Rolston's cap-hit

[Amberite]

You really gotta wonder what Lou was smoking when he signed Rolston to this crazy contract. No movement clause, big money, plus the insane risk of signing a 35+ player until the age of *39*. No wonder Rolston happily signed here.

[Triumph]

Preventing the buyouts of players over 35 to avoid front loaded contracts doesn't hold a lot of strength to me since the league doesn't care about massive front loading of contracts for other players.

i don't think the league realized how the way they structured contracts could be used for front-loading in the way that they have been. as you yourself have said, the league was obsessed with back loading deals. also it took until 2009 for front-loading deals to really become popular.

Also, the buyout is to let teams get cap relief and the player to get paid the majority of his salary in return for this, it was always a way for teams to get cap relief and it's why teams are limited in how many buyouts they can do.

imagine this scenario - you sign player x to a 5 year deal that he only intends to take 2 years of, then buy out the remaining 3. sure you have a dead cap hit for 6 years, but that player gets paid over that time, and he had intended on retiring anyway.

I don't disagree that there may be something about players over 35 having their entire cap hit count against the cap, I'm just saying I can't find it and the only place that seems to reference it online uses the word assumes. The only things I can find in the CBA doesn't seem to prohibit buyouts over players who signed contracts at over 35 from giving cap relief to teams.

People didn't know that Lou, for example, was going to get Shanahan off the cap this year in the way he did, most people didn't even know that was a possibility. So I'm supposing that people maybe have made an assumption about players over 35 and buyouts that the actual legal text of the CBA doesn't support.

It would be nice to find something concrete about players over 35 and buyouts instead of just hearsay.

i think we should look to the spirit of the rule, which is that players don't retire on contracts they have no intention of fulfilling.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[sundstrom]

Are you sure you're watching #17? He makes great passes out there.

sundstrom: i disagree about kovalchuk not using his teammates well, and even so, there are many who'd say that ovechkin is the definition of what you are talking about. the only thing that would prevent me from signing him to a long deal is if his play in the playoffs suffered.

i just saw too much of him try to go one on 4 or not put himself in position to receive a pass. not that his line really plays the cycle, but he doesn't generally get involved in that kind of play either. what really got me i guess was a play last night in the 1st period. white got the puck in the right hand corner behind marty after nashville dumped it in. Nashville was pressing hard on the forecheck and white whipped it around the boards behind marty to try and get a clear. the entire left point (in front of devils bench) was open and any normal devils winger would be there to get that pass and either chip it out of the zone if pressured or coral it and hit a presumably streaking center or winger going the other way. this would have been kovalchuk's play. but instead he literally coasted back from the offensive zone and never even MADE it into the devils defensive zone. a nashville player got the puck at the point and took a really good uncontested shot @ Marty. This is one example but I saw plenty where it's clear that bad habits that Ilya has picked up from years of no accountability in Atlanta will be tough to break.

You really gotta wonder what Lou was smoking when he signed Rolston to this crazy contract. No movement clause, big money, plus the insane risk of signing a 35+ player until the age of *39*. No wonder Rolston happily signed here.

The same thing that 10 other GM's were that offered him 3 and 4 year deals. Rolston had similar deals (Tampa supposedly offered him a better one) but wanted to come back to NJ. Nobody saw such a precipitous drop in his production as a real possibility. The thought was that his current output would be what we'd get in year 4 but he'd still be a good 3rd line "checker". His lack of interest and complete lack of intensity were not expected by anyone.

[Devils731]

imagine this scenario - you sign player x to a 5 year deal that he only intends to take 2 years of, then buy out the remaining 3. sure you have a dead cap hit for 6 years, but that player gets paid over that time, and he had intended on retiring anyway.

That scenario can happen to a 33 year old player who signs a 10 year deal as well, in fact with the front loading the player and the team both wins because the player retires making most of the money and the team doesn't carry any tax hit.

i think we should look to the spirit of the rule, which is that players don't retire on contracts they have no intention of fulfilling.

That isn't what the 35 and over rule is really aimed at preventing, IMO. It's more a focus on preventing long term contracts on over 35 year old players due to fear of career ending injury and to prevent teams from making veterans ride a bus in the AHL.

The problem with wanting to follow the spirit of a rule is when the rule is stated very plainly, as it is in the CBA, the only wiggle room for interpretation, if someone wanted to legally challenge it, would be on the phrase "earned in a league year" in the CBA.

---------------

I'm still not disagreeing this is true but without anything concrete to back it up I have to consider it vague since the only concrete things I can find don't prohibit it.

The same thing that 10 other GM's were that offered him 3 and 4 year deals. Rolston had similar deals (Tampa supposedly offered him a better one) but wanted to come back to NJ. Nobody saw such a precipitous drop in his production as a real possibility. The thought was that his current output would be what we'd get in year 4 but he'd still be a good 3rd line "checker". His lack of interest and complete lack of intensity were not expected by anyone.

