Around the League 2018-2019 Part 3

[Brodeur]

Still digesting the deal from Toronto's end, but as best as I can understand it:

Vegas: Opens up cap space and now they'd be cap complaint, but they'll still need to carve out more room to re-sign Gusev.

Toronto: More or less concede that they won't sign Marner by opening night? After opening night, Clarkson/Horton can be LTIR'd which opens up 10+ mil to put towards Marner.

From the main board, there's understandable confusion why it cost the Leafs a 1st rounder to dump Marleau's 6.25 mil cap hit while it only cost a 4th for Vegas to dump Clarkson's 5.25. Marleau's deal needed to be bought out which cost Carolina 3.83 mil in actual money. There weren't many teams with cap space and an owner willing to essentially buy a (late) 1st rounder for the money.

Clarkson's deal appears to only have a million dollars remaining. If his insurance coverage is like Marian Hossa's, the team is only responsible for about 20%. So in essence, Clarkson only costs about $200,000. Oddly enough, Toronto actually slashes payroll by sending Garret Sparks ($750,00) the other way too.

Toronto will probably do some more salary cap gymnastics to get under the cap for opening night. I remember the Devils 2006-07 opening night roster had some Czech D that none of us had ever heard of, but it ended up just being a paper transaction.

 

[YP44]

Still digesting the deal from Toronto's end, but as best as I can understand it:

Vegas: Opens up cap space and now they'd be cap complaint, but they'll still need to carve out more room to re-sign Gusev.

Toronto: More or less concede that they won't sign Marner by opening night? After opening night, Clarkson/Horton can be LTIR'd which opens up 10+ mil to put towards Marner.

From the main board, there's understandable confusion why it cost the Leafs a 1st rounder to dump Marleau's 6.25 mil cap hit while it only cost a 4th for Vegas to dump Clarkson's 5.25. Marleau's deal needed to be bought out which cost Carolina 3.83 mil in actual money. There weren't many teams with cap space and an owner willing to essentially buy a (late) 1st rounder for the money.

Clarkson's deal appears to only have a million dollars remaining. If his insurance coverage is like Marian Hossa's, the team is only responsible for about 20%. So in essence, Clarkson only costs about $200,000. Oddly enough, Toronto actually slashes payroll by sending Garret Sparks ($750,00) the other way too.

Toronto will probably do some more salary cap gymnastics to get under the cap for opening night. I remember the Devils 2006-07 opening night roster had some Czech D that none of us had ever heard of, but it ended up just being a paper transaction.

There was a good breakdown on the athletic that dumbed it down. Basically it was in order to use the most LTIR amount as possible.

 

[crassbonanza]

Toronto: More or less concede that they won't sign Marner by opening night? After opening night, Clarkson/Horton can be LTIR'd which opens up 10+ mil to put towards Marner.

I think the big thing is that it doesn't put pressure on the the Leafs to sign Marner prior to the season beginning. They now can choose either LTIR option to fit Marner under the cap, so the Marner camp loses a bit of leverage.

 

[kovacro]

Can't believe that trade crashed the boards. It was constant "error 520" messages until this morning for me.

f***ing Leafs Nation.

"It's complicated, but basically if a RFA doesn't sign before the start of the season, their cap hit for that season is prorated. The Maple Leafs had to deal with that last season with William Nylander, who had a $10.28 million cap hit for 2018-19 because he didn't sign until Dec. 1, but his cap hit for the rest of his contract is $6,962,366. That was fine for Toronto last season because they had the cap space to spare, but they don't next season, so if Marner wasn't signed before the start of the regular season, Toronto would have had difficulty signing him at all. Getting Clarkson, combined with Nathan Horton's contract, helps fix that problem weirdly enough because it allows the Leafs to basically use LTIRs to give themselves around $10.5 million in added flexibility after the season starts. With just Horton that wasn't possible because the Leafs couldn't get close enough to the ceiling to get the full LTIR benefits. This is all moot if Marner signs before the season starts."

via rotoworld & Toronto Sun

Getting Clarkson’s contract could solve Leafs’ Marner dilemma

 

[The Tikkanen]

We are officially in the capologist era of the NHL.

 

[kilowatt]

We are officially in the capologist era of the NHL.

The darkest timeline indeed.

