1 player with a 10 mil cap hit. That's ludicrous, preposterous, that can't happen. Oh wait, that's Ovechkin, and he's been just under 10 mil for a few seasons already.
- schiefer466

Was there a roll back or increase with the Salary Cap? He is also one player.. If you shorten the length of a contract it will inevitably lessen the amount the players make.

Just to clarify.. AO is making 9.5 mil

Decreased cap limit? If the owners get that plus a limit on term lengths they're using Jedi mind tricks.
- Jeffmt

I'll think you'll see both. Not just as much as the owners want. Players share will roll back closer to 50, not the 46 the owners want. And term lengths will be implemented, but the players won't allow for 5, probably more like 10. And the owners wil have to give the players something in return, like keeping the UFA age where it is, or more provisions to pay players during there RFA years.

Personally, I'd like to see the term limits implemented for signing UFA's, therefore allowing teams who draft and develop better a leg up in retaining there stars, by being able to offer them a longer contract. This would encourage teams like the Rangers to draft and develop better players instead of going out and signing every Bobby Holik, Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, and Brad Richards that comes along.

Well with the Kovy situation, the league looked at the contract, said it violated "the spirit and intent of the CBA" and nullified it. There was nothing in the CBA at the time about the disparity between salary in the firs years versus the last years when Kovy signed. The rule was then written after the first contract was voided, because the Devils were clearly trying to circumvent the cap to gain an advantage.

It could hypothetically happen here. Because there is nothing written about factoring in bonus money, and how much is paid in a calendar year vs the league year, and so on, doesn't mean it can't be deemed in violation, just like the Kovy situation. Not saying it will happen, but merely it certainly is possible.
- schiefer466

I wonder if Poile really wants to play this card. He is now in full control of the situation with a signed offer he can match. Does he really want the contract rolled back. The upfront money is mostly an accounting exercise that impresses sports reporters but business owners will see it is something they can manage. I think the Flyers and Preds want to do a deal and I think a good deal will get done.

I'll think you'll see both. Not just as much as the owners want. Players share will roll back closer to 50, not the 46 the owners want. And term lengths will be implemented, but the players won't allow for 5, probably more like 10. And the owners wil have to give the players something in return, like keeping the UFA age where it is, or more provisions to pay players during there RFA years.

Personally, I'd like to see the term limits implemented for signing UFA's, therefore allowing teams who draft and develop better a leg up in retaining there stars, by being able to offer them a longer contract. This would encourage teams like the Rangers to draft and develop better players instead of going out and signing every Bobby Holik, Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, and Brad Richards that comes along.
- schiefer466

if you want to penalize teams for signing players with money that they make then other teams should be penalized as well. such as teams that fail to put a team on the ice incapable of improving out of the bottom 6 teams in the league. no team should be able to build a dynasty by drafting top 5 5 years in a row.

we can all go back and forth about salary cap circumventing weather it was far or not but it all comes down to 1 thing... the Preds GM should have got this done way before now... he had the chance last year and took Weber to arbitration after arbotration he could have signed a long term deal he had all season to get this done he had 2 months after the Preds were out of the playoffs to get this done ... AND HE DIDIN"T GET IT DONE!!!!! NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HIMSELF

You seem to have turned everything upside down, perhaps it is what you want to believe. Nashville has to match (or get a great trade return) to protect the value of the franchise. The money to pay Weber is already in the budget. All this was made a lot easier when Suter moved on. Weber stays in Nashville unless Holmgren puts up the kind of trade offer that Poile likes.
- spatso

They did not budget 26 million dollars to pay Weber this year.

They already do not make money and have good ratings and great live support. It's a great franchise, but their budget does not include 26 million for one player for one year. Will they break that budget for the first 4 years to keep him? Maybe, but it would not be a sound financial decision.

Loosing Weber does not negatively impact the value of this franchise nearly as much as taking on that front loaded contract.

If I'm a Preds and want this team to stay in Music City I hope management leaves ego out of this process and does the right thing.

yes

but doesn't matter because it follows the amended rules (kovy rule) and the league can't challenge
- dmarsden2988

The league can challenge anything it wants to challenge.

Was there a roll back or increase with the Salary Cap? He is also one player.. If you shorten the length of a contract it will inevitably lessen the amount the players make.

Just to clarify.. AO is making 9.5 mil
- jak521

Or it will get teams salary's closer to the actual cap. Right now a team like Philly or PIttsburgh can afford 4-5 of these front loaded deals, meaning they're actually spending will over the cap in real dollars each year. Meanwhile Nashville and Carolina can't handle that many of those contracts and are at a disadvantage. Why not just allow the long term deals, but any contract over say 7-8 years the cap hit is the actual salary+bonus, so those teams don't see the cap benefit until the back end of the deal. This way players get their money and their long-term security, but teams are forced to stay truer to the actual salary cap. UNder this situation Weber's going to be a 14 million dollar burden for a few years, but eventually he turns into quite a non-factor cap-wise. That may lead to owners and GM's offering more evenly distributed contracts. Compromise.

we can all go back and forth about salary cap circumventing weather it was far or not but it all comes down to 1 thing... the Preds GM should have got this done way before now... he had the chance last year and took Weber to arbitration after arbotration he could have signed a long term deal he had all season to get this done he had 2 months after the Preds were out of the playoffs to get this done ... AND HE DIDIN"T GET IT DONE!!!!! NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HIMSELF
- flyer186

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.

But how many teams will want to pay him 14 mil for years 3 and four? And there are few teams that have the young talent Philly has....they should just deal him now for some good young talent.....because otherwise he's in Nashville for a long time.....the decision time is now.....not a year from now.
- landros 2

Why is the decision time now? For Philly's benefit, it's now, for Nashville's it's whenever they decide it's the time.

