Salary Cap: 2019-2020 Salary Cap Crunch

[IBeL34f]

Yes I have but how many will play for 1.25m after earning almost 100m when they are 40 years old entering that year. That is the question to be answered. None of those players I have quoted have many anywhere near what Marleau has many nor are they 40 years old. Context is real important.

None of those players have skated in every possible NHL game over the past 9 seasons, either, nor have they produced 45+ points in each of the past 3 seasons.

All we need is one healthy, still-productive 40-year-old, who is still under contract, to say, "Yup - I still got another one in me. Let's go win a Cup."

 

[diceman934]

None of those players have skated in every possible NHL game over the past 9 seasons, either, nor have they produced 45+ points in each of the past 3 seasons.

All we need is one healthy, still-productive 40-year-old, who is still under contract, to say, "Yup - I still got another one in me. Let's go win a Cup."

You were the one stating that they proved your opinion not me. Now you are trying to suck and blow at the same time.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yes I have but how many will play for 1.25m after earning almost 100m when they are 40 years old entering that year. That is the question to be answered. None of those players I have quoted have many anywhere near what Marleau has many nor are they 40 years old. Context is real important.

I think you're right, those weren't the best example to show that Marleau may want to keep playing. What about Jagr? Here's a guy who I think has made over 100m and I'm pretty sure money hasn't been a motivating factor for him for some time now yet, he keeps working hard and I believe he's hoping that he's still not done yet, even at the age of 58 or whatever he is now. I'm sure there other examples as well, perhaps we can all agree that there are some players who want to keep playing long after the money they get paid is meaningful?

If we can agree on that then the only question is - is Marleau one of those players? My guess is that he is though I don't see how anyone can know for sure. If he is though then it's entirely possible that a deal was made that makes everyone happy (as 4thline outlined earlier). A deal that let's the Leafs off the hook for the 3rd year of the contract and at the same time, allows Marleau to keep playing if that's what he wants.

 

[IBeL34f]

You were the one stating that they proved your opinion not me. Now you are trying to suck and blow at the same time.

Proved my opinion?

My opinion is that we can't be sure what Marleau is going to do in his 3rd year, but that (right now, at least) all signs point to him being a productive NHLer capable of honouring his contract in 2019/20.

Someone else was arguing your point that Marleau won't play for peanuts by offering up an example of a player who is currently playing for less than the peanuts you've said Marleau won't play for. You pointed out some flaws in their numbers, while offering up several more examples of players who are currently honouring contracts worth less than the peanuts you've said Marleau won't play for.

No, those players have not made the kind of money Marleau has over the past year. However, they're still playing professional hockey in whatever League they can, whether because they absolutely love the game, because they could still use more money, or (most likely) some kind of combination of the two.

Marleau, who has not missed a game in over 9 seasons, and has been producing consistently for the past few seasons without any recent signs of noticeable decline (can still skate, can still shoot, can still produce), may not necessarily need the money, but he's still a professional hockey player under contract for a 3rd season with the Toronto Maple Leafs. Until I see real, legitimate reasoning that he would decide to hang up the skates early, I am not going to go ahead and make assumptions regarding this player's intentions, nor will I take your word regarding that player's intentions just because the contract looks funny to you. The wisest thing, at this point, is to keep an open mind, and to see how the next 12 months go before making any other predictions about this player's future.

 

[ACC1224]

I think you're right, those weren't the best example to show that Marleau may want to keep playing. What about Jagr? Here's a guy who I think has made over 100m and I'm pretty sure money hasn't been a motivating factor for him for some time now yet, he keeps working hard and I believe he's hoping that he's still not done yet, even at the age of 58 or whatever he is now. I'm sure there other examples as well, perhaps we can all agree that there are some players who want to keep playing long after the money they get paid is meaningful?

If we can agree on that then the only question is - is Marleau one of those players? My guess is that he is though I don't see how anyone can know for sure. If he is though then it's entirely possible that a deal was made that makes everyone happy (as 4thline outlined earlier). A deal that let's the Leafs off the hook for the 3rd year of the contract and at the same time, allows Marleau to keep playing if that's what he wants.

