deluca67 Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Ok, so the Devils deal with Kovi was a "circumvention of the cap?" How is sending down players with large contracts to the minors any less of a circumvention? How is Chicago getting Huet's contract off the cap number any less of a "circumvention" than a extended contract? Seems to be just another way for big money teams to out spend the smaller markets and completely eliminates the protection of the small markets that the cap was intended to provide. The Cap figure should be the top contract values in a organization not just those that are designated to the parent club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Ok, so the Devils deal with Kovi was a "circumvention of the cap?" How is sending down players with large contracts to the minors any less of a circumvention? How is Chicago getting Huet's contract off the cap number any less of a "circumvention" than a extended contract? Seems to be just another way for big money teams to out spend the smaller markets and completely eliminates the protection of the small markets that the cap was intended to provide. The Cap figure should be the top contract values in a organization not just those that are designated to the parent club. It's written into the CBA that those contracts don't count against the cap. Maybe that was a case of poor planning when they were working on the agreement, but if it's written into the deal, it's not a circumvention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 It's written into the CBA that those contracts don't count against the cap. Maybe that was a case of poor planning when they were working on the agreement, but if it's written into the deal, it's not a circumvention. Is it any less detrimental than the Kovi contract though? I give that it is in the CBA I just don't see the difference when it comes to the effect on the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Is it any less detrimental than the Kovi contract though? I give that it is in the CBA I just don't see the difference when it comes to the effect on the game. Neither side ever had any intention of ever honoring every year of that contract. The Huet contract will still be honored even if he's not in Chicago. The problem with what you're saying here is that if sending Huet to the minors or loaning him to a european league is cap circumventions, then sending Mike Weber down to the minors would also have to be cap circumvention. It doesn't matter how much the contracts are worth, they'd all have to be considered the same thing. If you have to start factoring AHL salaries into the cap, that opens up a whole new can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Neither side ever had any intention of ever honoring every year of that contract. The Huet contract will still be honored even if he's not in Chicago. The problem with what you're saying here is that if sending Huet to the minors or loaning him to a european league is cap circumventions, then sending Mike Weber down to the minors would also have to be cap circumvention. It doesn't matter how much the contracts are worth, they'd all have to be considered the same thing. If you have to start factoring AHL salaries into the cap, that opens up a whole new can of worms. That can of worms will always be bigger for other teams than it is for the Sabres. I say pop that bad boy open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 That can of worms will always be bigger for other teams than it is for the Sabres. I say pop that bad boy open. So now you're giving teams an advantage if they short change their AHL franchises because they won't want to pay decent money for anyone playing there. That league falls apart. Great plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 So now you're giving teams an advantage if they short change their AHL franchises because they won't want to pay decent money for anyone playing there. That league falls apart. Great plan. Seems to me it would make better players available to the Sabres. Please explain how it wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 Seems to me it would make better players available to the Sabres. Please explain how it wouldn't. It just means that they'd pay the low end guys even less. If you did include AHL guys against the cap, it would be higher than it is right now. The big problem in doing this is that not every team has the same minor league setup. Right now, I believe that everyone has an affiliate, but some also field an ECHL team. With minor league salaries counting against the cap, suddenly more teams are encouraged to do the dual affiliation like we had with Florida in Rochester. This move eventually kills the minor league system, which hurts the NHL big time in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 I can see both sides of the argument, and ultimately I think shrader is right, because the last thing the NHL needs is for the AHL/minor leagues to fail and disappear. But at the same time I totally agree with De Luca. I mean, it's Chicago who made poor management decisions and got themselves in the hole they're in with the Campbell/Huet contracts combined with Toews/Kane/Hossa. They need to be held responsible and honor the contract, not just be able to send Huet to the minors or a foreign country and have him not count against the cap. I don't know much about the CBA or AHL rules, but I think there needs to be a maximum salary for minor leaguers (if there isn't already -- like I said, I'm not too familiar with how it works). Realistically not many GMs are going to pay more than a few million for a minor league player. If a player is making $4-5 million at the NHL level there is absolutely no way they should be able to be sent down, because essentially that IS a somewhat similar situation to the Kovalchuk dilemma, just slightly different circumstances. Sorry if none of that made sense, it's 7am and the Petty concert was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 It just means that they'd pay the low end guys even less. If you did include AHL guys against the cap, it would be higher than it is right now. The big problem in doing this is that not every team has the same minor league setup. Right now, I believe that everyone has an affiliate, but some also field an ECHL team. With minor league salaries counting against the cap, suddenly more teams are encouraged to do the dual affiliation like we had with Florida in Rochester. This move eventually kills the minor league system, which hurts the NHL big time in the long run. It doesn't have to mean every contract counts against the cap. Keep to just the top 20 contracts and any additional contracts if a team decides to carry more the minimum amount of players with the NHL club. They can even work it where UFA contracts can not be relegated to the minors. If teams like Chicago and New York decide that they will just bury contracts in the minors than truly nothing has changed. They can just buy there way out of their mistakes no differently than the pre-lockout era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.