It was 16 or 17 other GMs in the bidding, I'm not sure if it was 17 including the Devils or 17 other teams.

[Triumph]

That scenario can happen to a 33 year old player who signs a 10 year deal as well, in fact with the front loading the player and the team both wins because the player retires making most of the money and the team doesn't carry any tax hit.

no one said the rule was particularly well thought out. what i'm sure some people saw is that players like sakic, jagr, shanahan, modano, etc. were nearing the end of their careers.

That isn't what the 35 and over rule is really aimed at preventing, IMO. It's more a focus on preventing long term contracts on over 35 year old players due to fear of career ending injury and to prevent teams from making veterans ride a bus in the AHL.

wait, what? if it's the second one, the players' union didn't do a lot of thinking about this rule. sure, veterans 35 and over won't be riding the bus anymore, but they also won't be getting multi-year contracts, in general, unless they take large paycuts. contracts handed out at the end of careers are generally the worst ones going.

The problem with wanting to follow the spirit of a rule is when the rule is stated very plainly, as it is in the CBA, the only wiggle room for interpretation, if someone wanted to legally challenge it, would be on the phrase "earned in a league year" in the CBA.

i've always thought this too. i just think new jersey would've rather bought vladimir malakhov out, rather than giving up a 1st round pick to trade his salary. now admittedly the devils were real close to the cap at that point and they not have been able to bury any more money, but the fact that a 35+ contract has yet to be bought out is telling.

[Devils731]

wait, what? if it's the second one, the players' union didn't do a lot of thinking about this rule. sure, veterans 35 and over won't be riding the bus anymore, but they also won't be getting multi-year contracts, in general, unless they take large paycuts. contracts handed out at the end of careers are generally the worst ones going.

I think that was the goal, the NHL wanted to force teams to stop giving out long term contracts to older players and the NHLPA wanted to make sure older players wouldn't be penalized by being sent to the minors for cap concerns, so both sides got something out of that. It's better for a veteran to play in the NHL making his contract that is a little less, than sign a great contract and be forced with playing in the AHL or sacrificing his entire contract.

i've always thought this too. i just think new jersey would've rather bought vladimir malakhov out, rather than giving up a 1st round pick to trade his salary. now admittedly the devils were real close to the cap at that point and they not have been able to bury any more money, but the fact that a 35+ contract has yet to be bought out is telling.

Ya, the Devils didn't have enough room to fit even an extra player on the roster after moving Malakhov, regardless if the team could have bought him out the team couldn't afford to due to the cap. Real money might have been tight as well for the Devils at the time.

We don't see many players bought out to begin with, do we? Just like a handful each season.

I dunno, I'm of the wait and see, I think you can trade Rolston with other stuff in the offseason, which is better than buying him out anyway.

[Triumph]

I think that was the goal, the NHL wanted to force teams to stop giving out long term contracts to older players and the NHLPA wanted to make sure older players wouldn't be penalized by being sent to the minors for cap concerns, so both sides got something out of that. It's better for a veteran to play in the NHL making his contract that is a little less, than sign a great contract and be forced with playing in the AHL or sacrificing his entire contract.

but i don't think it's better for players to be hopping around post 35+ either. i'd say the best example of this is mark recchi who's now played on 5 teams since the lockout. i agree that this was part of it, but i still think front-loading contracts had to be a concern. teams just used that concern to their advantage with contracts for players below the age of 35.

We don't see many players bought out to begin with, do we? Just like a handful each season.

there were a lot this off-season.

I dunno, I'm of the wait and see, I think you can trade Rolston with other stuff in the offseason, which is better than buying him out anyway.

i don't think you can. he has a no-trade clause. and with the 35+, the devils can't threaten to send him to the minors if he doesn't accept. i am thinking of places he could go and mostly coming up empty.

there's a very sad irony to all of this which is that if rolston suddenly decided he was tired of not fighting through checks and not battling in the corners, and retired, his contract would then become an asset.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[Devils731]

i don't think you can. he has a no-trade clause. and with the 35+, the devils can't threaten to send him to the minors if he doesn't accept. i am thinking of places he could go and mostly coming up empty.

I don't know that Rolston is so in love with playing in NJ he doesn't want to play anywhere else, he probably does have some places he wouldn't like to play though, which is why having a no trade clause is nice. We don't know that Rolston wouldn't accept trades if presented to him, he certainly doesn't have to but we don't know that he wouldn't.

Heck, you could trade Rolston for another teams bad contract that is under 35 and buy that contract out if the Devils really needed to lower the cap hit. The other team, if they weren't willing to buy out the contract, is really no worse off with an older bad contract they're paying for than a younger bad contract they're paying for.

