Confirmed with Link: [TOR/DAL] Leafs acquire rights to Chris Tanev for Max Ellis, 2026 7th rd selection

[Suntouchable13]

I mean, he will be 36 and more beat up during the 2026 playoffs once the Leafs finally rid themselves of Marner and JT. This is a dumb signing. It’s been proven over 8 years with this core that they don’t have “it” no matter who is around them. We can very safely predict another 1st round exit. I don’t think any of these additions, or the new coach, make it more likely for us to go far with this team. So you’re already wasted Tanev’s 35 year old season, and he will just continue to decline after that.

 

[Puckstuff]

I think Rielly-Tanev can be about as effective as Forsling-Ekblad. There might not be a true elite #1 but combined Rielly-Tanev has the potential to be one of the better top pairs.

 

[ULF_55]

Oh god ….. why?? He’s 34 FFS

Less than half my age ... hoping he has good genes and 70 is the new 55 ...

If he can make 3 years in the top 4, I'm okay.

 

[hockeywiz542]

Chris Tanev's Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules - The Hockey Writers Latest News, Analysis & More

The Toronto Maple Leafs may be guilty of signing an older player to a contract he might not finish, but did they really do anything wrong?

thehockeywriters.com

Chris Tanev’s Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules

July 30, 2024

by Jim Parsons

The Toronto Maple Leafs’ recent deal involving Chris Tanev has stirred up questions about the NHL’s Long-Term Injured Reserve (LTIR) rules. In a recent mailbag post, The Athletic’s Eric Duhatschek was asked if the NHL might ever revisit the use of LTIR, especially for older players who are signed to contracts that virtually guarantee they won’t play them out. When it comes to Toronto, many believe Tanev will end his career on LTIR, effectively allowing the Leafs to circumvent the salary cap. Should this be allowed?

While the debate around LTIR rules is valid, using the Tanev deal as a trigger for change overlooks a long history of teams exploiting this loophole.

What are the Maple Leafs Guilty Of?

Technically, the Maple Leafs aren’t guilty of anything. There is no hard and fast rule about doing what Toronto did, which was to sign an older player to a contract they might not see all the way through.

Duhatschek writes that teams who knowingly sign players well past their best-before date do so because that’s sometimes the cost of doing business. For the Maple Leafs, Tanev was an in-demand UFA and they wanted the player. They made a six-year pitch to him at the age of 34 years old, knowing that with the way he plays and his injury history, he is unlikely to make it as an NHLer to the age of 40.

If they were thinking along those lines when the deal was signed, the organization was comfortable with the trade-off.

 

[mclaren55]

Chris Tanev's Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules - The Hockey Writers Latest News, Analysis & More

The Toronto Maple Leafs may be guilty of signing an older player to a contract he might not finish, but did they really do anything wrong?

thehockeywriters.com

Chris Tanev’s Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules

July 30, 2024

by Jim Parsons

The Toronto Maple Leafs’ recent deal involving Chris Tanev has stirred up questions about the NHL’s Long-Term Injured Reserve (LTIR) rules. In a recent mailbag post, The Athletic’s Eric Duhatschek was asked if the NHL might ever revisit the use of LTIR, especially for older players who are signed to contracts that virtually guarantee they won’t play them out. When it comes to Toronto, many believe Tanev will end his career on LTIR, effectively allowing the Leafs to circumvent the salary cap. Should this be allowed?

While the debate around LTIR rules is valid, using the Tanev deal as a trigger for change overlooks a long history of teams exploiting this loophole.

What are the Maple Leafs Guilty Of?

Technically, the Maple Leafs aren’t guilty of anything. There is no hard and fast rule about doing what Toronto did, which was to sign an older player to a contract they might not see all the way through.

Duhatschek writes that teams who knowingly sign players well past their best-before date do so because that’s sometimes the cost of doing business. For the Maple Leafs, Tanev was an in-demand UFA and they wanted the player. They made a six-year pitch to him at the age of 34 years old, knowing that with the way he plays and his injury history, he is unlikely to make it as an NHLer to the age of 40.

If they were thinking along those lines when the deal was signed, the organization was comfortable with the trade-off.

