Would the NHL reject a max length contract for Crosby?

[Goalie_Bob]

A max length extension would take Sid out til age 45. Would the NHL reject the contract.

Sid is hockey nut who has based his whole life around hockey. Nobody could deny that if he had goals and expectations to play til his mid 40's that he wouldn't do it. But would the NHL reject the contract?

Click to read more...

 

[Killer Orcas]

Why would they? It's legal go nuts Pens.

 

[Fig]

Reject as long as it meets current CBA contract requirements? No. I can't see why they'd do it or be allowed to do it.

Retroactively penalize the team from a cap hit perspective? Sure, maybe. Especially if it prevents other teams from doing something similar they don't like.

 

[MadLuke]

Considering that:

• 35+ Rule: If a player signs a multi-year contract at the age of 35 or older, the cap hit remains on the team's salary cap even if the player retires. This rule is in place to prevent teams from circumventing the salary cap by signing older players to front-loaded contracts.

That rules, make it they do not need to care much ? the rules is already in place that a team-player cannot take advantage of retiring mid-contract. Would he fake LTIR retire, then they could act or let it go....

 

[MXD]

I don't think there's anything in the CBA that enables the NHL to reject a deal that otherwise conforms to said CBA.

 

[tomin]

If the pens don’t want him they need to tell him. Offering a deal that they know the league turns down and hiding / using the league as an excuse is pretty mid management tactic, imo.

 

[MXD]

Considering that:

• 35+ Rule: If a player signs a multi-year contract at the age of 35 or older, the cap hit remains on the team's salary cap even if the player retires. This rule is in place to prevent teams from circumventing the salary cap by signing older players to front-loaded contracts.

That rules, make it they do not need to care much ? the rules is already in place that a team-player cannot take advantage of retiring mid-contract. Would he fake LTIR retire, then they could act or let it go....

I think the idea is that the Pens are rebuilding in the shor-middle term and having dead capspace could help them reach the capfloor without actually paying to get there?

Or just giving a shitton of money to Crosby with Crosby LTIRing midway?

I mean, there's clearly two reasons why the Pens could opt for such a thing.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Would be the full cap hit if he retired early

 

[MadLuke]

Or just giving a shitton of money to Crosby with Crosby LTIRing midway?

yes but that a risk (Crosby need to play balls, league need to play balls, etc..), the NHL have been extremely lax around it so not a bad one to take.

without actually paying to get there?

It would be a frontloaded contract for Crosby to do it, they would pay through the nose.

 

[MXD]

It would be a frontloaded contract for Crosby to do it, they would pay through the nose.

Not necessarily. I mean, let'S say Crosby wants to retire in 3 years.
What's the difference for Crosby :
Signing 9.5 for 3 years or
Signing 9.5 for 7 years, but play only 3 years?

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't really see what basis the NHL would have to reject it nor do I see why either the Penguins or Crosby would want to pursue it.

 

[StreetHawk]

A max length extension would take Sid out til age 45. Would the NHL reject the contract.

Sid is hockey nut who has based his whole life around hockey. Nobody could deny that if he had goals and expectations to play til his mid 40's that he wouldn't do it. But would the NHL reject the contract?

There are still rules that you need to comply within in order to not have it be the old 35+ rule. Such as front loading the contract, signing bonuses and such. If you did break them, how much would you be on the hook for? If it's all basically even money at $10 mill per, then by rules, there is no trying to get around the cap. Main issue is the likelihood of landing on LTIR for multiple seasons.

Then, I would also wonder if Insurance would cover it as well. One thing to cover a 43 year old like Chara for 1 year, but to cover 5 years when a player is in their 40's?

 

[Bond]

They didn’t reject Tanev’s contract and he won’t play that one out lol

 

[TooManyHumans]

Pretty sure Crosby is not interested in a max length deal at this point anyway.

 

[MadLuke]

Not necessarily. I mean, let'S say Crosby wants to retire in 3 years.
What's the difference for Crosby :
Signing 9.5 for 3 years or
Signing 9.5 for 7 years, but play only 3 years?

Does he make those 9.5 in the first 3 years ?

If he retire after 3 well obviously he does not get the rest.
If he fake LTIR retire after 3, he risk of not getting it, so probably want it the first 3 years... if it is to manage the cap why not have it upfront would he say (and it is not like the insurance company would accept to pay).

Unlike the Weber, Price, Toews, Hossa, this would be a particularly egregious and high profile case, more likely to get challenged

 

[nucksflailtogether]

Penalty would be 3 years cap recapture for the Canucks and of course, the Senators forfeit a first.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Does he make those 9.5 in the first 3 years ?

If he retire after 3 well obviously he does not get the rest.
If he fake LTIR retire after 3, he risk of not getting it, so probably want it the first 3 years... if it is to manage the cap why not have it upfront would he say (and it is not like the insurance company would accept to pay).

Unlike the Weber, Price, Toews, Hossa, this would be a particularly egregious and high profile case, more likely to get challenged

Front loading now has to be within a certain percent of the AAV now, to avoid those type contracts of the past.

 

[Leafs87]

I really don’t get all these League interventions on rules that exist. Fix your loopholes. If Vegas can get away with their playoff cap BS, teams should be able to tack on years and have a >35 year old player retire early.

Also I get it’s 2024 and society is going this way, but what is legal today, should not be punished when the rules later change.

 

[MadLuke]

I really don’t get all these League interventions on rules that exist. Fix your loopholes. If Vegas can get away with their playoff cap BS, teams should be able to tack on years and have a >35 year old player retire early.

The rules say they can do both, but that cap hit stay, making them keep the cap hit would be not changing the rules after the fact.

 

[Leafs87]

The rules say they can do both, but that cap hit stay.

Apparently the league was calling around and warning teams not to do this. Specifically I know they did with Toronto and Tanev.

 

[LPHabsFan]

All the rules regarding recapture, or the 35+, have to deal with cap circumvention.

If he were to sign an 8 year deal between 7 and 10 million aav where the year by year salary is relatively stable across the years? There wouldn't be an issue.

If he were to sign an 8 year deal at say 3 or 4 million aav where he makes more in the first four years and a lot less in the last four? Absolutely It would get shot down.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Apparently the league was calling around and warning teams not to do this. Specifically I know they did with Toronto and Tanev.

Yes, they warn teams that try and do it, as they will be stuck with the cap hit if a player retires after 3 years.

Probably not easy if goes LTIR, then need the team doctor and 2 independent doctors every fall to sign off on it, otherwise stucjk with cap.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

I don't think there's anything in the CBA that enables the NHL to reject a deal that otherwise conforms to said CBA.

I'm pretty sure New Jersey's contract with Kovalchuk was within the wording of the CBA at the time and the NHL still rejected it.

 

[MadLuke]

Apparently the league was calling around and warning teams not to do this. Specifically I know they did with Toronto and Tanev.

I get why the league would not want to start a battle with the fake LTIR retirement (no one want that can of worm to open).

 

[Nogatco Rd]

I don't think there's anything in the CBA that enables the NHL to reject a deal that otherwise conforms to said CBA.

I think the CBA gives the commissioner wide latitude to punish actions that violate “the spirit” of the salary cap/CBA, even if those actions are not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law.

An example would be Washington trading Brooks Orpik to Colorado, Colorado buying out his contract, and Washington reacquiring him. Soon after that the league warned other teams that going forward this would be considered cap circumvention and would be punished accordingly.