 

[kingsholygrail]

It feels fishy that they do this with LTIR, but at the same time it's not like they're getting extra space. It just feels like they are.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The spirit of LTIR has been abused for a long time.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Can't wait to read all the "Dubas is such a genius" takes for adding dead cap because he couldn't overpay his RFA in time.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The sooner the league moves toward 4/5 max year contracts, the sooner all these LTIRetirement contracts will cease to exist.

 

[The Tikkanen]

The sooner the league moves toward 4/5 max year contracts, the sooner all these LTIRetirement contracts will cease to exist.

Probably needs to go to an age based sliding scale. Guys in their early 20's can produce over the life of a 7 year deal. Guys approaching or over 30 cannot, the closer you are to 30 the shorter the max deal should be. Unless of course you want to allow PED's into the game in which case guys will be able to produce until their early 40's.

 

[crassbonanza]

The sooner the league moves toward 4/5 max year contracts, the sooner all these LTIRetirement contracts will cease to exist.

It's funny you say that because the NBA went that direction and now regrets it. There are discussions regarding trying to extend the contract length, but the NBAPA came out publicly against that potentially happening. With the 4/5 max year contracts you don't get to take advantage of the cap rising every season nearly as much. It also contributes to players changing teams constantly and teams are suffering from the constant movement and lack of identity. I don't know why in the hell fans would be against long contracts, they benefit the team way more often than not. It's kind of crazy to me.

 

[KINGS17]

It's funny you say that because the NBA went that direction and now regrets it. There are discussions regarding trying to extend the contract length, but the NBAPA came out publicly against that potentially happening. With the 4/5 max year contracts you don't get to take advantage of the cap rising every season nearly as much. It also contributes to players changing teams constantly and teams are suffering from the constant movement and lack of identity. I don't know why in the hell fans would be against long contracts, they benefit the team way more often than not. It's kind of crazy to me.

I am fine with long term contracts, if you can cut players no longer performing to the standards required by such a contract with a large cap hit.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

It's funny you say that because the NBA went that direction and now regrets it. There are discussions regarding trying to extend the contract length, but the NBAPA came out publicly against that potentially happening. With the 4/5 max year contracts you don't get to take advantage of the cap rising every season nearly as much. It also contributes to players changing teams constantly and teams are suffering from the constant movement and lack of identity. I don't know why in the hell fans would be against long contracts, they benefit the team way more often than not. It's kind of crazy to me.

Short term contracts allow much more fluid roster changeover year to year. It would also create situations where truly bonafide stars hit UFA. Otherwise you have the league we have now - where future champions are more or less decided with ping pong balls on lottery day.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect system. Like K17, I don’t hate long term deals. But teams need to be able to rid themselves of these deals if a player underperforms, be it unlimited CBOs, non-guaranteed contracts or otherwise.

And no, “GMs just need to be smarter” is not the answer. GMs will never stop signing players to these deals. It’s a competitive league, and one idiot GM will poison the well for the entire market.

 

[crassbonanza]

I am fine with long term contracts, if you can cut players no longer performing to the standards required by such a contract with a large cap hit.

The problem is the player has to agree to these contracts, it will never be as easy as just cutting any contract because you feel like it. Even the NFL is full of guaranteed contracts and half of the league is sitting on dead cap from cutting players.

The ideal league you are talking about is one in which the players inherit all of the risk and will never exist.

 

[damacles1156]

If the league is insistent on having guaranteed contracts, then the max term has to come down to 4/5 years. GM's need to save themselves from themselves.

 

[damacles1156]

The problem is the player has to agree to these contracts, it will never be as easy as just cutting any contract because you feel like it. Even the NFL is full of guaranteed contracts and half of the league is sitting on dead cap from cutting players.

The ideal league you are talking about is one in which the players inherit all of the risk and will never exist.

The NFL does not have full guaranteed contracts. It's a modified structure with only (Certain guarantees) mainly having to do with Bonus money. At least that is what their CBA outlines. There are a lot of modifiers in it, but full blown guaranteed contracts do not exist in the NFL currently.

 

[crassbonanza]

Short term contracts allow much more fluid roster changeover year to year. It would also create situations where truly bonafide stars hit UFA. Otherwise you have the league we have now - where future champions are more or less decided with ping pong balls on lottery day.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect system. Like K17, I don’t hate long term deals. But teams need to be able to rid themselves of these deals if a player underperforms, be it unlimited CBOs, non-guaranteed contracts or otherwise.

And no, “GMs just need to be smarter” is not the answer. GMs will never stop signing players to these deals. It’s a competitive league, and one idiot GM will poison the well for the entire market.

