then have to go through this all over again next year..LOL...Just because you offer him a ten yr deal doesnt meen you have to give him 7 mill a year..

 

A 10 year/ 30 million guaranteed contract for a third liner has me chuckling.

As much as I like Paille, he is barely a proven player in this league in terms of consistency,

and why would you lock out forwards like Gerbe, Kennedy, Ennis, Adams in the organization chart who are locked out of at least that spot unless you move the contract

 

Any year there are guys like Metropolit available for much less money that can play any line for much less.

[stenbaro]

A 10 year/ 30 million guaranteed contract for a third liner has me chuckling.

As much as I like Paille, he is barely a proven player in this league in terms of consistency,

and why would you lock out forwards like Gerbe, Kennedy, Ennis, Adams in the organization chart who are locked out of at least that spot unless you move the contract

 

Any year there are guys like Metropolit available for much less money that can play any line for much less.

Chuckle all you want save this post in 2 yrs chuckle then..he already was our best 2 way hardnosed player on our top 3 lines last year and it was his first full season..He plays big and smart..

 

Youre not locking out anybody..

[BetweenThePipes00]

You can throw any possible scenario for injuries you want..What ifd he never gets injured and doesnt miss a game..All I am saying is lock him him up for as long a period possible for the least amount of money he will sign for..He is gonna be a heckuva hockey player for a ong time..

 

I know you find it hard to believe, but I think they did exactly that.

Paille probably would have taken a 3-year deal, but he wasn't going any farther than that because then he is giving up years of unrestricted free agency. Like you, i am sure he believes he is going to be a heckuva hockey player, and 3 years from now at $3 million a year he would be underpaid. So the most they were getting was 3 years, but in doing so the Sabres would give up their only leverage, which is that even if he does breakout, he is an RFA and they get the right to match. So the Sabres either want 4+ or a contract that ends with him still a RFA. No one wants a 1 year deal ... it gives Paille no security and only 1 chance to prove his worth, and it puts the Sabres in a position of having to pay him right away if he breaks out ... so they met in the middle ... 2 years, Paille gets some security, gets 2 years to prove he is worth that long-term deal, and the Sabres still get first crack at him because he is still RFA at that point. Worst thing that happens is he plays well, they go to arbitration that last year (like Vermette) and he gets to be a UFA as early as possible.

I really like Paille too but young guys like him are about the only place the system works for teams like the Sabres who are not going to throw money around at every big name that hits the market ... they need to use it to their advantage when they can. They took care of Roy, they took care of Miller, they took care of Gaustad, they probably will with Pommer ... they have plenty of time to do right by Paille too.

[X. Benedict]

Chuckle all you want save this post in 2 yrs chuckle then..he already was our best 2 way hardnosed player on our top 3 lines last year and it was his first full season..He plays big and smart..

 

Youre not locking out anybody..

 

He was by far the best 12 min. a game guy we had.

 

But there were reasons he was only 12 minutes a game.

He has some developing to do. I think he has the right contract for now.

 

I think he'll have a great career if he can put up Scott Arniel numbers - a player I really

respected and played a very similar role and had a terrific career.

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=110

 

There is a place in the league for guys like them, but they aren't going to get overpaid.

Maybe you see him as a 30 goal a year guy, but I'm pretty sure Lindy looks at him and

he's seeing his old teammate Scott Arniel.

[Taro T]

He was by far the best 12 min. a game guy we had.

 

But there were reasons he was only 12 minutes a game.

He has some developing to do. I think he has the right contract for now.

 

I think he'll have a great career if he can put up Scott Arniel numbers - a player I really

respected and played a very similar role and had a terrific career.

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=110

 

There is a place in the league for guys like them, but they aren't going to get overpaid.

Maybe you see him as a 30 goal a year guy, but I'm pretty sure Lindy looks at him and

he's seeing his old teammate Scott Arniel.

I always hated that Arniel (who was Hawerchuck's best friend btw) went back to Lose-i-peg in the Housley-Ducks deal.

[stenbaro]

He was by far the best 12 min. a game guy we had.

 

But there were reasons he was only 12 minutes a game.

He has some developing to do. I think he has the right contract for now.

 

I think he'll have a great career if he can put up Scott Arniel numbers - a player I really

respected and played a very similar role and had a terrific career.

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=110

 

There is a place in the league for guys like them, but they aren't going to get overpaid.

Maybe you see him as a 30 goal a year guy, but I'm pretty sure Lindy looks at him and

he's seeing his old teammate Scott Arniel.

I see him 20-25 goals playing against the best lines and shorthanded....Developing into a very very good 2 way hardnosed player best lines wont wantto go against..If he develops that way what is his ceiling in your mind???

 

I didnt realize he would still be a rfa after the new deal..Good point

[R_Dudley]

My guess is that the next CBA will retain the core framework of the current one but with (more or less minor) modifications as there are things both sides don't like about the current deal but (IMHO) it is much better than anything they've had in the past.

 

If the next CBA retains the flavor of this one (i.e. keeps a cap and I don't see that going away completely), the contracts players are currently signing will remain in effect and enforceable. Even in a major restructuring, the union probably wouldn't want existing deals voided. If there is major restructuring of the CBA AND the union agrees to void or alter these deals, then they'd go away. Kind of similar to the way all pre-lockout contracts got knocked back by 24% and guys like Yashin had their deals cut by even more to fit under the individual contract max.

 

PS, all this is pure conjecture on my part. I'm not a lawyer, although I've been told I play one on the internet. ;)

 

Ahhh Arigatou gozaimasu Mr Taro.. :)