Would the NHL reject a max length contract for Crosby?

[Based Anime Fan]

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

Never stopped the NHL from rejecting the original Kovalchuk contract from the Devils and then punishing thek for it. By the CBA's rules that contract was legal.

 

[cptjeff]

Never stopped the NHL from rejecting the original Kovalchuk contract from the Devils and then punishing thek for it. By the CBA's rules that contract was legal.

There was and is a rule in the CBA that allows the league to reject contracts for obvious circumvention even if it's not covered by other rules. Contracts frequently have such anti-loophole clauses. Contracts and laws do not function like computer code where the exact parameters of everything are precisely specified, there is room for human judgement and tools to resolve disputes using human judgement.

The Kovalchuk contract was blatant circumvention. IMO, so was the modified contract. Everyone knew it at the time, everyone knows it now. The NHL acted appropriately and entirely within its powers in the CBA. And the fact that the Devils ultimately wriggled free of the penalty is also horseshit.

But in the case of a prospective Crosby deal, the NHL now has structural disincentives to such contracts and would not intervene- the over 35 rule and the cap recapture rule. Sign that 8 year deal and that cap hit goes the full term even if Crosby doesn't, so that contract could not circumvent the cap.

 

[ijuka]

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?

And why would they reject it? What could possibly be the motivation?

Never stopped the NHL from rejecting the original Kovalchuk contract from the Devils and then punishing thek for it. By the CBA's rules that contract was legal.

Duration was NOT the problem with that contract.

 

[conFABulator]

It's a great question. I don't think the NHL can reject a compliant contract, but they can endorse the 35+ rule.

Let's say Sid wants to play there more years and he wants $9.5M per year. That's $28.5M in total value.

Let's say the Penguins sign him to an eight year deal at $4M per year. That's $32M and maybe it is front end signing bonus loaded so he gets most of that money in the the first three of four years.

Sid's happy and the team is happy because they get an AAV of $4M for the next three years and $5.5M in savings to spend on pieces around Sid...also making Sid happy.

So, what happens?

1. Sid doesn't retire after three years and is signed at a deal for the team and not a terrible number for 40 year old Crosby.
2. Sid suffers a career ending injury and goes on LTIR. It doesn't hurt the Penguins cap moving forward.
3. Sid retires after three years and the Pens have $4M on the cap for five years. When the cap is over $100M, the Pens are rebuilding, and Sid is some sort of ambassador.

Aren't all three of these better than a $9.5M cap hit the next three years? Why would the league care, no circumvention going on.

 

[MikeyMike01]

90% of cap shenanigans could be solved by simply making salary paid equal cap hit instead of averaging it.

 

[SomeDude]

I would be more confident in Crosby being able to play at 44 when a max deal would end than Tanev still playing at 40 when his new deal ends.

 

[cowboy82nd]

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.

You do know that they is no cap during the playoffs, right?

 

[Based Anime Fan]

There was and is a rule in the CBA that allows the league to reject contracts for obvious circumvention even if it's not covered by other rules. Contracts frequently have such anti-loophole clauses. Contracts and laws do not function like computer code where the exact parameters of everything are precisely specified, there is room for human judgement and tools to resolve disputes using human judgement.

The Kovalchuk contract was blatant circumvention. IMO, so was the modified contract. Everyone knew it at the time, everyone knows it now. The NHL acted appropriately and entirely within its powers in the CBA. And the fact that the Devils ultimately wriggled free of the penalty is also horseshit.

But in the case of a prospective Crosby deal, the NHL now has structural disincentives to such contracts and would not intervene- the over 35 rule and the cap recapture rule. Sign that 8 year deal and that cap hit goes the full term even if Crosby doesn't, so that contract could not circumvent the cap.

The fact that we were punished when other teams weren't was horseshit, but let's gloss over that.

 

[Curufinwe]

It was totally justified and the Devils were lucky they weren't punished more harshly. Only Loony Lou pushed the cap circumventing contracts to this extreme despite being warned by the league not to.

NHL rejects Kovalchuk deal with Devils

The NHL is rejecting Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year, $102 million contract with the Devils.

www.espn.com

Kovalchuk was to earn $6 million each of the next two seasons; $11.5 million for the following five seasons; $10.5 million in the 2017-18 season; $8.5 million for the 2018-19 season; $6.5 million in 2019-20; $3.5 million in 2020-21; $750,000 the following season; and $550,000 for the final five years of the unprecedented deal.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

It's a great question. I don't think the NHL can reject a compliant contract, but they can endorse the 35+ rule.