I believe Jagr kept at it because he had some large gambling debts.
Marleaus entire motivation now is a ring, IMO.

 

[diceman934]

I think you're right, those weren't the best example to show that Marleau may want to keep playing. What about Jagr? Here's a guy who I think has made over 100m and I'm pretty sure money hasn't been a motivating factor for him for some time now yet, he keeps working hard and I believe he's hoping that he's still not done yet, even at the age of 58 or whatever he is now. I'm sure there other examples as well, perhaps we can all agree that there are some players who want to keep playing long after the money they get paid is meaningful?

If we can agree on that then the only question is - is Marleau one of those players? My guess is that he is though I don't see how anyone can know for sure. If he is though then it's entirely possible that a deal was made that makes everyone happy (as 4thline outlined earlier). A deal that let's the Leafs off the hook for the 3rd year of the contract and at the same time, allows Marleau to keep playing if that's what he wants.

I mention Jagr in a previous post as not many players want to play until they are forced out of the League like he did. Most highly skilled players retire before 40 years old. There are a few examples of players who play past this but they are the exceptions.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I believe Jagr kept at it because he had some large gambling debts.
Marleaus entire motivation now is a ring, IMO.

I'm not sure that's true about Jagr. Sure he gambled but I'm not sure it's been an issue as of late and he's made so much money that it's hard to imagine this being a serious issue anymore.

I mention Jagr in a previous post as not many players want to play until they are forced out of the League like he did. Most highly skilled players retire before 40 years old. There are a few examples of players who play past this but they are the exceptions.

Most players aren't useful past 40. In any case, Marleau to me looks like a guy who definitely wants to keep playing, either that or he's pretending to be something he isn't really well. And if he does want to keep playing, it makes no sense for him to agree to anything forcing him to retire before he wants to. I think I even saw an interview where he said he was planning on playing beyond his current contract so again, either he has zero plans to retire soon or he's a really good liar.

 

[diceman934]

I'm not sure that's true about Jagr. Sure he gambled but I'm not sure it's been an issue as of late and he's made so much money that it's hard to imagine this being a serious issue anymore.



Most players aren't useful past 40. In any case, Marleau to me looks like a guy who definitely wants to keep playing, either that or he's pretending to be something he isn't really well. And if he does want to keep playing, it makes no sense for him to agree to anything forcing him to retire before he wants to. I think I even saw an interview where he said he was planning on playing beyond his current contract so again, either he has zero plans to retire soon or he's a really good liar.

We will see. Just an FYI last year was the least amount of minutes he has played in a full season. I see a further reduction this year as his PP time will be reduced as I see us going with a clear number one unit this season. His production was good but again he scored a lot of empty net goals. He may have one more good year in him but I do not see two more good years as he will not play as high up in the lineup after this season and that may change even this season. He reminds me a lot of Mike Gartner who like him was a good skater but his hand went away fast around the same age.

Time will tell and I will admit I am wrong if he does return for his last year. The structure of his contract to me indicates that it is not Likely.

 

[Mess]

Time will tell and I will admit I am wrong if he does return for his last year. The structure of his contract to me indicates that it is not Likely.

I'm surprised you don't see the flaw in your argument.

The CBA has specific rules for contracts over 35 year olds and watches these closely to the point that even if a player retires his entire contract cap hit AAV still counts in full, to avoid any teams trying to circumvent the cap by offering extra years to lower the AAV.

1) You think Marleau is the kind of guy that is going to take his $3 mil signing bonus in year 3 and then suddenly stick to the Leafs pull the plug on his career and forego the chance at a Cup, while sticking the team with a $6.25 mil cap hit.

2) Any shenanigans by the Leafs, would be highly scrutinized by the NHL and also other teams filing cap circumvention grievances if this final year is not kosher. Also you also need to complete a successful trade of his contract thereafter, and easier said than done as you need a trading partner and also need to add assets to make it worth the other teams. Marleau would be forced to give back the $3 mil bonus if he intends to retire in year #3, thus leaving $4.5 mil in lost $$$ by early retirement.

