Beginning of new trend or special case

[frisky]

So, I read this article about the Lightening that said they were getting close to signing Vinny Lecavalier to a "life-long" deal. Since he's 27 is that like a 10 year deal? The Islanders ate it with what's-his-name (brain-fart). But with the recent trends of long-term contracts of 5-7 years already, will teams just say sign the guy to a contract until he's probably ready to retire? I know the Sabres won't go with that trend unless it's the norm. But, will other teams start locking up their best players for the rest of there careers? I can think of Crosby or Malkin to name a couple. Just a thought. Anyone else have comments or ideas on this?

 

Article

 

Also, rereading the article, if he's entering the final year of his contract ala Miller, and they've already make "good" progress toward an extension. Doesn't that mean that they already begun talking about one? Perhaps I misunderstood Darcy when he said they couldn't begin talks until after July 1. Isn't that the rule? Or is it a self-imposed rule such as not bargaining during the season? Or, if it's the rule, wouldn't they Lightening be violating that rule? I'm a little confused on that.

[Bmwolf21]

The Islanders signed DiPietro to a 15-year deal, which would make him 40 when the deal expires. $4.5M /year every year, all the way to the end.

 

WRT Miller, I think they can negotiate now but cannot sign until July 1st.

[frisky]

An update on this is that Vinny is looking to get $8.55 mil per year for 9 years. He'll be 37 when it ends.

[tom webster]

The Islanders signed DiPietro to a 15-year deal, which would make him 40 when the deal expires. $4.5M /year every year, all the way to the end.

 

WRT Miller, I think they can negotiate now but cannot sign until July 1st.

 

This is an interesting point. LQ said in a WGR interview, that they played by the rules and thus wouldn't even talk to Miller or Pominville till July 1st. Obviously other teams see it different. Is this another example of Buffalo misreading the CBAor another example of teams flaunting the fact they play by their own rules. In any event, Buffalo is again behind other teams in this regard.

 

Note: I spent a half hour and couldn't find where the CBA addresses this issue.

[apuszczalowski]

This is an interesting point. LQ said in a WGR interview, that they played by the rules and thus wouldn't even talk to Miller or Pominville till July 1st. Obviously other teams see it different. Is this another example of Buffalo misreading the CBAor another example of teams flaunting the fact they play by their own rules. In any event, Buffalo is again behind other teams in this regard.

 

Note: I spent a half hour and couldn't find where the CBA addresses this issue.

thats a good point, cause according to what I had read, they have pretty much finalised the deal, but can't announce it til July 1. Maybe it is based on the previous contract and weither it was signed before the new CBA went into effect, so if you signed one before, you can negotiate early? I dont know

[Bmwolf21]

This is an interesting point. LQ said in a WGR interview, that they played by the rules and thus wouldn't even talk to Miller or Pominville till July 1st. Obviously other teams see it different. Is this another example of Buffalo misreading the CBAor another example of teams flaunting the fact they play by their own rules. In any event, Buffalo is again behind other teams in this regard.

 

Note: I spent a half hour and couldn't find where the CBA addresses this issue.

I never thought there was anything restricting them from talking before July 1, but I might be wrong. I'll shut up and wait until Taro weighs in on it...

[MattPie]

thats a good point, cause according to what I had read, they have pretty much finalised the deal, but can't announce it til July 1. Maybe it is based on the previous contract and weither it was signed before the new CBA went into effect, so if you signed one before, you can negotiate early? I dont know

 

The letter of the law probably says you can't talk to an RFA before July 1st to resign him. The NHL and PA are crazy if they think they can police Darcy from calling up Miller and asking, "how does 6 years at $6mil sound? Good? OK, we'll send you an offer on the 1st." If that is verboten, I'm surprised that Tampa Bay would openly say anything about it though.

[spndnchz]

Mr CBA says "no player while under SPS with a club can enter negotiations with another club". "only able to sign 'extensions' within the final year" ie after July 1

If it's a one year deal, say signed in July, then they can't renegotiate or make extension until after Jan 1 (we remember this date huh?)