Yea they can't really do shit to the Leafs right now though, as they haven't done anything that contradicts current NHL and NHLPA rules/guidelines. Bettman can be as upset as he wants to be, but he can do f*** all right now.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yea they can't really do shit to the Leafs right now though, as they haven't done anything that contradicts current NHL and NHLPA rules/guidelines. Bettman can be as upset as he wants to be, but he can do f*** all right now.

Now isn't the issue though (unless we really screwed up). A few years in is the issue, and there's already talk about LTIR rules being altered in the next CBA. This idea that we'd just simply force Tanev and OEL on LTIR at our convenience was always a fantasy to avoid acknowledging the risk that comes with these moves, but worse, we don't even know what the legal options will be by the time we need it.

 

[Menzinger]

Yea they can't really do shit to the Leafs right now though, as they haven't done anything that contradicts current NHL and NHLPA rules/guidelines. Bettman can be as upset as he wants to be, but he can do f*** all right now.

Yep. "He probably will be injured eventually" isn't anywhere near good enough to question things because it can't be proven even though it's admittedly likely. They already have set 35 as the age in which special rules apply, and he's younger than that.

To single this out would be absurd

 

[ULF_55]

Now isn't the issue though (unless we really screwed up). A few years in is the issue, and there's already talk about LTIR rules being altered in the next CBA. This idea that we'd just simply force Tanev and OEL on LTIR at our convenience was always a fantasy to avoid acknowledging the risk that comes with these moves, but worse, we don't even know what the legal options will be by the time we need it.

They won't retroactively change the rules.

An option is likely, grandfathering in the clauses on existing contracts.
Medical evidence is medical evidence.
Medical evidence won't be impacted by non-medical bureaurocrats.

Or perhaps they'll strip VGK their Cup?

 

[mclaren55]

Now isn't the issue though (unless we really screwed up). A few years in is the issue, and there's already talk about LTIR rules being altered in the next CBA. This idea that we'd just simply force Tanev and OEL on LTIR at our convenience was always a fantasy to avoid acknowledging the risk that comes with these moves, but worse, we don't even know what the legal options will be by the time we need it.

As pointed out by other posters, to retroactively punish the Leafs for bending the rules that plenty of other clubs have, would be ridiculous. Sure, he can change the rules during the next CBA, but that won't likely effect current contracts. It will just effect future contracts from the date of the approved CBA.

 

[Stephen]

Chris Tanev's Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules - The Hockey Writers Latest News, Analysis & More

The Toronto Maple Leafs may be guilty of signing an older player to a contract he might not finish, but did they really do anything wrong?

thehockeywriters.com

Chris Tanev’s Iffy Contract Sparks Debate About NHL LTIR Rules

July 30, 2024

by Jim Parsons

The Toronto Maple Leafs’ recent deal involving Chris Tanev has stirred up questions about the NHL’s Long-Term Injured Reserve (LTIR) rules. In a recent mailbag post, The Athletic’s Eric Duhatschek was asked if the NHL might ever revisit the use of LTIR, especially for older players who are signed to contracts that virtually guarantee they won’t play them out. When it comes to Toronto, many believe Tanev will end his career on LTIR, effectively allowing the Leafs to circumvent the salary cap. Should this be allowed?

While the debate around LTIR rules is valid, using the Tanev deal as a trigger for change overlooks a long history of teams exploiting this loophole.

What are the Maple Leafs Guilty Of?

Technically, the Maple Leafs aren’t guilty of anything. There is no hard and fast rule about doing what Toronto did, which was to sign an older player to a contract they might not see all the way through.

Duhatschek writes that teams who knowingly sign players well past their best-before date do so because that’s sometimes the cost of doing business. For the Maple Leafs, Tanev was an in-demand UFA and they wanted the player. They made a six-year pitch to him at the age of 34 years old, knowing that with the way he plays and his injury history, he is unlikely to make it as an NHLer to the age of 40.

If they were thinking along those lines when the deal was signed, the organization was comfortable with the trade-off.

Yeah let’s Minority Report the Leafs for signing an older player with the premeditated thought that they can use CBA negotiated mechanisms 6 years down the line to get out of a cap situation.

