Brian Burke's involvement in the new CBA

[New Liskeard]

As details emerge as to what the new CBA landscape will look like, it seems various suggestions and concerns by Burke and management have been incorporated in this new CBA.

- Trading of cap space
Burke has mentioned before , there is very little trading in the NHL, due to the cap and financial commitments. Having the ability to take on cap, and trade cap would increase activity

-Long term cap circumvention contracts
Burke has been long criticized by many posters here, for not being willing to hand out long term cap circumvention contracts. Through this new CBA, contract length and cap hit are capped, and it seems some teams will be penalized should their own players not play out their contract years and retire.

The Leafs and MLSE look to be in good shape in the new CBA landscape moving forward.

Click to read more...

 

[onebighockeyfan]

As details emerge as to what the new CBA landscape will look like, it seems various suggestions and concerns by Burke and management have been incorporated in this new CBA.

- Trading of cap space
Burke has mentioned before , there is very little trading in the NHL, due to the cap and financial commitments. Having the ability to take on cap, and trade cap would increase activity

-Long term cap circumvention contracts
Burke has been long criticized by many posters here, for not being willing to hand out long term cap circumvention contracts. Through this new CBA, contract length and cap hit are capped, and it seems some teams will be penalized should their own players not play out their contract years and retire.

The Leafs and MLSE look to be in good shape in the new CBA landscape moving forward.

With two compliance by-outs, most teams with $ are good shape. Leafs have Liles, Grabo and JVR signed in 2014-2015. No wonder they have cap space...

 

[Joey Hoser]

The bit about the long-term cap circumventing contracts would look better on Burke if the guilty teams were punished in some way with the new CBA so his avoidence of those deals would be a positive in some way. I guess he still gets the moral high-ground, but I can hardly care.

 

[BeLeafer11]

The bit about the long-term cap circumventing contracts would look better on Burke if the guilty teams were punished in some way with the new CBA so his avoidence of those deals would be a positive in some way. I guess he still gets the moral high-ground, but I can hardly care.

If there is any truth to the talk that the original team would retain their cap hit if the player retires, I'd say that is a pretty big punishment.

 

[Kirkpatrick]

If there is any truth to the talk that the original team would retain their cap hit if the player retires, I'd say that is a pretty big punishment.

Repost from the Siegel thread:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

"Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

Mirtle's old piece on the proposed formula.

Basically, when a player retires with term left on his 6+ year contract, the team is charged a cap hit for those years equal to the amount of cap space they saved during the contract.

His example was Parise/Suter, if one retired three years early, the Wild would have saved $18.6M over the course of the contract, so they would get a $6.2M cap hit for the next three years.

Those were the details from the December proposal, we'll have to see how exactly it's set up for the CBA.

 

[Mowerman]

Yes sir. Burke was working with the league during negotiations (at least in some capacity during certain points) which makes sense due to his history with the league and background in law.

Burke was also not alone with his disdain for cap-circumventing contracts. Many teams (for sure the majority) in the league did follow the rules and didn't abuse these loopholes to gain an unethical advantage. There was momentum from more than just Toronto for there to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts and to not simply remove the loopholes and grandfather these contracts in, that there needed to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts in order to level the playing field so to speak. So when Minnesota signed Parise and Suter they should have fully well known the potential consequences of their actions going forwards into a new CBA if they were even remotely competent. I have to say, it's pretty lame for Nashville (we will have to see the fine print if any of these even makes it past ratification, it was on the table but who knows).

Much of Toronto's inability to really land any of the big free agent guys like a Brad Richards was because of Burke's foresight into the landscape that the new CBA was likely to set out. If the league even partially got their way a Richards, Parise, Suter, or Luongo contract (bs on Luongo being a Leaf with his contract) are quite simply terrible to have on the books going forwards. Burke has set out some pretty clear "stages" of development and improvement for the team and unlike last time set Toronto up with lots of flexibility, cap space, and a mostly clean sheet going into the new CBA. He's prepared ahead of time while a lot of teams haven't exactly been so competent in this regard. Time will tell how valuable this actually is, but he has prepared us.

