256 replies to this topic

[lucifer91]

To the first bolded point: Right, just like the Kovy deal was no different from the Luongo, Pronger, etc. deals except for how much more extreme and blatant it was.

If this Weber deal goes through, it won't be because the Flyers had more cap space than the Predators. It'll be because they have more money than the Predators. And that's the exact kind of thing the cap was supposed to stop.

And to the second bolded point: There are plenty of reports saying the Predators aren't exactly in great financial standing. Unless you've seen their books, I'm not sure how you can say for sure that they'd be able to afford to pay one player $56M over four years. It's not even necessarily a bonus issue. It's a sheer volume of cash in a short period of time issue. Not all teams can compete equally when it comes to that, and that's exactly what the cap was put in place for.

Sure, it fits the NHL-approved contract template released after the Kovy mess. But the Kovy deal fit the template (or lack thereof) that existed beforehand and was similar to prior approved deals. Just like that, this seems OK on the surface, but flies in the face of one of the biggest reasons we lost an entire season.

The cap is meaningless if big-market teams are still able to outbid small-market teams.

Edit: Sorry for how long an redundant that post was. I'm writing this while doing 10 other things and lost my train of thought a couple times.

+1, I am on the same page as DIG

anyone complaining at this point just has a sore butt over what happened.

Damn right, I think NHL should drop the first rounder penalty

[Colin226]

I'm with you on this one DiG

[Triumph]

My problem with the punishment with the Kovalchuk contract was the fact that it was a battle that the Nhl should have waged when the first of its kind came in. Like is Kovalchuk at 44 more unreasonable then Luongo at 43? Since then the rules have been set and anyone complaining at this point just has a sore butt over what happened.

Luongo doesn't have 6 minimum salary years. He has 3 years where he makes a combined 3.6 million - not an outrageously low salary for a player who will likely be a backup by that point in his career. If NJ had spread out the money in the Kovalchuk contract it wouldn't have been a problem.

[lucifer91]

On that I agree entirely. I had no problem with the NHL voiding the contract, I thought the punishment (really just the 1st rounder) was excessive. Especially considering they "fixed" those contracts right after, I really felt that punishing the Devils served little to no purpose.

Right! They wanted to make an "example" out of the Devils.

[squishyx]

To the first bolded point: Right, just like the Kovy deal was no different from the Luongo, Pronger, etc. deals except for how much more extreme and blatant it was.

If this Weber deal goes through, it won't be because the Flyers had more cap space than the Predators. It'll be because they have more money than the Predators. And that's the exact kind of thing the cap was supposed to stop.

I disagree, the cap wasn't designed to make everything equal, it was added to make things more equatable then they were. You can make this argument about the money for any floor team that chose not to re-sign a UFA, "the new team was able to because they had the money and the old team did not".

The cap is meaningless if big-market teams are still able to outbid small-market teams.

It's not meaningless, it's just not perfect. Not that I really want to take sides about who should or should not get the millions, but if the Owners share does increase that will lower the cap and in theory create more parity.

[Devildude]

Buttman won't punish the Flyers. When he goes to Philthy-delphia, he knows he will get killed by the people of the city of "brotherly love" as opposed to just booed like any other civilized place. He won't rattle the cage.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

In the fallout of the Kovalchuk ruling, the NHL created new guidelines regarding long term contracts. Every contract since has fit those guidelines, the NHL has no basis to strike them down due to cap circumvention.

Did the NHL have any basis to strike down the Kovalchuk contract and issue penalties? That's debatable, but that was a debate to have two years ago. Nothing in the past two years has altered the dynamics of that debate.

[Eztarget]

Buttman won't punish the Flyers. When he goes to Philthy-delphia, he knows he will get killed by the people of the city of "brotherly love" as opposed to just booed like any other civilized place. He won't rattle the cage.

This post makes no sense. Your team plays in Newark NJ. Guess which city has a higher crime rate? Guess which city has a higher murder rate.

[Devils Dose]

One of the main points of the cap is to keep a level playing field when it comes to team payroll range.

I can't agree with this. The owners did not come to the players last lockout saying, "This league needs more parity. All of these Detroit, Jersey, and Colorado cups are killing us. Let's put in a cap to even it out." The cap was put into place to assure that the league makes money (now the league wants to argue that it has failed).

In my view, the "spirit" of the cap is that all player compensation (or as close to all of it as possible) ends up being reflected in cap hits somewhere at some point. That way the players don't receive more than their CBA-negotiated share. Now, it could be argued that heavily front-loaded deals violate this spirit, because the future is full of uncertainty. If you let teams off the hook for unforeseeable circumstances (like tragic injury to the player, early retirement, or amnesty buyouts under new CBAs), then you can have huge money spent on early years for a player that never ends up accounted for down the line. This is probably the thinking behind the owners' recent proposal that all contracts pay identical salary over their lifetimes.

