So, rumors are finally a-buzz that Marc Staal and the Rangers should reach an agreement soon. Word is that it should be wrapped up by Friday, which is awesome, because that is when training camp starts. The main sticking point of these negotiations, so you understand, is length. Staal is currently 23 and has been on NHL contracts for 3 years so far, which means he will reach unrestricted free agency in 4 years (age 27 or 7 years of contracts, whichever comes first). Until that time, he is under restricted free agency to the Rangers. Starting next season, and for the remaining whole of that restricted free agency, Staal will be eligible for salary arbitration.
The Rangers want to lock Staal up for a number of years, into his unrestricted free agency, when salary arbitration will no longer be a factor. They and Staal both feel that arbitration would give him a huge salary boost, rightly so. So, we can probably expect Staal's salary to end up somewhat higher than those of comparable players (people point at Bobby Ryan for being in a similar offseason situation earlier, as well as comparable defensemen like Ryan Suter and Shea Weber). Sather went on record just yesterday as saying, "we have made Staal a pretty lucrative offer, and I don't think we're very far apart." So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see Staal on a 4+ year contract at $5 million per. And apparently, I wouldn't be surprised if that happens in the next two days.
In other news, the NHL has officially decided to fine the Devils for attempting this Kovalchuk contract. Look: I hate the Devils as much as the next guy. That's not even true. I hate the Devils like a zabillion times more than the next guy, unless the next guy is Dennis the Fireman who sits in section 423. But this is stupid. The CBA, agreed upon by both the NHL and NHLPA, allows for a contract like this. The contract was rejected by reasonable means, and then another one was put forth. The whole thing points out that there are flaws in the CBA, but it resolved largely as it should have.
So where the fuck does the NHL get off fining the Devils for this?!? They're being charged $3 million, a third-round pick next draft, and a first-round pick sometime in the next four drafts (to be determined by the Devils). And this is all retribution for what, exactly? Signing a player to a perfectly legal contract under the admittedly terrible CBA and getting that contract voided? I've said here that I agree with Richard Bloch's ruling in the arbitration, and I do - the Kovalchuk contract absolutely violated the spirit of the CBA. But you're gonna tell me that the Devils, in even attempting to submit a contract like this, were somehow breaking some sort of rule? What, exactly, do the Devils deserve punishment for here?
I'll tell you: it's for making the NHL look foolish. The insane oligarchy of the NHL doesn't like looking like it made any mistake, whether that mistake is employing awful officials or signing an agreement with loopholes. Bettman et al, as is their wont, took this whole Kovalchuk thing personally, and they decided to strike back personally. I'm not saying there's not some part of me that's excited about the goddamn Devils losing a first-round pick, but it's really not just. The NHL wanted to flex its muscles one more time after reaching a balanced agreement didn't leave them feeling powerful enough, and they enacted this penalty because they could.
Or does anyone believe there would have been a fine if the team in question were the model franchise Penguins, or my beloved Coyotes, instead?
Showing posts with label As the Ilya turns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label As the Ilya turns. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Conclusions
So Ilya Kovalchuk is a Devil, with a 15-year contract that pays him $11-11.8 million a year for ages 29-33 and will count as a cap hit of $6.67 million throughout. The NHL approved this and agreed to not investigate existing contracts (which is basically an agreement to not go back on something they already previously agreed to, the big-money adult equivalent of saying "but this time I REALLY MEAN it!!"). As part of the accord, the NHLPA agreed to two minor amendments to the CBA, to apply only to contracts signed from here through the end of the CBA (any contract signed prior to September 4, 2010 is exempt from the new amendments).
The amendments are fairly minor and a little complicated. I'll try to give the quick summary, but largely you don't have to worry about it. There are two of them. The first applies only to contracts that last for 5 or more years and that include or go beyond a player's 41st birthday. For these contracts, those years that include ages 41+ are not averaged in when the overall cap hit is calculated. The cap hit in these years is simply the player salary. So, for example, say you are signed to a 5-year contract at $8m/$7m/$6m/$3m/$1m. If you do not turn 41 until this contract ends, its hit will be $5m/year, as normal. If you turn 41 in year 4 of this contract, the cap hit will be $7m/year for the first three years, then $3m for the 4th year and $1m for the fifth year.
The second amendment only applies to contracts that last for 5 or more years and that include or go beyond a player's 36th birthday, and whose 3 most expensive years average $5.75 million or more. For these contracts, those years that include ages 36+ and that are still included in the average cap hit calculation (ie that do not include ages 41+) have a minimum cap hit of $1 million. The player may be paid a salary of less than $1 million for these years, but it will count as $1 million in the average cap hit calculation. So, for example, say you are signed to a 5-year contract at $6m/$6m/$6m/$0.5m/$0.5m. If you do not turn 36 until after this contract ends, its hit will be $3.8m/year, as normal. If you turn 36 in year 2 of this contract, the cap hit will be $4m/year instead.
All said and done, don't worry too much about these: they will only affect those few big, front-loaded contracts, and even then, they won't affect them much, except in very specific cases. But just for fun, I went back and looked at the Kovalchuk contract, to see what these new amendments (the ones that the NHL so magnanimously allowed the contract to be exempt from) would do to it. Turns out that with no salary under $1 million, amendment two doesn't affect the contract at all. Amendment one only kicks in for the last two years of the contract, in which Kovalchuk will be making $3 million and then $4 million. So for the first 13 years of this 15-year deal, under the new amendments, Kovalchuk's cap hit would be $7.15 million.