[Strow]

Do you think all these Deals with long years of 8-9...15 are being made because they believe the CBA is gonna be trashed and nothing lock out or strike will happen? I can't see why they make this deals, Vinny is 80 million for 9 years thats just crazy.

[awill29]

Do you think all these Deals with long years of 8-9...15 are being made because they believe the CBA is gonna be trashed and nothing lock out or strike will happen? I can't see why they make this deals, Vinny is 80 million for 9 years thats just crazy.

 

It's more because Bettman is an @$$hole who has no idea what he's doing. He's let the cap skyrocket and this FA market is out of control. Pretty soon, instead of paying your superstars 6-7 million like we've seen the past few years, they're going to demand 8-10 million. Locking them up long-term prevents them from demanding ridiculous raises. Soupy is a perfect example: last October, we're talking about sigining him for about 5M. Now, he's projected to get 7.5-8M after just one season. Granted, he had a good year, but it wasn't like he's putting up superstar numbers. The inflation in the market is just ridicuolous.

[BetweenThePipes00]

It's more because Bettman is an @$$hole who has no idea what he's doing. He's let the cap skyrocket and this FA market is out of control. Pretty soon, instead of paying your superstars 6-7 million like we've seen the past few years, they're going to demand 8-10 million. Locking them up long-term prevents them from demanding ridiculous raises. Soupy is a perfect example: last October, we're talking about sigining him for about 5M. Now, he's projected to get 7.5-8M after just one season. Granted, he had a good year, but it wasn't like he's putting up superstar numbers. The inflation in the market is just ridicuolous.

 

The market is getting back to pre-lockout levels, but I don't think you can just blame it on Bettman ... the owners as a group shut down their business for a whole year to get a deal that is already out of date. When you say Bettman has "let the cap skyrocket" you'll have to explain how he could have stopped it. The deal says the players get up to 56% (or whatever the number is) of the revenues ... the cap is out of his hands, it's determined by the amount of money they bring in.

[X. Benedict]

The market is getting back to pre-lockout levels, but I don't think you can just blame it on Bettman ... the owners as a group shut down their business for a whole year to get a deal that is already out of date. When you say Bettman has "let the cap skyrocket" you'll have to explain how he could have stopped it. The deal says the players get up to 56% (or whatever the number is) of the revenues ... the cap is out of his hands, it's determined by the amount of money they bring in.

 

<Tongue firmly in cheek>

 

What is driving up the salary cap are the revenue driving Canadian teams - if we get rid of another Canadian franchise, we'll get a salary cap we can live with. I think Ottawa should go.

[apuszczalowski]

<Tongue firmly in cheek>

 

What is driving up the salary cap are the revenue driving Canadian teams - if we get rid of another Canadian franchise, we'll get a salary cap we can live with. I think Ottawa should go.

I vote Toronto, I hate those smug bastard leaf fans

[tom webster]

<Tongue firmly in cheek>

 

What is driving up the salary cap are the revenue driving Canadian teams - if we get rid of another Canadian franchise, we'll get a salary cap we can live with. I think Ottawa should go.

 

It should be noted that the maximum percentage has been achieved so therefore, the Cap increases should lessen in the coming years. The last three years, both the revenue and the percentage of said revenue has increased thus creating a compounding effect.

Also, like you said, the Canadian revenue is what is really driving this thing along with revenue from non-traditional media. Whatever the reason, Bettman's main job is to increase league wide revenue and he has done that. He is more likely to get an extension rather then a pink slip.

[Taro T]

I never thought there was anything restricting them from talking before July 1, but I might be wrong. I'll shut up and wait until Taro weighs in on it...

Well, it kind of comes down to what your definition of "is" is. (Or more accurately, what you understand "understandings" to mean.)

 

As has been pretty well established, Article 50.5(f) states that teams and players can't sign a player to an extension until July 1 (or January 1 for extensions to 1 year deals).

