256 replies to this topic

[DaneykoIsGod]

The "spirit" is about artificially lowering the cap hit, which Kovy's contract did enormously. The league set out rules to make sure those contracts couldn't get as crazy out of hand as they did and this contract doesn't violate those rules, so by that "spirit" the contract is fine.

Prior teams have tried to jack up front ends of contracts to make sure RFA contracts aren't matched. Since the league never specifically banned the practice, even after the fact, in the next CBA's then they're obviously ok with them.

There is basically no chance a judge would overturn this deal with the explicit rules now in place.

Again, the term "spirit" is way too vague to be limited to one thing. Yes, the Kovy deal didn't violate any written rules at the time, but it violated the "spirit", so they wrote a rule that defined the part of the spirit they violated. In one way, the spirit is violated when teams artificially lower cap hits with back-end, small-money years.

But in a whole new way, the spirit is most definitely also violated when big market teams price small market teams out with gigantic bonuses up front. The point of a cap is to keep all markets on a level playing surface, and just like the artifical cap-lowering violated a previously undefined aspect of the "spirit", so does the use of huge up-front bonuses.

This offer from Philly doesn't violate the currently defined "spirit". I'm not arguing that. But it absolutely violates the very point of a salary cap. All I'm saying is that, just like they had to clearly spell out how the Kovy deal violated the spirit, they now need to clearly spell out how this Weber offer violates the spirit.

The precedent has already been set that just because a contract doesn't violate anything currently written doesn't make it invalid.

[squishyx]

The amendment to the CBA makes any comparison apples and oranges. And the league clearly wasn't going to accept Kovy's deal without the amendment.

Whether the Weber offer sheet goes against the "spirit" of the CBA is irrelevant at this point. Initially, the league argued, the possibility of long-term front loaded was not an intended or contemplated result. Later, however, the league had the opportunity to specifically address that concern and came up with definite boundaries. They'd be hardpressed to argue to an arbitrator "we wuz robbed" a second time, no matter how favorable to the league he might be.

And again, the Flyers are not coming out of this unscathed. The cap is likely going down and they're losing four first round picks in the process. All it takes is an injury plagued season and Bryz to perform like he did in the playoffs, and one of those picks can be in the top ten.

Ok... but I'm not suggesting Weber's contract was circumvention. In fact I'm out right stating it's not and that it is different then Kovy's... in the very quote you quoted...

[squishyx]

This offer from Philly doesn't violate the currently defined "spirit". I'm not arguing that. But it absolutely violates the very point of a salary cap. All I'm saying is that, just like they had to clearly spell out how the Kovy deal violated the spirit, they now need to clearly spell out how this Weber offer violates the spirit.

The precedent has already been set that just because a contract doesn't violate anything currently written doesn't make it invalid.

Even if the contract was egregious enough to warrant the NHL getting involved, I still don't think they would bother given that the CBA is set to expire in 2 months. They will have a chance to fix it then and will probably use these recent contracts to justify their supposed goal of 5 year limits.

[Daniel]

Ok... but I'm not suggesting Weber's contract was circumvention. In fact I'm out right stating it's not and that it is different then Kovy's... in the very quote you quoted...

Gotcha. My sarcasm meter is a little too sensitive right now.

[Eztarget]

I understand the argument that the Pred's don't have the disposable income to weather any kind of labor war. I'm not sure I'd risk it but hey assuming that's the case, you have 4 additional 1st round picks and you only need about 6-7m in cap space after you lock up your other RFA's. You can use that trade bait with other teams, or sign FA's to overpriced 1 year deals, or wait to see if the floor is lowered rather then helping out the team that just stole your captain by muscling you out of the market. As you note the Flyers are in cap trouble with all their defense, I'd let them sweat it out and solve their own problem. I think Nashville loses more "face" if they make a deal with Philly.

The Flyers are NOT in CAP trouble. They have Pronger's CAP hit coming off in LTIR and even without that can afford Weber's CAP hit. They have only Voracek to sign and with Pronger's LTIR money they can easily do that. Timonen has one year left on his $6.3 million dollar CAP hit and then will most likely retire next summer freeing up that money. They do have a lot of defensemen but they will most likely just trade one of them if the Preds don't match and take the picks. One think I've learned when it seems your team is saddled with huge bad contracts creative GM's can still get stuff done. Remember the Flyers had Richards and Carter entering last summer both signed to ridiculous long term deals and moved BOTH of them within a week. Anything can happen.

I think Holmgren knows he's stuck with Bryzgalov so his goal is to build a STRONG defense around him and try to duplicate the 2010 Cup finals run the Flyers had with a very sub par goalie.

Weber/Schenn
Timonen/Coburn
Grossmann/Meszaros

That is a strong six defensemen. Meszaros was hurt last spring in our series and is a good puck moving D man. Every guy there save Timonen would be over 225 lbs and can skate.

