A maximum length for contracts.

A hard cap set for an extended period of time. A cap hit being purely determined by the simple calculation.

Total salary / number of years.
- flyer_nutter

That's how Cap hits are determined already.

Then you are following me.
- flyerscup2011

That's how Cap hits are determined already.
- MJL

What I mean, is at the same time a player can be paid vastly more at the front of his contract then at the back end.

Smaller market teams have a harder chance competing in such contracts.

I think if the Flyers could get Ryan for Voracek and one of those two defenseman they would do it. Not sure it would be enough for Anaheim.
- Marc D

Even if Selanne resigns, they are pretty thin up front. I don't think it will cost any of the top 4 d-man on the roster right now for the Flyers because of what the Ducks have signed in the offseason. However, they may have to send a Cousins or Laughton in the deal also. Of course, maybe they feel Reed can slide into center on that team, so there maybe more interest in him then Voracek. Basically, I'm not so sure they are looking for a lot of d-men help coming back as initially reported before free agency.

What I mean, is at the same time a player can be paid vastly more at the front of his contract then at the back end.

Smaller market teams have a harder chance competing in such contracts.
- flyer_nutter

So your saying to do away with front ended deals?

What would be the drawback of having the cap hit be the actual salary for that year + signing bonuses for that particular year? That seems to be a loophole big market teams "exploit" the most... like the supposed 24M in signing bonuses that Parise wants for the first 2 years. Smaller market teams could maybe afford the overall cap hit, but not this huge up front money these guys want. Why not just have hit cap hit actually be 12M for those first years, then go down according to salary? Even if you tack on those 2-3 years at the end where the player only makes 1M a year so he can retire... those years wouldn't really matter if you calculate the cap hit via each season. They would have had their heavy cap hits in the early years instead.

Even if Selanne resigns, they are pretty thin up front. I don't think it will cost any of the top 4 d-man on the roster right now for the Flyers because of what the Ducks have signed in the offseason. However, they may have to send a Cousins or Laughton in the deal also. Of course, maybe they feel Reed can slide into center on that team, so there maybe more interest in him then Voracek. Basically, I'm not so sure they are looking for a lot of d-men help coming back as initially reported before free agency.
- ravishingone

I'd like to keep Laughton.

At least from what I have read he seems like a character kid. Same goes for Voracek.

My aim would be to have as many players like that in the organization instead of a guy like Ryan, who in my eyes has done nothing but be a little _____ about his situation in Anaheim.

So your saying to do away with front ended deals?
- MJL

I think that's what he's saying. And what I'd support as well.

So your saying to do away with front ended deals?
- MJL

Basically yes.

I think NHL contracts, much like everything in today's society is thought up by idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. In turn making everything far too complicated.

Bread and butter. If a deal is for 10 years and 100 million. That means 10 million per year and a 10million/year cap hit. Thats how I'd do things.

Basically yes.

I think NHL contracts, much like everything in today's society is thought up by idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. In turn making everything far too complicated.

Bread and butter. If a deal is for 10 years and 100 million. That means 10 million per year and a 10million/year cap hit. Thats how I'd do things.
- flyer_nutter

It really is how it should be handled. Too many loopholes.

I'd like to keep Laughton.

At least from what I have read he seems like a character kid. Same goes for Voracek.

My aim would be to have as many players like that in the organization instead of a guy like Ryan, who in my eyes has done nothing but be a little _____ about his situation in Anaheim.
- flyer_nutter

I think that's a little drastic. His public statement was very maturely stated and made a lot of valid points.

I'd like to keep Laughton.

At least from what I have read he seems like a character kid. Same goes for Voracek.

My aim would be to have as many players like that in the organization instead of a guy like Ryan, who in my eyes has done nothing but be a little _____ about his situation in Anaheim.
- flyer_nutter

I understand, just by what the Flyers are doing right now, they seem to want to find a better winger for G then Jagr. As much as Ryan has whined, from a cap stand point he isn't going to kill the team like Parise and Nash. I really don't think the organization wants to rely on Jagr surviving another 82 game schedule and then start the playoff grind. I don't think they get Parise in my opinion.

Homer can't stand pat right now - there are too many gaps in the line-up. They have money to spend - they win no prizes for going into the season with the biggest cap space. The Flyers need another defenseman, true. But, they equally need a top 6 winger... Ryan more than replaces the aging Jagr and the potential great JVR. Since teams rarely get what they ask for in a trade... I'm interested to what Homer can do. If he ships off a defenseman, he'll have a plan in place to fill the defensive gap that he just created.
- leon neon

I'm not saying he should stand pat because I want this team to have wiggle room for once. I'm saying he should stand pat because there is NO MOVE he can make that will UNDOUBTEDLY make this team better. If you argue Parise/Suter, I'll say, "What about that 7+ cap hit for the next 10+ years???" That's an issue. Those guys might not be worth that right now, let alone in 8 years.

Moreover, I'm not too sure this team needs a top 6 winger. They played last year with a mediocre Jagr (on the ice, pts wise) and a literally nonexistant JVR. JVR was expendable because this team played 70 games without him and still finished in the top 5 of the NHL in offense. I'm sad to see him go- heck, I wasn't an advocate of dealing him, but that brings me to my next point. Schenn. Luke is gonna be good. He blocks 150 shots and hits 250 people and he's 22. He's gonna be shutdown material. Grossmann light, in my opinion. That's a huge help on the blueline. If we keep Carle at a reasonable price, I think we have a good blend of size, mobility, physicality, and offense on the back end.