Well done Gary, you control freak. Way to go spending all your summer days dreaming up ways to punish your highest paying customer base in 2030.

 

[HockeyVirus]

Yep. "He probably will be injured eventually" isn't anywhere near good enough to question things because it can't be proven even though it's admittedly likely. They already have set 35 as the age in which special rules apply, and he's younger than that.

To single this out would be absurd

Not the first time they let things go and then decide to change it when the Leafs do it

 

[Stephen]

You’d never a team like the Chicago Blackhawks get in trouble for overpaying veterans like Foligno and Perry to “upset the competitive balance and skew the market” or accused of behaving in a non cap normative way.

 

[notbias]

Yeah let’s Minority Report the Leafs for signing an older player with the premeditated thought that they can use CBA negotiated mechanisms 6 years down the line to get out of a cap situation.

Well done Gary, you control freak. Way to go spending all your summer days dreaming up ways to punish your highest paying customer base in 2030.

In the signing thread, many people are reassuring others that this contract is not too long because they will LTIR him, the league thinking the same should not shock people, it is obvious.

I hope there are no rule changes in the next 6 years that change how LTIR is being abused, but before this signing I wanted them to close the loopholes teams were using, now I'd like nothing to change.

I also don't think changes will happen, but this contract was meant to be LTIR'd at some point.

 

[Stephen]

In the signing thread, many people are reassuring others that this contract is not too long because they will LTIR him, the league thinking the same should not shock people, it is obvious.

I hope there are no rule changes in the next 6 years that change how LTIR is being abused, but before this signing I wanted them to close the loopholes teams were using, now I'd like nothing to change.

I also don't think changes will happen, but this contract was meant to be LTIR'd at some point.

You could float a shady story about any team signing anybody if motivated.

For example.

“Steven Stamkos to Nashville. Nashville knows perfectly well that a player of Stamkos’ injury history and at age 34 will not likely play the full 4 years. But their motivation is to win now while ROR, Josi are all in their competitive window.

League insiders question whether Stamkos will even get to 38 without going on LTIR? The way Tampa walked away from their long term captain and franchise player would suggest something is up.

Ultimately is this an example of a tax haven state manipulating its advantages and relying on wriggle out on an insured LTIR? Stay tuned while the NHL conducts its own investigation.”

It’s trash.

 

[notbias]

You could float a shady story about any team signing anybody if motivated.

For example.

“Steven Stamkos to Nashville. Nashville knows perfectly well that a player of Stamkos’ injury history and at age 34 will not likely play the full 4 years. But their motivation is to win now while ROR, Josi are all in their competitive window.

League insiders question whether Stamkos will even get to 38 without going on LTIR? The way Tampa walked away from their long term captain and franchise player would suggest something is up.

Ultimately is this an example of a tax haven state manipulating its advantages and relying on wriggle out on an insured LTIR? Stay tuned while the NHL conducts its own investigation.”

It’s trash.

I agree with you, but it was the justification given by our fans for an otherwise terrible contract.

I think the league knowing why we did it and proving it are different things though so I expect no issues.

I want LTIR to be fixed though in the future, this is less of a concern than stashing players on LTIR and bringing them back for the playoffs to manipulate the cap, that 100% needs to be fixed.

 

[francis246]

Even if we can’t LTIR him, this contract is not a 35+ contract. It can be buried in the AHL for a little bit of cap relief or moved to a team that needs to hit the cap floor in the future. Not a huge concern.

 

[thewave]

Not the first time they let things go and then decide to change it when the Leafs do it

Bet99man hates the Leafs fans with a passion. Loves the money though.

 

[notbias]

Even if we can’t LTIR him, this contract is not a 35+ contract. It can be buried in the AHL for a little bit of cap relief or moved to a team that needs to hit the cap floor in the future. Not a huge concern.

A team that wants to hit the cap floor likely doesn't want to pay him 3.6 million per year, and 2.6 is in signing bonuses.

I don't think LTIR will be an issue, so not too worried.

 

[Dekes For Days]

As pointed out by other posters, to retroactively punish the Leafs for bending the rules that plenty of other clubs have, would be ridiculous. Sure, he can change the rules during the next CBA, but that won't likely effect current contracts. It will just effect future contracts from the date of the approved CBA.