[DaneykoIsGod]

That's not true. The cap was to give the league cost-certainty. Revenues are now tied to a salary cap. I mean, in 2003-04, I think the Red Wings had $70M in salary obligations. We're just now reaching that point under a cap system. Still, there's a salary cap and a salary floor, it's not an 'everyone spends the exact same amount' system.

If the cap is only in place for cost certainty, then VBK better get his $3M back, because the words "cost certainty" never appeared in any of the reasons given for why Kovy's contract was axed.

I agree with you and squishy in saying that it'll likely be straightened out in the next CBA.

[squishyx]

This post makes no sense. Your team plays in Newark NJ. Guess which city has a higher crime rate? Guess which city has a higher murder rate.

Not to play this stupid game but, according to city-data.com, Philly is a more violent city with a crime index of 567.7 to 544.1 (although Newark has slightly more murders)

[Devildude]

This post makes no sense. Your team plays in Newark NJ. Guess which city has a higher crime rate? Guess which city has a higher murder rate.

Sarcasm > eztarget's comprehension.

Bettman is known for having favorites.

[Devils Dose]

This post makes no sense. Your team plays in Newark NJ. Guess which city has a higher crime rate? Guess which city has a higher murder rate.

His post was silly, but not for the reasons you state. What sports commissioner has any concerns for personal safety? None. With a minimal amount of security watching them, it's never an issue anywhere.

If anybody were to suggest "serious conspiratorial theories" (which is pretty much an oxymoron), the presumable candidates are: 1. Not wanting to fight this right before CBA talks heat up 2. Ties between Flyers ownership and league TV rights

It's kind of funny that people are suggesting conspiracy before any action is even taken in the first place. Preemptive Conspiracy Yelling

Edited by Devils Dose, 19 July 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Dadds]

Not to play this stupid game but, according to city-data.com, Philly is a more violent city with a crime index of 567.7 to 544.1 (although Newark has slightly more murders)

I would take a mugging over being murdered anyday, but I would probably just take the murder than live in philly

Edited by Dadds, 19 July 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[SterioDesign]

this is pissing me off a bit... the flyers are definitely a better with him, its not gonna hurt them that much either giving away 4 first round pick... would you trade 2 late first round picks for weber? im pretty sure i would. 4? i dont know but based on how young they are it wont hurt them for awhile and they will be better for sure, also better cause their youngster will just get better and better.

[CarpathianForest]

There doesn't need to be any conspiracy. The NHL is, after, an organization whose prime goal is to make money.
The Flyers, Rangers and Red Wings of the world will always get a bit more of advantage over the Devils and Predators of the world.
It's less conspiratorial than it is institutionalized.

Edited by CarpathianForest, 19 July 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[Onddeck]

Keep in mind that Philly has a ton of good young prospects already. If any team can sacrifice 4 picks, it's probably them.

And they just got one of the best d men in the game.

fvck

Edited by Onddeck, 19 July 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[Devildude]

His post was silly, but not for the reasons you state. What sports commissioner has any concerns for personal safety? None. With a minimal amount of security watching them, it's never an issue anywhere.

If anybody were to suggest "serious conspiratorial theories" (which is pretty much an oxymoron), the presumable candidates are: 1. Not wanting to fight this right before CBA talks heat up 2. Ties between Flyers ownership and league TV rights

It's kind of funny that people are suggesting conspiracy before any action is even taken in the first place. Preemptive Conspiracy Yelling

I never said conspiracy, I said Bettman has favorites. If Phithy gets Weber and it violates the spirit of the CBA in some way and there is no penalty. It makes sense that Devils fans feel slighted. Make no mistake, Weber is really good. If the Flyers had not made a mistake in goal, we would have bigger problems.

[Triumph]

If the cap is only in place for cost certainty, then VBK better get his $3M back, because the words "cost certainty" never appeared in any of the reasons given for why Kovy's contract was axed.

What? C'mon. VBK isn't getting his $3M back, it's a fine levied because the Devils circumvented the cap, as demonstrated by an arbitrator decided on by the NHL and NHLPA. The NHL would've had a tougher time proving circumvention on any of the other deals signed - they had a much easier case on this one.

[Chuck the Duck]

The length or total monetary value does not irk me but these crazy signing bounuses really grinds my gears.

Sorry. I had to do it. In fact, I can't believe nobody picked up on this yet.

Edited by Chuck the Duck, 19 July 2012 - 02:40 PM.