There's obviously plenty of good and bad with Burke's time here in Toronto (and this forum seems to be an effective groupthink focusing on and even creating the bad from thin air), but this is pretty much undeniably one of his good moments. He's really prepared us to make a splash and be in a good place under the new CBA. In many senses he's set the franchise up for success under the new legislation for the league. We'll see what the Leafs do with it now, because that's what counts at the end of the day.

 

[Mowerman]

Repost from the Siegel thread:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

"Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

Mirtle's old piece on the proposed formula.

Basically, when a player retires with term left on his 6+ year contract, the team is charged a cap hit for those years equal to the amount of cap space they saved during the contract.

His example was Parise/Suter, if one retired three years early, the Wild would have saved $18.6M over the course of the contract, so they would get a $6.2M cap hit for the next three years.

Those were the details from the December proposal, we'll have to see how exactly it's set up for the CBA.

Or if it is set up at all. This is why Luongo was never coming to Toronto and why the value Vancouver is looking for is completely off base. It's been very interesting to see how the media has been so effective at ignoring this aspect of the CBA considering the significant repercussions of the legislation if it comes into being.

 

[Rockinz]

Its no secret Burke is buds with Gary and had his ear on many cap related issues.

Just call him Brian "The Godfather" Burke

 

[Kirkpatrick]

Or if it is set up at all. This is why Luongo was never coming to Toronto and why the value Vancouver is looking for is completely off base. It's been very interesting to see how the media has been so effective at ignoring this aspect of the CBA considering the significant repercussions of the legislation if it comes into being.

Yeah, until I saw Mirtle mention it this morning I didn't think it had made it in. I guess it's not that interesting or relevant to the general fan compared to the meatier stuff, but I would think someone else would be mentioning it. I want to see how it all ends up!

 

[Leafs For Life*]

Are we able to trade cap space now?? Heard a 5M limit, but didn't know they included it if they did.

 

[Epictetus]

He's prepared ahead of time while a lot of teams haven't exactly been so competent in this regard. Time will tell how valuable this actually is, but he has prepared us.

This is the only thing that matters. So the rest of your post, built on the position that Burke has prepared the Leafs, is irrelevant if he does not effectively act on this so-called ''advantage'' (I hesitate to call it an advantage since we do not know the full ratification of the new CBA yet, though at the very least there is no way it'd be a bad thing for the Leafs).

Cap space is a lovely thing to have, just like money. Both have numerous possibilities and are symbolic, however, they become worthless if not acted upon. And for Brian Burke, this could mean his job.

Or if it is set up at all. This is why Luongo was never coming to Toronto and why the value Vancouver is looking for is completely off base. It's been very interesting to see how the media has been so effective at ignoring this aspect of the CBA considering the significant repercussions of the legislation if it comes into being.

Your assessment of Luongo is spot on, though I do think it's possible to suggest that Luongo does become a Leaf. I think there is a slim chance that Vancouver uses their amnesty provision on him after they realize how poor the trade market is for him. Remember, they have the next two years to use this provision. The Leafs, as well as other teams, will then be able to work out a deal and the Canucks will pay the difference instead of his entire salary.

At the very least though, it's almost fair to say that Luongo will not be a Leaf this season. Or, if the Leafs have to trade for him. Maybe if it's for Liles straight up.

Are we able to trade cap space now?? Heard a 5M limit, but didn't know they included it if they did.

How exactly is trading cap space suppose to work? I am just curious.

 

[Evileye]

Yes sir. Burke was working with the league during negotiations (at least in some capacity during certain points) which makes sense due to his history with the league and background in law.