Edited by Eztarget, 19 July 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Even if the contract was egregious enough to warrant the NHL getting involved, I still don't think they would bother given that the CBA is set to expire in 2 months. They will have a chance to fix it then and will probably use these recent contracts to justify their supposed goal of 5 year limits.

You're probably right.

[Devils731]

Again, the term "spirit" is way too vague to be limited to one thing. Yes, the Kovy deal didn't violate any written rules at the time, but it violated the "spirit", so they wrote a rule that defined the part of the spirit they violated. In one way, the spirit is violated when teams artificially lower cap hits with back-end, small-money years.

But in a whole new way, the spirit is most definitely also violated when big market teams price small market teams out with gigantic bonuses up front. The point of a cap is to keep all markets on a level playing surface, and just like the artifical cap-lowering violated a previously undefined aspect of the "spirit", so does the use of huge up-front bonuses.

This offer from Philly doesn't violate the currently defined "spirit". I'm not arguing that. But it absolutely violates the very point of a salary cap. All I'm saying is that, just like they had to clearly spell out how the Kovy deal violated the spirit, they now need to clearly spell out how this Weber offer violates the spirit.

The precedent has already been set that just because a contract doesn't violate anything currently written doesn't make it invalid.

Except that we know the league is ok with hugely front loaded contracts to restricted free agents. They've been going on for decades and the NHL and NHLPA have never deemed to limit them in the CBA. The "spirit" has nothing to do with majorly front loading contracts, it's all about manipulating the cap hit to artificially lower it.

I agree that huge front loaded contracts are BS, but there is no way you're getting an arbiter to agree to void this contract the way the CBA is written.

I will now use the cred that I earned by pointing out I argued with almost the whole board the the Devils and Kovy would lose the last arbitration case and I thought it seemed pretty clear cut. This also seems clear cut, the league would lose so they won't challenge it.

[Devils Pride 26]

We lost a year for this sh!t to come back again? This is insane. Get rid of signing bonuses.

Cap circumvention 101

[squishyx]

The Flyers are NOT in CAP trouble. They have Pronger's CAP hit coming off in LTIR and even without that can afford Weber's CAP hit. They have only Voracek to sign and with Pronger's LTIR money they can easily do that. Timonen has one year left on his $6.3 million dollar CAP hit and then will most likely retire next summer freeing up that money. They do have a lot of defensemen but they will most likely just trade one of them if the Preds don't match and take the picks. One think I've learned when it seems your team is saddled with huge bad contracts creative GM's can still get stuff done. Remember the Flyers had Richards and Carter entering last summer both signed to ridiculous long term deals and moved BOTH of them within a week. Anything can happen.

They are in trouble for this year I should say, because you are only allowed to exceed the cap by 10% in the off season and that includes Pronger's contract. So with Weber and Voracek they are at let's roughly 73m. If the cap shrinks down to anything less then 66m they will be forced to sell off parts (then they are in a cap emergency). Assuming no match, the Flyers are not in a good spot right now, they need to move a defenseman, which is fine I think they will. But not to Nashville.

[Eztarget]

They are in trouble for this year I should say, because you are only allowed to exceed the cap by 10% in the off season and that includes Pronger's contract. So with Weber and Voracek they are at let's roughly 73m. If the cap shrinks down to anything less then 66m they will be forced to sell off parts (then they are in a cap emergency). Assuming no match, the Flyers are not in a good spot right now, they need to move a defenseman, which is fine I think they will. But not to Nashville.

What makes you think the Cap will be shrinking? When has it shrunk since the last lockout? The Flyers will move one of their defensemen, sign Voracek and next year Timonen will retire.

The CAP is 70.2 million and $77 million with the 10% overage. If the Weber deal goes through they will be RIGHT at the CAP which leaves them $7 million in space to sign Voracek and that's without trading anyone.

Edited by Eztarget, 19 July 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Triumph]

What makes you think the Cap will be shrinking? When has it shrunk since the last lockout? The Flyers will move one of their defensemen, sign Voracek and next year Timonen will retire.

Apparently you missed the owners' first offer to the players. The cap will absolutely be shrinking this off-season - it's not staying where it is. Timonen's retirement means nothing to the Flyers as constituted.

Odds are the Flyers end up amnesty buying out Danny Briere.

[Z-Man]

The Flyers are NOT in CAP trouble. They have Pronger's CAP hit coming off in LTIR and even without that can afford Weber's CAP hit.

Unless the over 35 rule is removed from the CBA, Pronger's cap hit does NOT come off:

http://capgeek.com/f...us-contract.php

Players who sign multi-year contracts when they are age 35 or older (calculated on June 30 of the season the contract begins) count toward the cap under all circumstances, regardless of where (or if) the player is playing. The only cap relief is $100,000 from the player's cap hit if he is assigned to the minors after the first year of the contract.