[Triumph]

I don't know that Rolston is so in love with playing in NJ he doesn't want to play anywhere else, he probably does have some places he wouldn't like to play though, which is why having a no trade clause is nice. We don't know that Rolston wouldn't accept trades if presented to him, he certainly doesn't have to but we don't know that he wouldn't.

Heck, you could trade Rolston for another teams bad contract that is under 35 and buy that contract out if the Devils really needed to lower the cap hit. The other team, if they weren't willing to buy out the contract, is really no worse off with an older bad contract they're paying for than a younger bad contract they're paying for.

i've already thought about scenario 2 and i don't see where he'd go that would be able to do that. edmonton has like 80 bad contracts but no one wants to play in edmonton. toronto for jeff finger but who wants to play in toronto? carolina for erik cole and sergei samsonov? colorado for tom preissing? i'm obviously including someone else in this deal from the devils side, probably mattias tedenby - i don't see how it's possible. that's why the kovalchuk deal - lou is going for it this year and falling on the rolston sword for the next two years.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Triumph

[Devils731]

i've already thought about scenario 2 and i don't see where he'd go that would be able to do that. edmonton has like 80 bad contracts but no one wants to play in edmonton. toronto for jeff finger but who wants to play in toronto? carolina for erik cole and sergei samsonov? colorado for tom preissing? i'm obviously including someone else in this deal from the devils side, probably mattias tedenby - i don't see how it's possible. that's why the kovalchuk deal - lou is going for it this year and falling on the rolston sword for the next two years.

Let's say Anaheim Rolston for Jason Blake with not so much extra thrown in. Anaheim picks up an extra million in contract so would want extra's back but it doesn't really wreck anything for them and then the Devils could buy Blake out. I don't think you'd have to throw in Tedenby to make up 1 million in cap difference.

Maybe that doesn't work, just going off the top of my head, it's really too early to know what teams might be willing to do in the offseason.

[ice dog]

You really gotta wonder what Lou was smoking when he signed Rolston to this crazy contract. No movement clause, big money, plus the insane risk of signing a 35+ player until the age of *39*. No wonder Rolston happily signed here.

i know!!! WTF???

[Triumph]

Let's say Anaheim Rolston for Jason Blake with not so much extra thrown in. Anaheim picks up an extra million in contract so would want extra's back but it doesn't really wreck anything for them and then the Devils could buy Blake out. I don't think you'd have to throw in Tedenby to make up 1 million in cap difference.

Maybe that doesn't work, just going off the top of my head, it's really too early to know what teams might be willing to do in the offseason.

that's an interesting idea, i didn't think of jason blake. that could work; i'm just not sure that lou ever tries to deal rolston. i guess we'll see in a few months.

[pattyelias]

This thread is making me sad.

[Triumph]

This thread is making me sad.

it shouldn't; be excited. new jersey has kovalchuk from now until the end of the season, it's a year to remember no matter what happens.

[slasher72]

i know!!! WTF???

Lou acts like a virgin in a whore house every time an ex-Devil is available through free-agency. It's like he looses all common sense, and logic go right out the window. Whether it's Rolston, Mogilny, or Malakhov, he's just so quick to pull the trigger to get ex-Devils on board that he winds up making the sh*ttiest deals and it usually bites this team in the a$$ down the road.

I doubt he'll have the heart to fire Lemaire, but if Lemarie does quit or is fired, who's next on the list of potential hires? Kevin Constantine?

Enough already with the re-treads and reunion tours.

[slasher72]

it shouldn't; be excited. new jersey has kovalchuk from now until the end of the season, it's a year to remember no matter what happens.

I have the worst feeling that Lou will fail to re-sign Kovulchuk and we'll basically had given up Bergfors (who has scored a goal in every game he's played now for Atlanta) for a 3 month rental.

[DevilinLA]

I have the worst feeling that Lou will fail to re-sign Kovulchuk and we'll basically had given up Bergfors (who has scored a goal in every game he's played now for Atlanta) for a 3 month rental.

Come on, this place was crazy when the trade was made, and for the most part was ecstatic when LL signed Rolston.

I can't stand his seeming lack of fire and initiative in his play (Winky), but the Monday morning QB (2 years later) is a little ridiculous.

No of us could have known that he wouldn't even give us 2 years of decent performance, even though it was logical to assume he would fall out at the end of the contract.

Folks piss on LL when he goes out and gets an in-demand player, does nothing, and makes a seemingly one-sided trade for one of the leagues' top 5 players in the game.

I won't blindly defend LL, but if people are going to bitch when he does any one of those 3, how can he win?