Edit: Philly was 8th in 2010-2011 in revenue generated. There are many teams in their ballpark of spending, or higher, that can afford him if the Flyers can. Even Detroit had higher revenue, and there have been questions regarding the local economy and its ability to sustain the team.

we can all go back and forth about salary cap circumventing weather it was far or not but it all comes down to 1 thing... the Preds GM should have got this done way before now... he had the chance last year and took Weber to arbitration after arbotration he could have signed a long term deal he had all season to get this done he had 2 months after the Preds were out of the playoffs to get this done ... AND HE DIDIN"T GET IT DONE!!!!! NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HIMSELF
- flyer186

That's really the bottom line. Poile is now stuck.

The league can challenge anything it wants to challenge.
- Qwisp

Sure it can.. it just needs clarification on why it would void a contract as well. Unfortunately their past verdicts have set a precedence.. with both Suter and Kovys contracts. Kovys with length and breaking down of the year to year salary, and Suters with from loaded bonus.

The league can challenge anything it wants to challenge.
- Qwisp

if the parise and suter contracts weren't challenged, they can't challenge this one either just because nashville cant/wont pony up the cash.

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.
- GuyLaDouche

i would love to make a bet with anyone that thinks claude giroux will be offer sheeted

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.
- GuyLaDouche

Absolutely... If our GM let our guy hang out there and he got an offer sheet it would absolutely be his fault.

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.
- GuyLaDouche

giroux will never get to the point of being offer sheeted, try another argument.

The reason you feel its ridiculous is because it doesn't blatantly favor Philly and will basically ensure he never wears a Flyers uniform.

I hope Nashville does it. Whether its within the rules or not, whether they should have had Weber re-signed or not, whether Suter left or not...douche move. Its poaching however you might dress it up.
- GuyLaDouche

He feels it's ridiculous because it pretty much is ridiculous. There's no way any owner in the league would pay a guy $27M for one year of service. As fans I think we often get caught up looking at the business of hockey from a very non-business perspective. To us this is basically hypothetical money. It's tough to fathom it's real value and it's easy to justify spending millions of dollars on a bad investment when it's not our money. Generally, anyone who has that kind of money has it because they're not so cavalier about what they do with it.

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.
- GuyLaDouche

if the flyers are stupid enuff to let their franchise player be offer sheeted then it serves them right thats the chance they take not getting their rfa's signed

I'm sure you'd be saying this same thing if Giroux had just been offer sheeted.
- GuyLaDouche

The Flyers signed the CBA. They would have no right to complain. You don't think they are already planning on how to keep Giroux?

He feels it's ridiculous because it pretty much is ridiculous. There's no way any owner in the league would pay a guy $27M for one year of service. As fans I think we often get caught up looking at the business of hockey from a very non-business perspective. To us this is basically hypothetical money. It's tough to fathom it's real value and it's easy to justify spending millions of dollars on a bad investment when it's not our money. Generally, anyone who has that kind of money has it because they're not so cavalier about what they do with it.
- Jeffmt

hes being paid 27mm for 2 years of service, not one...not sure where this 1 year argument is coming from.

Or it will get teams salary's closer to the actual cap. Right now a team like Philly or PIttsburgh can afford 4-5 of these front loaded deals, meaning they're actually spending will over the cap in real dollars each year. Meanwhile Nashville and Carolina can't handle that many of those contracts and are at a disadvantage. Why not just allow the long term deals, but any contract over say 7-8 years the cap hit is the actual salary+bonus, so those teams don't see the cap benefit until the back end of the deal. This way players get their money and their long-term security, but teams are forced to stay truer to the actual salary cap. UNder this situation Weber's going to be a 14 million dollar burden for a few years, but eventually he turns into quite a non-factor cap-wise. That may lead to owners and GM's offering more evenly distributed contracts. Compromise.
- schiefer466

I would have no problem with that, but in the current CBA it isnt structured that way. Why fault a team for doing what was agreed upon?

Lets be honest though.. if it was structured the way you are suggesting, would you see Weber getting 14 mil in a year? No. The amount and length wouldnt change... just the actual "cap space"

He feels it's ridiculous because it pretty much is ridiculous. There's no way any owner in the league would pay a guy $27M for one year of service. As fans I think we often get caught up looking at the business of hockey from a very non-business perspective. To us this is basically hypothetical money. It's tough to fathom it's real value and it's easy to justify spending millions of dollars on a bad investment when it's not our money. Generally, anyone who has that kind of money has it because they're not so cavalier about what they do with it.
- Jeffmt

That is now obviously not the case with the offer sheet.

Sure it can.. it just needs clarification on why it would void a contract as well. Unfortunately their past verdicts have set a precedence.. with both Suter and Kovys contracts. Kovys with length and breaking down of the year to year salary, and Suters with from loaded bonus.
- jak521

You are right. However, kovys contract as no different then hossa, Lu, Franson, zetteberg etc. The Lee just decided o finally step in. I am not saying they will but they could and void it.

hes being paid 27mm for 2 years of service, not one...not sure where this 1 year argument is coming from.
- flyershockey

Its contingent on whether or not he is traded, and if he IS traded whether or not it is after July 1 of 2013.

If he is traded July 2nd of 2013 he will have been paid that amount for 1 year of service.

giroux will never get to the point of being offer sheeted, try another argument.
- flyershockey

So your saying Giroux agent is so dumb, he's just going to take whatever Philly offers him and not wait for other teams to drive his price up? Maybe your right but we'll see