So are you suggesting Marleau contract + Leafs 1st round pick/top prospect to a cap floor team >> Marleau simply playing out his contract and honouring it as agreed up.

 

[diceman934]

I'm surprised you don't see the flaw in your argument.

The CBA has specific rules for contracts over 35 year olds and watches these closely to the point that even if a player retires his entire contract cap hit AAV still counts in full, to avoid any teams trying to circumvent the cap by offering extra years to lower the AAV.

1) You think Marleau is the kind of guy that is going to take his $3 mil signing bonus in year 3 and then suddenly stick to the Leafs pull the plug on his career and forego the chance at a Cup, while sticking the team with a $6.25 mil cap hit.

2) Any shenanigans by the Leafs, would be highly scrutinized by the NHL and also other teams filing cap circumvention grievances if this final year is not kosher. Also you also need to compete a successful trade of his contract thereafter, and easier said than done as you need a trading partner and also need to add assets to make it worth the other teams. Marleau would be forced to give back the $3 mil bonus if he intends to retire in year #3, thus leaving $4.5 mil in lost $$$ by early retirement.

So are you suggesting Marleau contract + Leafs 1st round pick/top prospect to a cap floor team >> Marleau simply playing out his contract and honouring it as agreed up.

Wow hard to post everything that is wrong with this post.

Marleau would not have to give back his bonus money if he decided to retire after July 1st. It was earned money prior to the start of the season and it is not subject to pay back.

I have posted the rules about contacts for players over 35 years old as a matter of fact is is part of my thesis as to why I believe the intent is for him to retire or no longer play. The structure of his contract need not be structured the way it was because all contracts of a player over the age of 35 is guarantee and the only reason I can see to structure the contract the way it was. Paying over 90% of the money in the first two years.

Where did I say that I think Marleau was going to stick it to the Leafs? I have said all along that the plan was for him to not play the final year and that Marleau and the Leafs knew this.

His remaining amount on his contract would be 1.25 million and we could easily trade this to a floor team as his cap hit would be 6.25 a savings of 5m Thad they would not have to spend to reach the floor. So there is no way it would cost a 1st or a top prospect to have a team save 5m in real money.

The NHL can investigate all they want there is no rule that prevents a player from retiring and the rule about 35 plus year of age contracts was the leagues response to attempt to stop the added years to lessen the cap hit. Contract structure like Marleau contract is the teams response to that rule.

Bonus money is not subject to pay back if you retire after you received it! So please tell me again where is the flaws in my opinion?

 

[Mess]

Wow hard to post everything that is wrong with this post.
?

The CBA has specific rules for players signed over +35 players to multi year deals so teams don't circumvent the salary cap by offering more years to lower the annual AAV cost while front-loading and/or then having the player retire prior to its completion.

Your plan is textbook cap circumvention by Leafs/Marleau and precisely the reason CBA specifically addressed this by clauses to prevent it from happening.

You might want to look it up in the CBA for a refresher.

 

[4thline]

Marleau would not have to give back his bonus money if he decided to retire after July 1st. It was earned money prior to the start of the season and it is not subject to pay back.

@mouser opinion?

 

[diceman934]

The CBA has specific rules for players signed over +35 players to multi year deals so teams don't circumvent the salary cap by offering more years to lower the annual AAV cost while front-loading and/or then having the player retire prior to its completion.

Your plan is textbook cap circumvention by Leafs/Marleau and precisely the reason CBA specifically addressed this by clauses to prevent it from happening.

You might want to look it up in the CBA for a refresher.

I have looked it up and like I stated there’s nothing stop a player from retiring and the CBA rule is that all the future years still count against the cap for the full average of the contract. I never once said it did not. His cap hit will still be accounted for just not on the Leafs. No rule against trading a retirement contract in the CBA yet and like any rule there is always a way around it.

The 35 year old rule is the CBA way of addressing this.