 

Article 26, which covers circumvention of the CBA, makes it pretty clear that teams can't negotiate with players prior to that deadline; or more accurately they can't enter into any agreements of any type with each other. In 26.3(a) the teams are expressly forbidden to even "enter into ... understandings of any kind, ... including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, ..."

 

But toward the end of the Article, the league produces a laundry list (but yet "non-exhaustive" list (their underline, not mine)) of examples of circumvention. Pretty much ALL of those examples either address teams hiding revenues or hiding payments to players. The examples make it pretty clear that that is what the league and NHLPA were concerned with when they wrote Article 26. NO examples hint at considering talking with a team's OWN soon to be free agent would be considered circumvention. But as the league & NHLPA stressed, just because there is no example doesn't mean necessarily that the action isn't covered; so an extremely conservative view would be that a team can't discuss an extension until July 1 but a more real world (reasonable?) interpretation of the examples is that they are devised to proscribe the types of actions this section of the CBA is concerned with and if something isn't even hinted at in the examples that it probably isn't a no-no.

 

So, as mentioned earlier, it depends on your definition of "is". The Sabres appear to take the words in black and white and interpret them as being very broad. Other teams such as the Lightning appear to view the intent of the rules as more important than the exact wording of them and use a more constricted meaning for the words. As it appears that other teams (quite reasonably IMHO) don't consider talking with their own potential free agent about contract status to necessarily fit the definition of "understanding" when an understanding would seem to be more of an agreement that the player will get a cushy front office job after he retires or get discounts / gifts from other entities related to the team. Nor would working out the base framework of a contract with your own potential FA a couple of days ahead of time seem to be circumventing the intent of the CBA.

 

Of course, there may be double secret memos provided under lock and key to the GM's which clearly indicates what the league and PA actually meant rendering all the above a bunch of hooey. This is the NHL after all. ;)

[Bmwolf21]

Well, it kind of comes down to what your definition of "is" is. (Or more accurately, what you understand "understandings" to mean.)

:blink: :blink:

Just as I thought, the CBA rule that covers this is just a whole bunch of legalese that doesn't really answer the question. It seems, from your explanation, that whether teams can negotiate with or even talk to their own impending free agents before the July 1 cutoff is a giant gray area open to interpretation.

 

Of course, there may be double secret memos provided under lock and key to the GM's which clearly indicates what the league and PA actually meant rendering all the above a bunch of hooey. This is the NHL after all. ;)

:w00t: :worthy:

[tom webster]

:blink: :blink:

Just as I thought, the CBA rule that covers this is just a whole bunch of legalese that doesn't really answer the question. It seems, from your explanation, that whether teams can negotiate with or even talk to their own impending free agents before the July 1 cutoff is a giant gray area open to interpretation.

 

:w00t: :worthy:

 

Of course if I was the negative nellie that I've been reputed to be, I would point out that Buffalo, who swears buy the letter of the agreement in most cases, choose in this case to interpret the rule in such a way that allows them to take the slow, pragmatic way toward negotiations thereby letting the league set the market rather then setting their own market.

[Guest Sloth]

An update on this is that Vinny is looking to get $8.55 mil per year for 9 years. He'll be 37 when it ends.

 

Signing a player you truly feel is among the elite of the elite is a money saver. Just think how'd much he'd be offered by NYR or Detroit at the age of 34, if his contract ended then. Top salaries are going to go up every year. I can't imagine what some players will be making 10 years from now. What were the top 5 players making 10 years ago?

[Taro T]

Of course if I was the negative nellie that I've been reputed to be, I would point out that Buffalo, who swears buy the letter of the agreement in most cases, choose in this case to interpret the rule in such a way that allows them to take the slow, pragmatic way toward negotiations thereby letting the league set the market rather then setting their own market.

And in this case, going by the letter of the law ends up allowing forcing them to take the slow, pragmatic, etc., etc. way towards negotiations.

 

I think we'd both be in agreement that they'd be better served by taking a more pragmatic view of 26.3.