Brand new Kovalchuk contract's cap hit under the CBA as it stood before this whole debacle: $6.67 million. Same exact contract's cap hit under the CBA with the new amendments laboriously drawn up, tentatively debated over most of the off-season, and notably exempting Kovalchuk's deal in an act of apparent compromise: $7.15 million.
$487,179. This whole thing produces a cap hit difference for which you cannot legally sign an NHL player. So what the fuck have we been talking about this whole time?!?
Ah, well. At least this nonsense is over, and we can go back to our regularly scheduled nonsense. First up: by way of Puck Daddy, making fun of backup goalie Dan Ellis! Ellis finished his $3.5m, 2yr deal with the Predators and signed a $3m, 2yr deal with the Lightning. Then he made the mistake of having a Twitter account and no perspective. He commented on a chain of comments about a possible NFL labor lockout next season using both of these.
Ellis tweeted, "if you lost 18% of your income would you be happy? I can honestly say that I am more stressed about money now then [sic] when I was in college." Then (spread over 3 tweets), he continued with the following justification:
---------------
If you don't make a lot of money I don't expect u to understand in the same way I could never understand what it is like to risk my life daily as a fire fighter or police officer...especially not a soldier. There r pros and cons to every profession. U r kidding yourself if u think money makes things any easier.
---------------
BOOM! Twitter exploded with a lack of sympathy, which Puck Daddy does a pretty nice job of summarizing. Of note: these tweets happened on Labor Day.
And now back to reality: still no word on Staal. Training camp starts in 10 days. Is this starting to feel eerily familiar to anyone?
Finally, the Traverse City Tournament (hosted annually by the Red Wings, in which a few teams' prospects go compete against each other - the Rangers participate every year) starts on Saturday. Who's driving me to Michigan?
The amendments are fairly minor and a little complicated. I'll try to give the quick summary, but largely you don't have to worry about it. There are two of them. The first applies only to contracts that last for 5 or more years and that include or go beyond a player's 41st birthday. For these contracts, those years that include ages 41+ are not averaged in when the overall cap hit is calculated. The cap hit in these years is simply the player salary. So, for example, say you are signed to a 5-year contract at $8m/$7m/$6m/$3m/$1m. If you do not turn 41 until this contract ends, its hit will be $5m/year, as normal. If you turn 41 in year 4 of this contract, the cap hit will be $7m/year for the first three years, then $3m for the 4th year and $1m for the fifth year.
The second amendment only applies to contracts that last for 5 or more years and that include or go beyond a player's 36th birthday, and whose 3 most expensive years average $5.75 million or more. For these contracts, those years that include ages 36+ and that are still included in the average cap hit calculation (ie that do not include ages 41+) have a minimum cap hit of $1 million. The player may be paid a salary of less than $1 million for these years, but it will count as $1 million in the average cap hit calculation. So, for example, say you are signed to a 5-year contract at $6m/$6m/$6m/$0.5m/$0.5m. If you do not turn 36 until after this contract ends, its hit will be $3.8m/year, as normal. If you turn 36 in year 2 of this contract, the cap hit will be $4m/year instead.
All said and done, don't worry too much about these: they will only affect those few big, front-loaded contracts, and even then, they won't affect them much, except in very specific cases. But just for fun, I went back and looked at the Kovalchuk contract, to see what these new amendments (the ones that the NHL so magnanimously allowed the contract to be exempt from) would do to it. Turns out that with no salary under $1 million, amendment two doesn't affect the contract at all. Amendment one only kicks in for the last two years of the contract, in which Kovalchuk will be making $3 million and then $4 million. So for the first 13 years of this 15-year deal, under the new amendments, Kovalchuk's cap hit would be $7.15 million.
Brand new Kovalchuk contract's cap hit under the CBA as it stood before this whole debacle: $6.67 million. Same exact contract's cap hit under the CBA with the new amendments laboriously drawn up, tentatively debated over most of the off-season, and notably exempting Kovalchuk's deal in an act of apparent compromise: $7.15 million.
$487,179. This whole thing produces a cap hit difference for which you cannot legally sign an NHL player. So what the fuck have we been talking about this whole time?!?
Ah, well. At least this nonsense is over, and we can go back to our regularly scheduled nonsense. First up: by way of Puck Daddy, making fun of backup goalie Dan Ellis! Ellis finished his $3.5m, 2yr deal with the Predators and signed a $3m, 2yr deal with the Lightning. Then he made the mistake of having a Twitter account and no perspective. He commented on a chain of comments about a possible NFL labor lockout next season using both of these.
Ellis tweeted, "if you lost 18% of your income would you be happy? I can honestly say that I am more stressed about money now then [sic] when I was in college." Then (spread over 3 tweets), he continued with the following justification:
---------------
If you don't make a lot of money I don't expect u to understand in the same way I could never understand what it is like to risk my life daily as a fire fighter or police officer...especially not a soldier. There r pros and cons to every profession. U r kidding yourself if u think money makes things any easier.
---------------
BOOM! Twitter exploded with a lack of sympathy, which Puck Daddy does a pretty nice job of summarizing. Of note: these tweets happened on Labor Day.
And now back to reality: still no word on Staal. Training camp starts in 10 days. Is this starting to feel eerily familiar to anyone?
Finally, the Traverse City Tournament (hosted annually by the Red Wings, in which a few teams' prospects go compete against each other - the Rangers participate every year) starts on Saturday. Who's driving me to Michigan?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)