Shea Weber’s contract is an issue his last 4 years of salary. 3m then 1m for the last 3 while his cap hit is 7.857per year. Do you think he plans to play the last 3 years for 3m total. I sure do not after already having earned over 125m in his life time.

 

[Deebo]

The CBA has specific rules for players signed over +35 players to multi year deals so teams don't circumvent the salary cap by offering more years to lower the annual AAV cost while front-loading and/or then having the player retire prior to its completion.

Your plan is textbook cap circumvention by Leafs/Marleau and precisely the reason CBA specifically addressed this by clauses to prevent it from happening.

You might want to look it up in the CBA for a refresher.

See: Datsyuk, Pavel

 

[mouser]

Marleau would not have to give back his bonus money if he decided to retire after July 1st. It was earned money prior to the start of the season and it is not subject to pay back.

@mouser opinion?

To my knowledge the situation hasn’t come up in the NHL before. It has come up in the other major professional leagues though and the standing precedent in those leagues is the player has to pay back a pro-rated portion of the signing bonus if they retire before the contract is complete, or otherwise refuse to fulfill it. I don’t see anything in the CBA suggesting the NHL would act differently.

IMO, if the team holding Marleau’s rights filed a grievance they would most likely be able to claw back his $3m bonus payment in 2019-20. And I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they could claw back $4.83m—1/3rd of the $14.5m in signing bonus money he is schedule to receive in the contract, since he would be refusing to fulfill 1/3rd of the contract.

And it wouldn’t matter which team actually paid the bonus money. A team trading for Marleau would assume all rights associated with the contract—including the right to claw back signing bonuses.

 

[mouser]

Any contract you sign as a 35 year old or older is locked in as they are not
open for a buyout etc.

You said he would be leaving millions on the table if he was to retire when he is not and 100% he came because of the money how anyone can said he did not is laughable as he was negotiating with San Jose when he signed as well as other teams he choose the offer with the most money period.

We have him 3 year money over two years. My opinion is based on his contract structure as there was no need to structure it that way as you can not buy out 35 plus year old players contracts.

You can buyout 35+ contracts. However if that happens the 35+ rule trumps the buyout cap formula. So the cap hit after buyout would be the remaining AAV and term on the bought out contract. This has happened once or twice before in the league.

 

[diceman934]

To my knowledge the situation hasn’t come up in the NHL before. It has come up in the other major professional leagues though and the standing precedent in those leagues is the player has to pay back a pro-rated portion of the signing bonus if they retire before the contract is complete, or otherwise refuse to fulfill it. I don’t see anything in the CBA suggesting the NHL would act differently.

IMO, if the team holding Marleau’s rights filed a grievance they would most likely be able to claw back his $3m bonus payment in 2019-20. And I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they could claw back $4.83m—1/3rd of the $14.5m in signing bonus money he is schedule to receive in the contract, since he would be refusing to fulfill 1/3rd of the contract.

And it wouldn’t matter which team actually paid the bonus money. A team trading for Marleau would assume all rights associated with the contract—including the right to claw back signing bonuses.

The NHL CBA has no provisions for a claw back of bonus money. Other professional leagues and what happen has no bearing on the NHL CBA at all.

If Toronto Pays the Bonus and then his contact is traded the new team has no right to attemp to claw back anything at all as their is no provision in the CBA that allows this.
The CBA would need to have a provision yo allow such a tactic and it does not. You can not rewrite the CBA and write new things into it to attempt to close loopholes. It would need to be done when the new CBA is being negotiated.

 

[diceman934]

You can buyout 35+ contracts. However if that happens the 35+ rule trumps the buyout cap formula. So the cap hit after buyout would be the remaining AAV and term on the bought out contract. This has happened once or twice before in the league.

Correct the team would have to pay full up The remained money on the contract as well as the team gets no cap relief as the average still counts against the cap for the remaining term of the contract, thus making the contract buyout proof.

 

[mouser]

The NHL CBA has no provisions for a claw back of bonus money. Other professional leagues and what happen has no bearing on the NHL CBA at all.