[Triumph]

I have the worst feeling that Lou will fail to re-sign Kovulchuk and we'll basically had given up Bergfors (who has scored a goal in every game he's played now for Atlanta) for a 3 month rental.

which is exactly what we've done. and i don't care, because i don't think bergfors is all that good or valuable.

[maxpower]

which is exactly what we've done. and i don't care, because i don't think bergfors is all that good or valuable.

I thought the point all along was that he wasn't going to be resigned. and that Bergfors was probably going to be traded for somebody. I'm not down on him like you are, but basically, two coaches had crapped out on him. he was going to have to wait for a 3rd, and by then, other people would have passed him on the depth chart.

Oduya can be replaced in July. and the draft pick can be refunded in June.

it wasn't that much. even if this turns into a total failure and Kovalchuk keeps shooting at a .030 clip (not very likely, he would have had 5 goals in 5 games, in Atlanta, with the amount of shots he put up), Lou did the right thing. it's a matter of making it work, and that's largely out of his hands.

[Triumph]

I thought the point all along was that he wasn't going to be resigned. and that Bergfors was probably going to be traded for somebody. I'm not down on him like you are, but basically, two coaches had crapped out on him. he was going to have to wait for a 3rd, and by then, other people would have passed him on the depth chart.

no, i mean, his sort of player has its place, certainly. i think he'll be an NHL player for a good long while, it's just that his value isn't exceptionally high because he's arbitration-eligible already, and he's had a pretty fluky first season - best to sell high, rather than try to fob off an expensive bergfors, who if his play dipped next season, would become another petr prucha sort of player.

[Jerrydevil]

How long before the fans start booing him?

[NJDevs26]

I thought the point all along was that he wasn't going to be resigned. and that Bergfors was probably going to be traded for somebody. I'm not down on him like you are, but basically, two coaches had crapped out on him. he was going to have to wait for a 3rd, and by then, other people would have passed him on the depth chart.

I honestly don't know what's worse right now, Bergfors staying with the Devils and eventually being healthy scratched in the playoffs for Dean McAmmond (the way Elias was for Scott Daniels) or having him leave and become an instant star the minute he gets away from Lemaire.

I don't blame Lou at all, he's had two coaches in his ear that he respected telling him Bergfors wasn't a Devil kind of player and this is a roll of the dice you had to take but it looks really bad when Bergfors and Oduya both make an instant impact while we can't fit Kovalchuk in.

[HellOnICE]

I honestly don't know what's worse right now, Bergfors staying with the Devils and eventually being healthy scratched in the playoffs for Dean McAmmond (the way Elias was for Scott Daniels) or having him leave and become an instant star the minute he gets away from Lemaire.

I don't blame Lou at all, he's had two coaches in his ear that he respected telling him Bergfors wasn't a Devil kind of player and this is a roll of the dice you had to take but it looks really bad when Bergfors and Oduya both make an instant impact while we can't fit Kovalchuk in.

I think you are oversimplifying - It's not just Lou and the 2 coaches, it's scouts, assistants, other players, Lou's own eyes, and so on and so forth. Lou knows what he was getting and knows what he was trading.

It doesn't look bad after 6 games, again, I think you're being unfairly short sighted. We didn't get Kovy for February 12th, 2010. We got him to help us in April and May, and hopefully beyond.

[NJDevs26]

I think you are oversimplifying - It's not just Lou and the 2 coaches, it's scouts, assistants, other players, Lou's own eyes, and so on and so forth. Lou knows what he was getting and knows what he was trading.

It doesn't look bad after 6 games, again, I think you're being unfairly short sighted. We didn't get Kovy for February 12th, 2010. We got him to help us in April and May, and hopefully beyond.

It looks bad for Lemaire himself is my point. I honestly thought he would be better dealing with younger players after his time in Minnesota when he had to develop talent more but left to his own devices here he's gone back to the same favor vets at all costs mentality.

It's not just Bergfors, why couldn't Fraser get a few more minutes when the top four on defense were being run into the ground? He finally gets twenty-four minutes against the Flyers when we had no other choice and was fine.

[Triumph]

I think you are oversimplifying - It's not just Lou and the 2 coaches, it's scouts, assistants, other players, Lou's own eyes, and so on and so forth. Lou knows what he was getting and knows what he was trading.

It doesn't look bad after 6 games, again, I think you're being unfairly short sighted. We didn't get Kovy for February 12th, 2010. We got him to help us in April and May, and hopefully beyond.

beyond this - and i am sure that kovalchuk will continue to shoot 3% as one of the most accurate shooters of the last decade, a player who is still 6th in the league in goals and hasn't finished out of the top 10 in goals since his rookie year - bergfors is not an 'instant star' and lemaire didn't ruin him. bergfors is a nice player to have around, he's probably a 2nd line RW who operates well on the power play.