I hope Homer takes this team to the regular season. If glaring holes show, then we can address it at the deadline.

Basically yes.

I think NHL contracts, much like everything in today's society is thought up by idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. In turn making everything far too complicated.

Bread and butter. If a deal is for 10 years and 100 million. That means 10 million per year and a 10million/year cap hit. Thats how I'd do things.
- flyer_nutter

A set format where a players salary each Season is whatever the total is divided by the number of years. Interesting

I guess the thing with the front loaded contracts though is it really benefits all players involved, and probably about half the teams who want to use it to their advantage. There's a minority involved that'd probably like to see them done away with... but they'd get outvoted by the entire NHLPA and the big market teams.

I guess the thing with the front loaded contracts though is it really benefits all players involved, and probably about half the teams who want to use it to their advantage. There's a minority involved that'd probably like to see them done away with... but they'd get outvoted by the entire NHLPA and the big market teams.
- eayost

I think one of the points is that in terms of the Cap is supposed to be promoting parity. A lot of team can't afford to throw 10M cash to a player in a front loaded deal. And therefore can't compete with some of the big market teams. And that is a good point. Big market teams can price out smaller market teams by throwing a boatload of cash to a player upfront.

Basically yes.

I think NHL contracts, much like everything in today's society is thought up by idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else. In turn making everything far too complicated.

Bread and butter. If a deal is for 10 years and 100 million. That means 10 million per year and a 10million/year cap hit. Thats how I'd do things.
- flyer_nutter

Or you could operate on a yearly cap hit. If you give a front loaded deal that pays 8 mil in the first 3, 5 mil in the next 3, then 2 in the next 2, then the cap hits for the first 3 years are each 8, the next 3 years 5, etc

just a thought

I think one of the points is that in terms of the Cap is supposed to be promoting parity. A lot of team can't afford to throw 10M cash to a player in a front loaded deal. And therefore can't compete with some of the big market teams. And that is a good point. Big market teams can price out smaller market teams by throwing a boatload of cash to a player upfront.
- MJL

Particularly the signing bonus rigamarole with them paying a guy a lump sum up front. That's a tough cash flow hit for many teams.

Or you could operate on a yearly cap hit. If you give a front loaded deal that pays 8 mil in the first 3, 5 mil in the next 3, then 2 in the next 2, then the cap hits for the first 3 years are each 8, the next 3 years 5, etc

just a thought
- Giroux_Is_God

That would certainly let teams plan more effectively for the upcoming FA years for players on their rosters. And make it easier to trade underperforming guys later in their contracts.

Doubt it. It's one last cash grab if you ask me. If he needed to talk it over with his family he'd pick up a phone or get on the internet. He's known all year he was headed to FA. What's to discuss still???
- hereticpride

A massive unexpected offer from a team he initially didn't either want / care to go to.

Stockholm Syndrome Parise / Suter, you'll learn to love us.

That would certainly let teams plan more effectively for the upcoming FA years for players on their rosters. And make it easier to trade underperforming guys later in their contracts.
- bodiva88

I don't get why it wasn't done that way in the first place. And then there's really no cap circumvention by doing these really long term deals and tacking on years at the end. The cap hit sustained by the player after each year is accounted for by the salary of that year. There's no hiding cap hit in those final years (after a guy retires), because it's already been allotted for in the early years.

I can't imagine all the big market teams were totally all aboard the hard cap train when the CBA was negotiated. It limits their previous advantage. The only argument for them would be "A healthy overall league will help you guys too". Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But I think the big market teams probably wanted some way to still use their big bucks to their advantage if they were going to be hindered by a hard cap.

Let's be honest... if there was no cap, we wouldn't give a damn what these guys are getting offered. We'd just want them to sign here

I don't get why it wasn't done that way in the first place. And then there's really no cap circumvention by doing these really long term deals and tacking on years at the end. The cap hit sustained by the player after each year is accounted for by the salary of that year. There's no hiding cap hit in those final years (after a guy retires), because it's already been allotted for in the early years.

I can't imagine all the big market teams were totally all aboard the hard cap train when the CBA was negotiated. It limits their previous advantage. The only argument for them would be "A healthy overall league will help you guys too". Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But I think the big market teams probably wanted some way to still use their big bucks to their advantage if they were going to be hindered by a hard cap.

Let's be honest... if there was no cap, we wouldn't give a damn what these guys are getting offered. We'd just want them to sign here
- eayost

Definitely

decide how you want to play...provide the resources for superior drafting at all positions...coach'em up...see how it goes and make adjustments....

that's how you stay out of the annual profligacy we see every year. once in a while, when a team needs that final piece, it's certainly justifiable to splurge, but what we see here is nuts.

I'd much rather hear about how the flyers are spending hundreds of thousands to upgrade their scouting staff in order to save tens of millions wasted squandering assets and making bad trades because of the latest cap fix they're in.

Definitely
- Giroux_Is_God

+1

Go bout 28 minutes in this is a Minnesota radio station with former Minnesota GM Lou Nanne on KFAN feeling the Flyers are a team to fear in signing Parise. (take it at face value, just an opinion)

http://www.kfan.com/playe...Barreiro.xml&mid=22230597