If Toronto Pays the Bonus and then his contact is traded the new team has no right to attemp to claw back anything at all as their is no provision in the CBA that allows this.
The CBA would need to have a provision yo allow such a tactic and it does not. You can not rewrite the CBA and write new things into it to attempt to close loopholes. It would need to be done when the new CBA is being negotiated.

The CBA doesn’t need to have a clause that signing bonuses can be clawed back. The CBA is silent on whether signing bonuses can be clawed back. Which means that a team can file a grievance requesting the claw back which would then go in front of the independent arbitrator to decide.

It’s not re-writing the CBA. It’s addressing an issue the CBA does not cover. The reason I mention other leagues is that they have been in similar situations where their CBA’s didn’t address the repayment of signing bonuses when a player retires early. One of the most notable cases in the NFL happened with Barry Sanders in 1999. The NFL arbitrator ruled that signing bonuses were implicitly based on the expectation that the player was going to fulfill the terms of the contract they signed, and Sanders ended up repaying a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus.

I don’t see any reason in the NHL CBA why an NHL arbitrator would rule differently.

 

[mouser]

Correct the team would have to pay full up The remained money on the contract as well as the team gets no cap relief as the average still counts against the cap for the remaining term of the contract, thus making the contract buyout proof.

No, they would only have to pay 2/3rds of the remaining salary, per the buyout rules (plus any remaining signing bonuses). The team would have the full cap hit via the 35+ rule though, so no cap relief as you note. Just a savings on salary.

 

[Mess]

The CBA doesn’t need to have a clause that signing bonuses can be clawed back. The CBA is silent on whether signing bonuses can be clawed back. Which means that a team can file a grievance requesting the claw back which would then go in front of the independent arbitrator to decide.

It’s not re-writing the CBA. It’s addressing an issue the CBA does not cover. The reason I mention other leagues is that they have been in similar situations where their CBA’s didn’t address the repayment of signing bonuses when a player retires early. One of the most notable cases in the NFL happened with Barry Sanders in 1999. The NFL arbitrator ruled that signing bonuses were implicitly based on the expectation that the player was going to fulfill the terms of the contract they signed, and Sanders ended up repaying a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus.

I don’t see any reason in the NHL CBA why an NHL arbitrator would rule differently.

Agreed.

Also I could see other teams file a Cap Circumvention grievance against the Leafs with the league, if they believed Leafs/Marleau intentionally signed for 3 years to lower his AAV and only play for 2 years but still get a big fat $3 mil bonus in year 3 to go away magically. That looks and smells bad on the surface as classic cap circumventing tactics, precisely why the NHL has +35 age specific rules of multi-year contracts or all rich teams would sign players for longer term to get cap hit advantages in prior years of aging players.

I also bet in the next CBA that the NHL will close the loophole allowing teams to trade retired contracts of +35 players and force them to eat the full AAV themselves while the player sits in Maui sipping Pina coladas living off of front loaded and signing bonus contracts. This would avoid any possible issues of term or contract signing bonus structure making them irrelevant if your team takes the full cap hit without any other option available to avoid it.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I have been worried a few years now how the whole myth about building through the draft has been destroyed with these contracts handed out to 21 year olds… and im afraid Toronto is about to become example number 1 of what im predicting.

your cap situation right now is horrible and the powers that be are not being honest when they talk about it. this year the cap is 'ok' but only after allowing bozek/jvr/komorov all to set sail... basically the entire vetern depth of the 3rd line. of course no one is crying because Tavares came to town.

but now the team sits at 67 mill cap hit with around 5 mill in performance bonuses that will get earnt. if they sign nylander to a 7 mill salary they will max out {I know that the Horton deal is an ltir so its not completely hopeless}

if they don't win this year though... next year gets scary. Matthews and Marner will be looking at around 18 million in raises. if you replace gardnier and hainsey with elc you can save 5 mill... if you use Horton that's another 5 mill... and if theres not so much performance bonus that might be another 5 mill...