It's not about retroactively punishing the Leafs for the signing. It's about whether they change the rules in a way that makes it harder for us to just *poof* contracts out of existence through LTIR when it is convenient for us. Which even aside from whatever league restrictions may develop in future CBAs, is far, far from a guarantee to be possible already.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Now isn't the issue though (unless we really screwed up). A few years in is the issue, and there's already talk about LTIR rules being altered in the next CBA. This idea that we'd just simply force Tanev and OEL on LTIR at our convenience was always a fantasy to avoid acknowledging the risk that comes with these moves, but worse, we don't even know what the legal options will be by the time we need it.

GM's will just find another loophole, they always do.

First it was sending contracts the AHL.

Then it was the backdiving contracts

Then it was loading contracts upgrade with bonuses.

Now It's LTIR

There will ALWAYS be a loophole and GM's will ALWAYS find it.

 

[mclaren55]

It's not about retroactively punishing the Leafs for the signing. It's about whether they change the rules in a way that makes it harder for us to just *poof* contracts out of existence through LTIR when it is convenient for us. Which even aside from whatever league restrictions may develop in future CBAs, is far, far from a guarantee to be possible already.

Looking at the history in the NHL over the last decade, it is pretty much a guarantee you can bury these contracts when you want via LTIR. We've had multiple GMs use this strategy, and multiple outside GMs use it in a way more significant fashion.

If he is dying on this hill because of the Leafs, he is an idiot.

 

[ULF_55]

I agree with you, but it was the justification given by our fans for an otherwise terrible contract.

I think the league knowing why we did it and proving it are different things though so I expect no issues.

I want LTIR to be fixed though in the future, this is less of a concern than stashing players on LTIR and bringing them back for the playoffs to manipulate the cap, that 100% needs to be fixed.

As long as they conform with the current agreement it doesn't matter if the expectation is LTIR.

Why don't they give high tax locations an extra 10% of Cap?
It isn't part of the agreement.

Fine, then just abide by the rules of the agreement.

Done and done.

 

[Stephen]

As long as they conform with the current agreement it doesn't matter if the expectation is LTIR.

Why don't they give high tax locations an extra 10% of Cap?
It isn't part of the agreement.

Fine, then just abide by the rules of the agreement.

Done and done.

Yep exactly.

Although it would be “funny” to see the NHL come down on a discretionary basis and absolutely knee cap a team for LTIR ‘shenanigans,’ only for that team to miss the playoffs a number of years and see that fanbase turn off the product.

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out of the NHL is trying to entertain anyone.

 

[LeafGrief]

What I want to know is why we had to offer Tanev $27m to play here. The guy is a good player, but if we're going to get ~3 years out of him, we had to pay him 9m per? The circumvention is besides the point, we had to give him $27m???

The single biggest argument against the whole, "This team only cares about money" argument is stuff like this where they splash cash like drunken sailors. By all means, I think he's a good player and will be a good fit, but that is an absurd amount of money for what he offers and how long he'll offer it for.

Although it would be “funny” to see the NHL come down on a discretionary basis and absolutely knee cap a team for LTIR ‘shenanigans,’ only for that team to miss the playoffs a number of years and see that fanbase turn off the product.

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out of the NHL is trying to entertain anyone.

Teams are already kneecapped when a team like SJ is stuck with Vlasic for half a generation. Calgary is going to suffer badly from the Huberdeau contract, doubly so when Kadri declines. The combination of the salary cap and guaranteed contracts is fun for fantasy GM's and terrible for casual fans.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Looking at the history in the NHL over the last decade, it is pretty much a guarantee you can bury these contracts when you want via LTIR. We've had multiple GMs use this strategy, and multiple outside GMs use it in a way more significant fashion.

Looking at the history in the NHL over the last decade, it is pretty much a guarantee that what the NHL decides to do is going to be unpredictable, inconsistent, and nonsensical. It's also not a bad bet that they'll attempt to hurt the Leafs in some way. LTIR has certainly been abused over the years, but it is also not always an option to get rid of contracts, and there has been a bigger spotlight on it recently, and discussion about potential changes. I hope it doesn't end up being an issue.