CBA reference: Section 50.5 (d-i-B-5) (P. 203)

[Eztarget]

Apparently you missed the owners' first offer to the players. The cap will absolutely be shrinking this off-season - it's not staying where it is. Timonen's retirement means nothing to the Flyers as constituted.

Odds are the Flyers end up amnesty buying out Danny Briere.

The Flyers would buyout Pronger. That makes the most sense. I really doubt it's going to shrink. The first offer is just the beginning of bargaining.

[Chuck the Duck]

Idk, I think it's hard to argue the Devils contract wasn't a violation of the rules, I just disagreed with the penalty (they should have just tossed the contract).

The Kovy contract was clearly an example of cap circumvention (yet so was Zetterberg's deal, Pronger's deal, etc.). What pissed me off the most about losing the pick was Bettman had stated, prior to the hearing over the legality of the first contract, that the League had no intention and was not interested in penalizing the Devils. They just wanted to have the contract overturned to set a precedent that these types of deals will no longer be tolerated. The goblin got what he wanted, and still penalized the team contrary to all of his earlier statements.

[squishyx]

Unless the over 35 rule is removed from the CBA, Pronger's cap hit does NOT come off:

http://capgeek.com/f...us-contract.php

Players who sign multi-year contracts when they are age 35 or older (calculated on June 30 of the season the contract begins) count toward the cap under all circumstances, regardless of where (or if) the player is playing. The only cap relief is $100,000 from the player's cap hit if he is assigned to the minors after the first year of the contract.

CBA reference: Section 50.5 (d-i-B-5) (P. 203)

He can still qualify for LTIR, that's the only way you get "cap space" back.

[NJDevs4978]

The league was also under pressure by many GMs to punish the Devils. They let Lou off the hook in 2006 with the Mogilny LTIR business and I believe the suspension of Malahkov, which pissed off many. If those don't happen, maybe the penalty isn't as harsh.

I've come to believe that's precisely why this 'selective enforcement' took place. The league thought we pulled a fast one and decided to ding us next chance they got. But that's like officials giving payback calls during a game, the league should not be in the business of payback.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 19 July 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[Chuck the Duck]

He can still qualify for LTIR, that's the only way you get "cap space" back.

But that means Pronger cannot retire and if the League investigates and determines that Pronger is making no attempts to return to the NHL while he is listed by the team as being on LTIR, they can take action against the Flyers. If I'm Holmgren, I take that chance knowing full well the jokes at the NHL offices will do nothing to damage one of its "marquis" franchises and the owner of the company that owns the league's TV rights.

[squishyx]

The Flyers would buyout Pronger. That makes the most sense. I really doubt it's going to shrink. The first offer is just the beginning of bargaining.

You can't buyout injured players.

It's going to shrink, but by how much is the question. I believe the formula for the cap is (revnues * player share) / 30 + 16 (and the floor is just -16). If that's the case then at the 46% share the owners are seeking for the players (down from 57%) then the new cap max is around 62m. If they settle at 50/50 split then the cap hit is 66m.

Edit: I math'd wrong, it's (Rev * Share) / 30 +/- 8 for Cap/Floor.

Share -- Cap / Floor
57% 70m / 54m
46% 58m / 42m
50% 62m / 46m
53% 66m / 50m <-- What the Flyers would need to keep their roster with no modifications

Edited by squishyx, 19 July 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[Devils731]

He can still qualify for LTIR, that's the only way you get "cap space" back.

And even then LTIR is not as good as if Pronger could retire and the cap hit disappear.

A cap hit that large going on LTIR for a team that spends as high as the Flyers basically guarantees you don't get to bank any cap during the entire season, so they do end up losing the ability to start the year with a $1 million dollar in cap space and then add a $2.5 million dollar contract at the deadline with the banked space.

[squishyx]

But that means Pronger cannot retire and if the League investigates and determines that Pronger is making no attempts to return to the NHL while he is listed by the team as being on LTIR, they can take action against the Flyers. If I'm Holmgren, I take that chance knowing full well the jokes at the NHL offices will do nothing to damage one of its "marquis" franchises and the owner of the company that owns the league's TV rights.

That's true but Pronger doesn't have much incentive to retire. If he stays of LTIR he gets paid, if he retires the Flyers get dinged with cap hit but don't have to pay him. Kind funny how that works out huh?

And even then LTIR is not as good as if Pronger could retire and the cap hit disappear.

A cap hit that large going on LTIR for a team that spends as high as the Flyers basically guarantees you don't get to bank any cap during the entire season, so they do end up losing the ability to start the year with a $1 million dollar in cap space and then add a $2.5 million dollar contract at the deadline with the banked space.

His contract is 35+ so if he retires they should be hit nailed for cap space, no?

Edit: I may have misunderstood your opening sentence. You aren't suggesting that he is able to retire penalty free (from the Flyers POV), you are just stating that LTIR isn't as good as that option if it were available, correct?

Edited by squishyx, 19 July 2012 - 10:44 AM.