Burke was also not alone with his disdain for cap-circumventing contracts. Many teams (for sure the majority) in the league did follow the rules and didn't abuse these loopholes to gain an unethical advantage. There was momentum from more than just Toronto for there to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts and to not simply remove the loopholes and grandfather these contracts in, that there needed to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts in order to level the playing field so to speak. So when Minnesota signed Parise and Suter they should have fully well known the potential consequences of their actions going forwards into a new CBA if they were even remotely competent. I have to say, it's pretty lame for Nashville (we will have to see the fine print if any of these even makes it past ratification, it was on the table but who knows).

Much of Toronto's inability to really land any of the big free agent guys like a Brad Richards was because of Burke's foresight into the landscape that the new CBA was likely to set out. If the league even partially got their way a Richards, Parise, Suter, or Luongo contract (bs on Luongo being a Leaf with his contract) are quite simply terrible to have on the books going forwards. Burke has set out some pretty clear "stages" of development and improvement for the team and unlike last time set Toronto up with lots of flexibility, cap space, and a mostly clean sheet going into the new CBA. He's prepared ahead of time while a lot of teams haven't exactly been so competent in this regard. Time will tell how valuable this actually is, but he has prepared us.

There's obviously plenty of good and bad with Burke's time here in Toronto (and this forum seems to be an effective groupthink focusing on and even creating the bad from thin air), but this is pretty much undeniably one of his good moments. He's really prepared us to make a splash and be in a good place under the new CBA. In many senses he's set the franchise up for success under the new legislation for the league. We'll see what the Leafs do with it now, because that's what counts at the end of the day.

I really hope Burke sticks to his guns regarding those contracts and refuses to trade for Luongo based on his contract, because I definitely don't want that liability, or give up the assets required. The Leafs also do not have a good track record of trading young assets for a goalie...

 

[Mowerman]

Yeah, until I saw Mirtle mention it this morning I didn't think it had made it in. I guess it's not that interesting or relevant to the general fan compared to the meatier stuff, but I would think someone else would be mentioning it. I want to see how it all ends up!

Eh, I'm sure it's much more relevant to the average fan than player pensions for example.

I didn't realise Mirtle mentioned it this morning. That bodes well for sure, especially as Siegel was hinting at it as well in that Leafs CBA article. I've been talking about this since last summer so I'm pretty excited to see what actually ends up happening to say the least.

 

[FelixPotvin29]

Well everyone... Burke was right! Sure glad we don't have Kovy or Richards or whoever on a terrible retirement contract.

 

[false bobo]

Yes sir. Burke was working with the league during negotiations (at least in some capacity during certain points) which makes sense due to his history with the league and background in law.

Burke was also not alone with his disdain for cap-circumventing contracts. Many teams (for sure the majority) in the league did follow the rules and didn't abuse these loopholes to gain an unethical advantage. There was momentum from more than just Toronto for there to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts and to not simply remove the loopholes and grandfather these contracts in, that there needed to be legitimate restrictions on these contracts in order to level the playing field so to speak. So when Minnesota signed Parise and Suter they should have fully well known the potential consequences of their actions going forwards into a new CBA if they were even remotely competent. I have to say, it's pretty lame for Nashville (we will have to see the fine print if any of these even makes it past ratification, it was on the table but who knows).

Much of Toronto's inability to really land any of the big free agent guys like a Brad Richards was because of Burke's foresight into the landscape that the new CBA was likely to set out. If the league even partially got their way a Richards, Parise, Suter, or Luongo contract (bs on Luongo being a Leaf with his contract) are quite simply terrible to have on the books going forwards. Burke has set out some pretty clear "stages" of development and improvement for the team and unlike last time set Toronto up with lots of flexibility, cap space, and a mostly clean sheet going into the new CBA. He's prepared ahead of time while a lot of teams haven't exactly been so competent in this regard. Time will tell how valuable this actually is, but he has prepared us.

There's obviously plenty of good and bad with Burke's time here in Toronto (and this forum seems to be an effective groupthink focusing on and even creating the bad from thin air), but this is pretty much undeniably one of his good moments. He's really prepared us to make a splash and be in a good place under the new CBA. In many senses he's set the franchise up for success under the new legislation for the league. We'll see what the Leafs do with it now, because that's what counts at the end of the day.

