A 30-Year-Contract? Why Not?
As players have signed monster deals. I've researched the CBA with no conclusive results. This piece of information is the only one that has been relevant to my idea: A player age 35 or older when they sign a contract, will be counted against the cap. Well okay, old guys can't sign long term deals, that makes sense? But then why can young guys sign extra long deals, that will make them old guys and retire without cap penalty to their team?
My annoyance comes two different forms. First from some arguments after the Nash contract. Look at Zetterberg's cap number 6.083, and he is SO much better than Nash. Here's the problem. Zetterberg tacked on three small years to his deal when he is 38, 39, 40 ( 3.350, 1, 1). He is still making 7 million a year, up to that point. It is not an argument about whether Zetterberg is better than Nash, today, but in 3 years, that is likely an argument.
So what is stopping, let's say Boston from signing Kessel to a 30 year deal? This is not something that the Jackets will ever have to face. We will always be a budget team, not a cap team. Boston may not be the best example because they don't exactly float in cash, but here's the scenario.
Structure the contract this way: (Let's imagine Kessel is a little better, eh?)
8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6,6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 750K,750 K, 750 K....
That's right 3 years at 8 million, 3 years at 6, 3 years at 3, 3 years at 2, 3 years at 1, and 15 years at 750K
For a total combined value of 30 years 71.25 million @ a cap hit of 2.375 a year.
Of course you get the point, we could easily get this contract to about a 1 million a year value. Is there anything stopping this? I know the NHL can accept or reject deal, but where will they draw the line? This leads to be second annoyance. After watching players tack on years that they will likely be retired by just to reduce the cap number. Is Hossa going to be playing when he is 42? Umm, no. Will this contract count against the cap for the Hawks when he does retire? No.
This is a loophole that needs to be closed. The contracts are getting ridiculous and particularly the Hossa, Zetterberg, and Franzen deals. If these deals are allowed to happen what is the point of the cap when they start to get ridiculous like my example. Is a 15 year deal okay? A 20? I think the NHLPA should do everyone a favor and set a max contract to 10 years and make every year after the age of 35 count against the cap regardless if the player retires. That is my solution.
Is there evidence that would smack this theory in the face? Maybe we should throw this off-sheet out there for Kessel and give up a 2nd rounder :-)
FIRE AWAY!
0 recs |
15 comments
|
Comments
There is an “anti-circumvention” clause that the NHL can invoke to strike down contracts that are clearly intended to game the system. A contract that goes past any previous hockey career length would probably qualify for that.
More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.
Every contract has to be approved by the league. Until this offseason and the Hossa signing, no contract of any length had exceeded the player’s age of 40. Now the Hossa contract has bumped that up a few years.
We don’t hear about any contracts that are rejected, so don’t know if any are, or if there are some and we just don’t hear about it. But the league would definitely stop a contract like the one you meniton.
Buyout
I am still not clear of the rules what about buying out a 35+ contract. If they are bought out do they still count against the cap? My example would be the FLYERS Pronger deal 7 years 35 million breakdown 7.6, 7.6, 7.2, 7.0, 4.0, 0.525, 0.525. Cap hit of 5 million and after 4 years buyout at 5.5 or after 5 years buyout for 1.5. That is how I think this all works out the players still get the money and teams can circumvent a nice chunk of the cap hit.
there is also a risk of those long term deals.
look at Rick Dipietro. he siged what a 16 year deal or something like that. but now with all of his injurys new york is looking really bad about signing such a deal. because they are STUCK with that contract for the next 15 years. now for Zetterberg and Franzen, those arn’t as farfetched as you think. Zetterberg and Franzen were going to be red wings for life. and playing past 40 isn’t all that out of the question ( Chelios Howe Yzerman Sakic Lemieux ect…) so i could see why they would offer them 12 year deals. because they could potentially be playing 12 years from now. now if you gave kessel a 30 year deal that would make him 52 by contracts end. the chances of that happening are VERY slim. only two players have played past 45 chelios (47) and Howe (52), so that would be out of the question. but taking away those long contracts also takes away the security for that player ( what if he gets hurt or what not) personally i think that the system is fine (for now) if a team wants to sign that long of a contract then they have the right to take that risk. but if that player ends up a bust (Yashin anyone?) then that team is stuck with the contract. its a double edged sword.
The thing with your two Islanders examples (DiPietro for 15 years, Yashin for 10) is that they weren’t cap circumventing deals — they were just bad deals, period.
Yashin’s was signed before the cap came about, but DiPietro’s was signed after the new CBA, for an annual salary of $4.5 million. In that scenario the player trades guaranteed money at a slightly lower rate (if DiPietro became a star, you could expect his asking price to be near $6 million on the open market) in exchange for security.
In contrast, the recent deals are clearly intended to circumvent the cap, by paying a star what could very likely be the league minimum by the time he gets to years 10-12. (Of course, you could argue that in today’s youth-focused game a star will be about as effective as Gary Roberts come age 40, and so worth little more than the league minimum.)
I’m not entirely convinced the concept is against the spirit of the CBA (by all rights, in this game a guy in his late-30s usually should see a pay cut), but the degree to which these salaries drop from top dollar to next to nothing is.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
Agree entirely Clint. This was one of the most highly contested things I wrote about this year, and it’s going to keep coming up as long as these deals are allowed.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
Isn’t there a huge insurance risk on the lengthier contracts? Anything past seven years?
Rockin' the Red in Section 412
I believe the DiPietro contract was originally for 18 years but the Islanders couldn’t get insurance for anything past 15.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
A friend of mine suggested this a couple years ago when Crosby was an RFA — sign him to a 20 year $100 million contract. I said why not a 50-year deal? The 20-year deal when Crosby was only 20 might even have been allowed. Regardless of your opinion of Crosby – insert any name (Stamkos, Tavares) and what stops a rival team from offering a crazy contract as soon as his entry-level deal is up?

by 


