Short term contracts means that GM's can not lock in players at known cap hits and plan accordingly. They do results in more roster turnover and that is a bad thing in my opinion. The NBA is a perfect example, players are just moving teams constantly and there is no growth or development of players. Name a league where teams can rid themselves of a deal if the player underperforms?

Underpeforming players and players outplaying their contracts is a part of the game.

 

[crassbonanza]

The NFL does not have full guaranteed contracts. It's a modified structure with only (Certain guarantees) mainly having to do with Bonus money. At least that is what their CBA outlines. There are a lot of modifiers in it, but full blow guaranteed contracts do not exist in the NFL currently.

I'm not sure what you mean by there not being any fully guaranteed contracts. Are you saying that they are prohibited? Because half of the 1st round is guaranteed their whole contract, so I'm confused how that can be.

Anyways, my point was that even in the NFL you can't just get out of contracts whenever you want. Just look at Gurley and the mess that is his contract.

 

[Scottkmlps]

How the **** does a Clarkson for Sparks deal crash HF Boards? Better yet, how does said deal get a thread that has climbed up to 31 pages?

 

[damacles1156]

I'm not sure what you mean by there not being any fully guaranteed contracts. Are you saying that they are prohibited? Because half of the 1st round is guaranteed their whole contract, so I'm confused how that can be.

Anyways, my point was that even in the NFL you can't just get out of contracts whenever you want. Just look at Gurley and the mess that is his contract.

NFL teams can get out of contracts.


I'll try and summarize.

Each contract signed in the NFL has a certain amount of (Guaranteed money) That is pretty much all the NFL team is legally responsible to pay if the player remains on the roster in playing order....

What did I just say there, I'll bold it again.
NFL team is legally resposible to pay if the player remains on the roster in playing order....

That matters, cause if the player is cut or no longer on the roster....Goodbye salary. It's why Free agents in the NFL try and get A LOT of bonus money up front. The Contracts are ridiculously front loaded.

Also don't confuse (Salary) and (Bonus, or Guaranteed money) Those are separate things in an NFL contract.

It's why NFL teams cut older expensive players to save (Salary) money on their cap.

That's the best way I can describe it.

 

[King'sPawn]

If the league is insistent on having guaranteed contracts, then the max term has to come down to 4/5 years. GM's need to save themselves from themselves.

I was a big proponent of 5 year contracts only before 6+ started being handed out like candy. I've accepted it as a necessary evil for now, but would love to have 5 year max contracts.

 

[crassbonanza]

NFL teams can get out of contracts.


I'll try and summarize.

Each contract signed in the NFL has a certain amount of (Guaranteed money) That is pretty much all the NFL team is legally responsible to pay if the player remains on the roster in playing order....

What did I just say there, I'll bold it again.
NFL team is legally resposible to pay if the player remains on the roster in playing order....

That matters, cause if the player is cut or no longer on the roster....Goodbye salary. It's why Free agents in the NFL try and get A LOT of bonus money up front. The Contracts are ridiculously front loaded.

That's the best way I can describe it.

Go look up the Kirk Cousins contract, because it seems to completely counter what you are writing here. Players sign contracts and in those contracts the amount guaranteed is agreed to. You can not cut a player due to poor performance and get out of guaranteed contracts.

 

[damacles1156]

Go look up the Kirk Cousins contract, because it seems to completely counter what you are writing here. Players sign contracts and in those contracts the amount guaranteed is agreed to. You can not cut a player due to poor performance and get out of guaranteed contracts.

You can cut the player and get out of his Salary portion, not Guaranteed money or bonus.

NFL teams Cut players all the time due to salary concerns and performance concerns.

If NFL teams were not allowed to do so, the league would have folded decades ago or got rid of the Salary cap due to injured or under performing players still on their books.

Again, why do you think NFL contracts are massively front loaded and laced with Bonus money.

 

[crassbonanza]

You can cut the player and get out of his Salary portion, not Guaranteed money or bonus.

Exactly, so there are full blown guaranteed contracts and nearly all contracts have some guaranteed portion. Meaning for most cases(essentially any contract that you would even be worried about) you can not simply get out of a contract whenever you want to without any cap penalties.

Gurley for example has 45 of his 60 million guaranteed, including 20 million in signing bonuses. The Rams are going have to deal with the cap ramifications of that 45 million whether he is on the team or not.

The NFL is also the only league without guaranteed contracts, every other major league has full guarantees.