NHL Off-Season Thread 2010

[Flubber]

The league seems to have assumed that teams would not be stupid enough to enter into contracts that last longer than a small mortgage.

.

yet they do -- I wouldn't have commited to a Kovalchuk for 9-10 years at any price for some of the reasons you cite. Kovalchuk now has no financial or contractual reason to play well again. Maybe he will play hard every year, maybe he won't but its far from rare for players with fat long tern contracts to not seem as driven as they were before.

[Garth Vader]

Why don't they just use what they pay the player that year as the cap hit?

[Fake Boris]

NYE, injured players don't count on the cap after a certain number of missed games. IIUC it gave Montreal room to acquire Dominic Moore last spring.

[Fake Boris]

My only problem is that this is usally an additional reward for teams that have good drafted players mainly due to the fact that they sucked so very bad for a number of years.

Its bad enough that a team gets a Crosbie and a Malkin for a number of years but then you entrench the advantage with a reduced cap hit. Thats a huge disadvantage for any team that cannot afford to really suck while rebuilding.

The draft pick is already a huge reward for sucking. I have a difficult time making it an even bigger and longer term advantage

I'm not so concerned about that - teams that draft first usually have no cap issues.

[Asher]

I've heard that the next CBA is likely to count the average of the five highest paid salary years as the cap hit.

[Flubber]

Why don't they just use what they pay the player that year as the cap hit?

That avoids some abuses but then permits others, mainly with back loaded contracts or wild differences in compensation. In theory a team could get a bunch of guys on long term contracts with low compensation in one given year and create a super team by snapping up a bunch of other stars on one year deals.

Overall the average compensation works well and would not be a problem if there was not loopholes to allow people to avoid the cap hit "owed" from prior years.

[Flubber]

I'm not so concerned about that - teams that draft first usually have no cap issues.

Not in the year they draft-- no -- But in 2-3 years when the prospects are proven stars, it gets tough-- The Pens are one example as are the Hawks

[Flubber]

I've heard that the next CBA is likely to count the average of the five highest paid salary years as the cap hit.

It would prevent this type of abuse-- In fact it woukld be a disincentive to any contracts longer than 5 years with compensation that varies

[notyoueither]

NYE, injured players don't count on the cap after a certain number of missed games. IIUC it gave Montreal room to acquire Dominic Moore last spring.

That's not actually true. Players on LTIR count towards the cap. When a team reaches the cap and has a player on LTIR they may exceed the cap by the value of that LTIR player.

It's an important distinction for a couple of reasons, one of them being that cap space is 'spent' on a daily basis during the season. If LTIR players came off the cap, the team would be accumulating cap space that could be used at a later point that season (like at the trade deadline) and so could have the player who started the season on LTIR but recovered and came back to play, as well as a high priced rental.

Also, it matters due to another snag in the CBA. Teams are allowed to go over the cap due to performance bonuses (common for entry level contracts and players over 35). The overage is counted towards their cap number for the following season. Some teams (Toronto, Edmonton) found themselves at or over the cap due to LTIR and replacements and then had rookie bonuses push them further over and thus have lost a small amount of cap space for this year.

Chicago is in a worse cap space due to bonus overage as they had young players hit a lot of bonuses, but I am not certain how LTIR contributed to that.

[notyoueither]

I've heard that the next CBA is likely to count the average of the five highest paid salary years as the cap hit.

It would prevent this type of abuse-- In fact it woukld be a disincentive to any contracts longer than 5 years with compensation that varies

I think it's clear that the league and some owners will want some kind of limit. Big question is if the players put up a large fight over it.

[Garth Vader]

That avoids some abuses but then permits others, mainly with back loaded contracts or wild differences in compensation. In theory a team could get a bunch of guys on long term contracts with low compensation in one given year and create a super team by snapping up a bunch of other stars on one year deals.

Overall the average compensation works well and would not be a problem if there was not loopholes to allow people to avoid the cap hit "owed" from prior years.

But on back loaded contracts they still have to take that hit eventually, so you may be able to build a super team for one year, but what about when a bunch of back loaded contracts start coming into effect at the same time!

[Fake Boris]

That's not actually true. Players on LTIR count towards the cap. When a team reaches the cap and has a player on LTIR they may exceed the cap by the value of that LTIR player.

It's an important distinction for a couple of reasons, one of them being that cap space is 'spent' on a daily basis during the season. If LTIR players came off the cap, the team would be accumulating cap space that could be used at a later point that season (like at the trade deadline) and so could have the player who started the season on LTIR but recovered and came back to play, as well as a high priced rental.

Also, it matters due to another snag in the CBA. Teams are allowed to go over the cap due to performance bonuses (common for entry level contracts and players over 35). The overage is counted towards their cap number for the following season. Some teams (Toronto, Edmonton) found themselves at or over the cap due to LTIR and replacements and then had rookie bonuses push them further over and thus have lost a small amount of cap space for this year.

Chicago is in a worse cap space due to bonus overage as they had young players hit a lot of bonuses, but I am not certain how LTIR contributed to that.

Sounds like you're the pro here. Thanks for your explanation.

[notyoueither]

I've read a bit about it.

The major point though is that teams in these contracts have no control over the payments and no protection. Unless the player retires, the franchise is on the hook for the cash in most conceivable circumstances. That could have a serious negative effect on a franchise like the Devils if they are forced to pay Kovalchuk $11.5 MM per year while he convalesces from a significant injury.

[Asher]

In lighter stuff...the Bruins have some great commercials with the Bruins Bear. Here's a newish one I'd not seen before:

[Asher]

If you guys hadn't been following Paul Bissonnette on Twitter (Phoenix player), you missed out. He was hilariously un-PC and outrageous, but his comments about Kovalchuk apparently angered people...his account is now deleted.

Here's a eulogy with some of the examples of his tweets:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Eulogy-Hilariously-outrageous-Twitter-ramblings?urn=nhl-257447&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter