JacksonJ Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Looks like the devils will need to start clearing some cap space. http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=327880 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 What are their options ? most of the high salary guys are 32 years old and over like Zubrus, Arnott and Elias. I don't see them dealing Parise, Zajac or Clarkson, they just hired Tallinder and Volchenkov, wouldn't make much sense to deal them as well. They might buy out Arnott, with only 1 year left on his 4,5M$ contract. That would be a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 They might buy out Arnott, with only 1 year left on his 4,5M$ contract. That would be a start. They just traded for Arnott last month, hard to see them wanting to move him so soon. Buyouts are still eligible for them though as Mark Fraser (who?) filed for arbitration, opening up a short window later in the summer. Trade options for them are probably White/Salvador on D (both make near $3M) but they have NTC's. Up front, the expiring deal of Langenbrunner would fetch something, but he too has a NTC. I'm sure they'd like to part with Rolston, but, you guessed it, he also has a no-trade. Elias has 3 years and $6 mil left, he's the guy I think they'll really push to move (wonder if there's a small market for him), but of course...well, you get the point already. (He actually has a full NMC...) Zubrus ($3.4 M) could be waived and farmed out; they've done that before with Mogilny too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Seriously? They're still reporting it as a 17 year deal? That should get rejected at the league level simply due to the ridiculous notion of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Seriously? They're still reporting it as a 17 year deal? That should get rejected at the league level simply due to the ridiculous notion of it. I agree. He's gonna play till 44? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 What I've heard of how the 17 year, $102m deal breaks down (if that is the deal): Years 1-8: $10m per Year 9 & 10: $7.5m per Year 11: $2.5m Years 12-17: $0.75m average To Kovalchuk, this is a 10 year, $95m deal with a player option for the years afterwards, one of which he might take (the $2.5m year, when he's 39, a reasonable retirement age). To the Devils, they got him for 8 years at $4m cap savings of what they value him as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 When are they going to close this loop hole? Anyways, the Devils are going to be a much better team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 When are they going to close this loop hole? Anyways, the Devils are going to be a much better team... Next CBA negos probably... 20111... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 While I'm sure there are more ways than I've thought of, two ways to close this loophole...obviously put term limits on contracts. I've seen some people mention contracts only go to age 40. I think that's too far. Since there's already language regarding the status of 35 year old players signed to contracts (and the negative impact of cap hit should that player retire), that should be the number. So if a 27 yr old is signing a contract, he can sign one that's 8 years in length, to age 35. Secondly, institute a variance rule, in that the yearly salary dollar amount can not exceed x% above or below the annualized cap hit. I think this is more important than limiting contract term. I'm mean seriously, $10M to $750k? Especially when he's far retired by the time the $750k kicks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 The loophole is ludicrous, but consider that any attempt to close it will come at the cost of concessions to the players...most likely in terms of still more player mobility. Get ready for players to turn RFA in half the time it presently takes, something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Arent the devils still forced to pay that caproom until the whole contract time is over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Arent the devils still forced to pay that caproom until the whole contract time is over? Nope. Since he signed before 35, the contract isn't locked in for the duration. When Kovalchuk retires, the Devils don't have to pay him and there's no cap hit. A buyout won't be in their best interest either as once 2021 hits, buying him out would lead to a cap hit of over $5.6 M (less than 400k below the current cap hit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The contract has been rejected by the NHL for salary cap circumvention (no surprise). Let the fun...continue? http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=328025 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I don't know about anyone else, but I'm proud of this rejection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) I don't know about anyone else, but I'm proud of this rejection. +1 I was discussing the other day how screwed up the Contracts were with regards to the Cap ... I was of the opinion that regardless of the length of the contract, the immediate first 2 or 3 years average should be taken as the cap hit, then someone else was in favor of a limit on the years (7) of any given contract.... Take for example Iginla who's making 7mil a year. He will be an UFA in 2013-14, and 35 years of age.. What if say TO and Burke offers him a 7 year contract: 5 mil for the next 3 years and then he gets 4 mil total for his last 4 years? His cap hit is around 2.8 mil a year nOT FAIR! IF U COMPARE that to Brian Murray who signed Kovalev (who was 36 at the time) for 2 years at 5mil a year. lol Regardless I hope this sets a domino effect where the other dodgy contracts alla Pronger get annulled, and penalized Last minute idea... what if you make it illegal for any contract to diminish in yearly salary, so if you do wanna do A Kovalchuk contract he has to start earning 550k a year the first 3 years LOL I bet you he would sign that RIGHT AWAY!!! Edited July 21, 2010 by CoRvInA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So he's still available............................. come on Habs sign him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 When the CBA first came out in 2005, and they announced that the average salary was the cap hit, I wondered what the point of that really was. Now we're seeing teams try and really exploit that... This is clear cut cap circumvention. 8 of the first 10 years his actually salary is above the cap hit. The other 2 years, it's the same. Then for the remaining 6 years, he gets paid less $2.5m total less than a single season's cap hit: $3.5m over 6 years. He has a NMC until he turns 40. At 40, it becomes a NTC, meaning they can waive him and put him in the AHL, foregoing the last 4 years of the deal. So it's clearly a 13 year deal for $99.8m, which would be a cap hit of $7,676,923. That's a huge savings they've tacked on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 (edited) When the CBA first came out in 2005, and they announced that the average salary was the cap hit, I wondered what the point of that really was. Now we're seeing teams try and really exploit that... This is clear cut cap circumvention. 8 of the first 10 years his actually salary is above the cap hit. The other 2 years, it's the same. Then for the remaining 6 years, he gets paid less $2.5m total less than a single season's cap hit: $3.5m over 6 years. He has a NMC until he turns 40. At 40, it becomes a NTC, meaning they can waive him and put him in the AHL, foregoing the last 4 years of the deal. So it's clearly a 13 year deal for $99.8m, which would be a cap hit of $7,676,923. That's a huge savings they've tacked on. So far I still like Gomez better in the playoffs Im just saying... that seems to me the $ figure in the real world when re nego a contract .... most dont win the lotery .... exept a few Edited July 26, 2010 by ehjay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Sounds like the PA will grieve this, meaning we're in for an even slower offseason as teams wait for this shoe to finally drop (and stay dropped). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Sounds like the PA will grieve this, meaning we're in for an even slower offseason as teams wait for this shoe to finally drop (and stay dropped). I don't really understand... it was just a 2 horse race between New Jersey and LA. Kovalchuk should have a limited effect on the overall market... were teams really lining up for who NJ would have to waive, buy out or trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 I don't really understand... it was just a 2 horse race between New Jersey and LA. Kovalchuk should have a limited effect on the overall market... were teams really lining up for who NJ would have to waive, buy out or trade? If the crazy (10+ year) terms can't be done, this will probably bring a couple other teams at least into the mix a bit that would be more willing to go after Kovalchuk short term. Perhaps the Isles (a team reported to have had interest) didn't want to go 15 years, but would pay $10+ mil for 5 or 6? That's more of what I suspect the hold up would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It's decision day for Kovalchuk (yet again), I must say I eagerly await the outcome. It's the first bit of semi-suspense all offseason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It's decision day for Kovalchuk (yet again), I must say I eagerly await the outcome. It's the first bit of semi-suspense all offseason! That makes two of us. Although, I guess the consensus is that the contract will stand, and I find that disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Rds says he's free as a bird again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Rds says he's free as a bird again! Yep, and the PA grievance was denied as well. It just never ends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.