Great post.

 

[ULF_55]

Well everyone... Burke was right! Sure glad we don't have Kovy or Richards or whoever on a terrible retirement contract.

So were about 18 other GM's.

But as everyone has already discovered the signing team is not completely on the hook for a retirement deal, only the amount they benefited during his time on their team. The retiring team is on the hook for the benefit they received during his time there.

Discussed elsewhere but this permeates so much of the business.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

 

[4evaBlue]

Repost from the Siegel thread:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

"Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

Mirtle's old piece on the proposed formula.

Basically, when a player retires with term left on his 6+ year contract, the team is charged a cap hit for those years equal to the amount of cap space they saved during the contract.

His example was Parise/Suter, if one retired three years early, the Wild would have saved $18.6M over the course of the contract, so they would get a $6.2M cap hit for the next three years.

Those were the details from the December proposal, we'll have to see how exactly it's set up for the CBA.

I have to say, if this is all the punishment they get, I'm a bit disappointed. Most of them won't even happen until the next CBA is negotiated. Who knows what will happen by then, and where the cap will be?

I would have loved to see the average cap hit being eliminated for the 6+ year contracts, and have the actual salary count as a cap hit. $24M tied up in Parise and Sutter for 2013-14, have fun filling the 21 roster slots with the remaining $40M.

 

[Sonny21]

One loophole I read on twitter, teams can put players on long term injury since they're caps won't count during season.

I mean both gm and player /agent would have to go along with it. Who knows if they would.

Although nhl could then look into them case by case to see if they're bs or not, who knows.

 

[ULF_55]

One loophole I read on twitter, teams can put players on long term injury since they're caps won't count during season.

I mean both gm and player /agent would have to go along with it. Who knows if they would.

Although nhl could then look into them case by case to see if they're bs or not, who knows.

Yes, heard Flyers are free and clear of Pronger. We won't know for sure but ...

And Capgeek is now running with the 64.3 cap hit for year 2.

 

[New Liskeard]

One loophole I read on twitter, teams can put players on long term injury since they're caps won't count during season.

I mean both gm and player /agent would have to go along with it. Who knows if they would.

Although nhl could then look into them case by case to see if they're bs or not, who knows.

I highly doubt a team/player would persue that avenue. It would be extremely frowned upon and likely penalized. I also have a hard time seeing a professional athelete willing sit out of hockey and not play to appease the team that can't manage his cap hit.

 

[FelixPotvin29]

So were about 18 other GM's.

Yeah but none of them were heavily criticized for it.

 

[cyris]

The bit about the long-term cap circumventing contracts would look better on Burke if the guilty teams were punished in some way with the new CBA so his avoidence of those deals would be a positive in some way. I guess he still gets the moral high-ground, but I can hardly care.

They are.
Any cap space saved by those deals will have to be paid back in a cap penalty after the player retires.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/new-cba-doesnt-hurt-roberto-luongo.html

 

[cyris]

One loophole I read on twitter, teams can put players on long term injury since they're caps won't count during season.

I mean both gm and player /agent would have to go along with it. Who knows if they would.

Although nhl could then look into them case by case to see if they're bs or not, who knows.

Do you think Burke the most vocal critic of those contracts and the guy who pushed for the cap recapture clause would do that?

 

[Sonny21]

Do you think Burke the most vocal critic of those contracts and the guy who pushed for the cap recapture clause would do that?

Who said anything about Burke? I was just stating one possibility in the new cba regardless of realistic or not.

On top of that, you really think Burke will still be the gm here around when Luongo would prob retire?

 

[cyris]

Who said anything about Burke? I was just stating one possibility in the new cba regardless of realistic or not.

On top of that, you really think Burke will still be the gm here around when Luongo would prob retire?

Burke might not be the GM when Luongo retires but he will be the GM when Lu gets traded no matter where he goes in the next few weeks. And he wont look at LTIR as a way to avoid the cap penalty if he is the one to acquire him.