simply signing Matthews/marner/nylander will eat every available dollar and will cost you gardner and hainsey.

and in 2 years maybe marleau will disappear but that wont create any money to sign anyone new... you will need to use that money to sign dermott, kapanen, johnanson

theres NO MONEY to add any improvements. these kids that were drafted will eat up every single penny. the defense will get much worst without hainsey and gardiner. the forward depth will get worst without marleau

something has to be done to get these second term contracts under control. Toronto did everything right... building through the draft... drafting 3-4 very good kids to build with... and now they are doomed to be a 5-6 player team with zero depth

Edmonton is in the same boat... so far Winnipeg has a year or two grace period before it effects them but they will also suffer this same problem.

people say Chicago and Pittsburgh had success but they built their teams 5-6 years ago and further back then that... this is a problem that really only grew out of control the last 2-3 seasons.

lockout 2020 here we come

 

[Not My Tempo]

I have been worried a few years now how the whole myth about building through the draft has been destroyed with these contracts handed out to 21 year olds… and im afraid Toronto is about to become example number 1 of what im predicting.

your cap situation right now is horrible and the powers that be are not being honest when they talk about it. this year the cap is 'ok' but only after allowing bozek/jvr/komorov all to set sail... basically the entire vetern depth of the 3rd line. of course no one is crying because Tavares came to town.

but now the team sits at 67 mill cap hit with around 5 mill in performance bonuses that will get earnt. if they sign nylander to a 7 mill salary they will max out {I know that the Horton deal is an ltir so its not completely hopeless}

if they don't win this year though... next year gets scary. Matthews and Marner will be looking at around 18 million in raises. if you replace gardnier and hainsey with elc you can save 5 mill... if you use Horton that's another 5 mill... and if theres not so much performance bonus that might be another 5 mill...

simply signing Matthews/marner/nylander will eat every available dollar and will cost you gardner and hainsey.

and in 2 years maybe marleau will disappear but that wont create any money to sign anyone new... you will need to use that money to sign dermott, kapanen, johnanson

theres NO MONEY to add any improvements. these kids that were drafted will eat up every single penny. the defense will get much worst without hainsey and gardiner. the forward depth will get worst without marleau

something has to be done to get these second term contracts under control. Toronto did everything right... building through the draft... drafting 3-4 very good kids to build with... and now they are doomed to be a 5-6 player team with zero depth

Edmonton is in the same boat... so far Winnipeg has a year or two grace period before it effects them but they will also suffer this same problem.

people say Chicago and Pittsburgh had success but they built their teams 5-6 years ago and further back then that... this is a problem that really only grew out of control the last 2-3 seasons.

lockout 2020 here we come

The cap went up by 5 Mil last year and the players barely used any of their escalator (I think like 1.2%?) and it was just because of the additional revenue that Vegas brought. And then Seattle is going to come in soon. Lets be very conservative and say all together Tavares, Matthews, Marner and Nylander end up making 40 mil combined next year while he cap increases by 4.5 mil to 84 and we’re in a cap crunch. It’s okay, because we have these guys long term. It’s okay to lose guys like Johnsson, Kapanen, Hyman, Brown etc... replacing those guys is easy. But then next year the cap increases again by 5 mil and the 4 of our stars are still making. 40 mil, but the cap is 89 now. And then the year after that Seattle’s revenues begin taking effect and we have the guys at 40 mil but the cap is 100 mil. The salary cap is only an issue if you want to win next year. But after next years cap crunch we’re going to be in a great position.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

What don't you understand about Marleau's MMC? He certainly isn't retiring if he's playing well and has a chance for a Cup. If he doesn't retire, he isn't going to a bottom feeder. So he's a Leaf and so is his cap hit.

What don't you understand about you not "certainly" knowing anything?

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

What don't you understand about you not "certainly" knowing anything?

It a certain fact many Leafs fans have a wet dream that Marleau will retire so these these fans can make their fantasy rosters with 6.25m more cap space. Certainly I know about about wishful thinking FANATICS.