PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 The Islanders did not take advantage of any loopholes. Yashin was signed before the CBA. The DePietro deal was nothing more than another sign of how much of an idiot Wang is. DiPietro's contract is not loaded in any way. It pays him $4.5 million each of the 15 seasons. There is no quick escape from that contract. It was pure stupidity. The simple solution to these kind of contracts is essentially what you are suggesting. They need to block teams from loading contracts, so they need to make it so that each year of a multi-year contract pays out the same amount of money (just like that DiPietro deal does). Teams will still find ways to play games, but that would go a long way. I would also tweak the rule about how contracts signed with guys 35 or older always count against the cap. Make it so that anyone over 35 automatically counts against the cap, even if they were signed when they were 27 (coughcoughKOVALCHUKcoughcough). Eliminate the advantages of front loading contracts and eliminate the advantages of signing a guy well into his 40s knowing that he'll retire long before reaching the end of the contract. But there's always one problem with these ideas, these guys always find any loopholes that might exist. They throw away an entire season trying to put this deal together, then once they come back, they quickly try to find ways to destroy that new agreement. So a fan of a team that never "goes for it" is criticizing owners of other teams who do? Wouldn't you want Darcy, just once, to find one of these loopholes and exploit it? Or, like Darcy, have you basically just given up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 So a fan of a team that never "goes for it" is criticizing owners of other teams who do? Wouldn't you want Darcy, just once, to find one of these loopholes and exploit it? Or, like Darcy, have you basically just given up? So by criticizing Wang (hehe, Wang), I'm attacking a guy who "went for it"? There were documented reports around the time of the lockout that he was trying to push the idea of experimenting with a sumo wrestler as a goalie. So yeah, I'm perfectly fine with tearing that moron apart. Maybe I'll lay off of the guy when Alexi Yashin finally stops counting against their cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 So by criticizing Wang (hehe, Wang), I'm attacking a guy who "went for it"? There were documented reports around the time of the lockout that he was trying to push the idea of experimenting with a sumo wrestler as a goalie. So yeah, I'm perfectly fine with tearing that moron apart. Maybe I'll lay off of the guy when Alexi Yashin finally stops counting against their cap. Seriously, you would have opposed the Sabres signing Kovalchuk to the deal the Devils gave him? googled the sumo wrestler story, and it sounds like a bunch of baloney, er, bologna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Seriously, you would have opposed the Sabres signing Kovalchuk to the deal the Devils gave him? googled the sumo wrestler story, and it sounds like a bunch of baloney, er, bologna. Yes, I'm opposed to ANYONE giving that kind of deal to a player. This league just lost an entire season to the lockout. These kind of contracts are going to bring on the next one and when that happens, the league dies. That's the last thing I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NNYSABRESMAN Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I was thinking the exact same thing, but I couldn't figure out how to put it into words! I just read this at work, My co workers thought i was loosing my mind just setting in my office laughing out loud. very funny! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Yes, I'm opposed to ANYONE giving that kind of deal to a player. This league just lost an entire season to the lockout. These kind of contracts are going to bring on the next one and when that happens, the league dies. That's the last thing I want. Classic example of a fan being a little too smart for his own good, thinking he knows better than the owner and GM of a three-Cup franchise. I'd have jumped around like a little kid. Hey, if the deal goes bad, it's not my money -- or league. Being a fan should be fun. Live for the carp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 the next CBA has to address this. They literally could have made it a 30 year contract, paid him league minimum for 20 of those years and ended up with a 1.5 mil cap hit. Teams found the loophole in the system, It started with DiPietro, which I still get a hardy chuckle over, and Alexi Yashin, and these teams are taking what the Islanders did and applying it to good players. I suspect in the next CBA that this issue will be addressed and revamped with all current contracts grandfathered in but new contracts counting actual money against cap. The NHL has pretty much reverted back to the rich get richer cuz they can afford to dish out 10 mil a season with a 4 mil cap hit. Yes, I'm opposed to ANYONE giving that kind of deal to a player. This league just lost an entire season to the lockout. These kind of contracts are going to bring on the next one and when that happens, the league dies. That's the last thing I want. Classic example of a fan being a little too smart for his own good, thinking he knows better than the owner and GM of a three-Cup franchise. I'd have jumped around like a little kid. Hey, if the deal goes bad, it's not my money -- or league. Being a fan should be fun. Live for the carp. I'd have been happy too, but I completely agree that this is the kind of deal that needs to be eliminated to keep the playing field somewhat level for the smaller-market teams. However, I don't agree that the league has reverted back to the rich get richer -- it's 100x better than it was pre-lockout. This loophole is effective, but it doesn't obviate the CBA -- if it did, Chicago wouldn't have had to unload half of its team, including some very good players, right after winning the Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 You're aware he's been playing in Atlanta, right? Made the playoffs one time there. In nine playoff games, he's a point a game player. Shrader let u go on this one huh? ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'd have been happy too, but I completely agree that this is the kind of deal that needs to be eliminated to keep the playing field somewhat level for the smaller-market teams. However, I don't agree that the league has reverted back to the rich get richer -- it's 100x better than it was pre-lockout. This loophole is effective, but it doesn't obviate the CBA -- if it did, Chicago wouldn't have had to unload half of its team, including some very good players, right after winning the Cup. I'll ask the naive followup: why does multibillionaire owner OSP need his playing field "level"? What would have stopped him from approving such a deal for Kovie to come to Buffalo? I am prepared to be educated, as I admit to not caring about, or wanting to talk much about, the business side of the game, just like I don't want to talk about the economics of making movies, merely enjoy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'd have been happy too, but I completely agree that this is the kind of deal that needs to be eliminated to keep the playing field somewhat level for the smaller-market teams. However, I don't agree that the league has reverted back to the rich get richer -- it's 100x better than it was pre-lockout. This loophole is effective, but it doesn't obviate the CBA -- if it did, Chicago wouldn't have had to unload half of its team, including some very good players, right after winning the Cup. Maybe if Chicago had added 5 more years to that contract. I wonder if not screwing up their qualifying offers last year might have allowed them to keep one extra guy. We'll never know, but it's hard to get a clear picture, but a monumental screwup like that one does bring into question the numbers guys a bit. Shrader let u go on this one huh? ok. Wow, I should actually try reading his posts. That one's pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Article : Lamoriello: Pretty candid if you ask me. While saying the Devils did nothing illegal in signing Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year, $102 million contract, general manager Lou Lamoriello admitted that such a deal was bad for the NHL and should be eliminated in the next CBA. I asked Lamoriello what he would think if someone brought up Kovalchuk’s contract in the next round of CBA negotiations (in two years) and pointed to it as a flaw. “I might agree,” he said. “But there is nothing that we have done wrong. This is within the rules. This is in the CBA. There are precedents that have been set. But I would agree we shouldn’t have these. But I’m also saying that because it’s legal and this is something that ownership felt comfortable doing for the right reasons.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Wow, I should actually try reading his posts. That one's pretty funny. I'm trying to figure out why this is funny. Is it because he actually played 10 playoff games and is actually more than a point per game player in the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'm trying to figure out why this is funny. Is it because he actually played 10 playoff games and is actually more than a point per game player in the playoffs? How do you get 10? Swept by the Rangers in '07. Out in 5 to the Phlyers in '10. Not entirely sure how 8 points over that span makes for more than a ppg player either. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I'll ask the naive followup: why does multibillionaire owner OSP need his playing field "level"? What would have stopped him from approving such a deal for Kovie to come to Buffalo? Well, I suppose you have to start with the assumption that no owner wants a team that isn't at least break-even. If you are OK with that assumption (which it sounds like you aren't, but I think you are being unrealistic), then it doesn't matter whether OSP is a billionaire or a piker. So, if a team has to break even, and teams A, B and C all pull in over $100MM per year in revenue (like, say, Toronto, Montreal, the Rangers and Philly), while teams D, E and F pull in about $60MM per year, then, in order to level the playing field, the NHL has to mandate that no team can spend more than, say, $58MM per year on salaries. Otherwise, you would have a pre-lockout scenario where Detroit and the Rangers are spending $75MM per year on salaries while the Sabres (and many others) were spending $25MM or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Classic example of a fan being a little too smart for his own good, thinking he knows better than the owner and GM of a three-Cup franchise. I'd have jumped around like a little kid. Hey, if the deal goes bad, it's not my money -- or league. Being a fan should be fun. Live for the carp. does anyone else see the irony IRONY of PA grilling someone on thinking they know better than an Owner and a GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 How do you get 10? Swept by the Rangers in '07. Out in 5 to the Phlyers in '10. Not entirely sure how 8 points over that span makes for more than a ppg player either. :unsure: Hmmm. That is rather curious innit? I blame work for my stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 does anyone else see the irony IRONY of PA grilling someone on thinking they know better than an Owner and a GM? Apparently not. You're busted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Well, I suppose you have to start with the assumption that no owner wants a team that isn't at least break-even. If you are OK with that assumption (which it sounds like you aren't, but I think you are being unrealistic), then it doesn't matter whether OSP is a billionaire or a piker. So, if a team has to break even, and teams A, B and C all pull in over $100MM per year in revenue (like, say, Toronto, Montreal, the Rangers and Philly), while teams D, E and F pull in about $60MM per year, then, in order to level the playing field, the NHL has to mandate that no team can spend more than, say, $58MM per year on salaries. Otherwise, you would have a pre-lockout scenario where Detroit and the Rangers are spending $75MM per year on salaries while the Sabres (and many others) were spending $25MM or less. But you weren't referring to the salary cap as a means of leveling the playing field, you were referring to a ban on deals like Kovalchuk just got as a means of leveling the playing field. That's what I don't understand. OSP has the financial means to make that deal in the context of the cap. You've pulled a Darcy here. You and he have your hands out, looking for cash. Crying poor. It doesn't fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I just wonder if part of this was to put salary pressure on Pittsburgh and Washington so that they have to pay out more and/or shed some talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 But you weren't referring to the salary cap as a means of leveling the playing field, you were referring to a ban on deals like Kovalchuk just got as a means of leveling the playing field. That's what I don't understand. OSP has the financial means to make that deal in the context of the cap. You've pulled a Darcy here. You and he have your hands out, looking for cash. Crying poor. It doesn't fly. You are right that I was originally referring to a ban on Kovy-type deals, but the point is the same. The cap is designed to level the playing field by limiting the amount each team can spend on payroll. The Kovy deal circumvents the cap by allowing a team to spend more in actual cash in a year than the cap hit for that year. This "un-levels" the playing field by enabling higher-revenue teams to sound more on payroll. Yes, OSP and other owners of lower-revenue teams can choose to use the same kind of contracts if they want, but this means spending cash in excess of the cap and brings us back to the assumption that no owner wants a team that doesn't break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 You are right that I was originally referring to a ban on Kovy-type deals, but the point is the same. The cap is designed to level the playing field by limiting the amount each team can spend on payroll. The Kovy deal circumvents the cap by allowing a team to spend more in actual cash in a year than the cap hit for that year. This "un-levels" the playing field by enabling higher-revenue teams to sound more on payroll. Yes, OSP and other owners of lower-revenue teams can choose to use the same kind of contracts if they want, but this means spending cash in excess of the cap and brings us back to the assumption that no owner wants a team that doesn't break even. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHL Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float And you only had to read float 17 times. Devils fans will get to see float for the next 17 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 So by criticizing Wang (hehe, Wang), I'm attacking a guy who "went for it"? There were documented reports around the time of the lockout that he was trying to push the idea of experimenting with a sumo wrestler as a goalie. So yeah, I'm perfectly fine with tearing that moron apart. Maybe I'll lay off of the guy when Alexi Yashin finally stops counting against their cap. OK, here's the last word on the Sumo wrestler in goal, courtesy of a longtime friend of mine and Islander fanatic whose information I trust implicitly. Wang was joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float-float And you only had to read float 17 times. Devils fans will get to see float for the next 17 years. Kovy is a floater, especially when he waits up by the blueline while his team mates play D in their own zone, however, Devils fans will see a 40-50 goal player for potentially 8 to 10 years. Fair trade off if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHL Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Kovy is a floater, especially when he waits up by the blueline while his team mates play D in their own zone, however, Devils fans will see a 40-50 goal player for potentially 8 to 10 years. Fair trade off if you ask me. Dougtful. Wayne Gretzky never scored 40 goals in his 30ese. Even Yszerman never had 40 goals in his 30ese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.