Let's say Sid wants to play there more years and he wants $9.5M per year. That's $28.5M in total value.

Let's say the Penguins sign him to an eight year deal at $4M per year. That's $32M and maybe it is front end signing bonus loaded so he gets most of that money in the the first three of four years.

Sid's happy and the team is happy because they get an AAV of $4M for the next three years and $5.5M in savings to spend on pieces around Sid...also making Sid happy.

So, what happens?

1. Sid doesn't retire after three years and is signed at a deal for the team and not a terrible number for 40 year old Crosby.
2. Sid suffers a career ending injury and goes on LTIR. It doesn't hurt the Penguins cap moving forward.
3. Sid retires after three years and the Pens have $4M on the cap for five years. When the cap is over $100M, the Pens are rebuilding, and Sid is some sort of ambassador.

Aren't all three of these better than a $9.5M cap hit the next three years? Why would the league care, no circumvention going on.

If #3 was the plan all along then that is cap circumvention in the first 3 years at least, saving 5.5 per year when the cap isn't over 100 million. And if you're front loading the contract to get most of the money in the 1st 3 years that kinda makes #3 seem pretty intentional.

 

[ClydeLee]

He was happy and able to manage his skin condition right up until his salary dropped from $4 million to $1 million. Could he have kept managing it with the same meds he had been using? Yes. Did he want to for a vastly reduced salary? No.

The Blackhawks should have been hit with the recapture penalty, plain and simple.

They still had contract that season on cap, they traded like a year later to no real benefit anyway. This is just a weird or cruel to still maintain this issue. They weren't as like good as Tampa is at making it like cap wasnt there, they still had the 5.4 cap hit. They never benefited in anyway from Hossa retiring they suffered. They missed the playoffs every year since then unless you count the bubble when they were 21st in standings.

It's just like this thread, why would anyone care if Crosby signed 8 years for less than his standard going rate of 8.7 mil. Maybe he'll take 8 years 7 mil. I'm sure there will be no impact if the team sucks and he ltir retired earning money in that phase. Why would people be mad or block that?

 

[Voight]

He was happy and able to manage his skin condition right up until his salary dropped from $4 million to $1 million. Could he have kept managing it with the same meds he had been using? Yes. Did he want to for a vastly reduced salary? No.

The Blackhawks should have been hit with the recapture penalty, plain and simple.

If Hossa had kept taking the medication there would've been serious longterm health impacts for him. So sure technically he could've managed it with he same ends but he would've died a young man.

 

[frederixx]

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.

Unless the owner is in a very bad position financially, that's a really bad strategy. Cap space is worth a lot. Just think of Montreal who got a 1st for taking on Monahan (and another 1st a year later). Carolina got Jarvis (13th overall) for taking on Marleau's contract, etc...

Cap space is gold. Even more if you don't want your rebuild to last forever

 

[MXD]

Unless the owner is in a very bad position financially, that's a really bad strategy. Cap space is worth a lot. Just think of Montreal who got a 1st for taking on Monahan (and another 1st a year later). Carolina got Jarvis (13th overall) for taking on Marleau's contract, etc...

Cap space is gold. Even more if you don't want your rebuild to last forever

In that scenario, the owner would either not give a single penny to Crosby and, ultimately, would save money (long contract to get deadcap during rebuild), or almost certainly have its expenses covered by insurance (LTIR contract)

 

[dgibb10]

In that scenario, the owner would either not give a single penny to Crosby and, ultimately, would save money (long contract to get deadcap during rebuild), or almost certainly have its expenses covered by insurance (LTIR contract)

You realize you have to pay for said insurance on his contract right?

Insurance companies aren't in the business of giving away millions of dollars. The cost to insure a 8 year deal on a 38 year old would be ridiculous you know that right?

 

[StreetHawk]

You realize you have to pay for said insurance on his contract right?

Insurance companies aren't in the business of giving away millions of dollars. The cost to insure a 8 year deal on a 38 year old would be ridiculous you know that right?

Every team pays an annual insurance premium. I do believe it's to 1 company which covers every NHL team. Whether that's the same rate per each team per year or it varies per team, I don't know.

But, absolutely, insurance companies are in the business of making money and limiting their exposure. If they charged each team say $4 mill in premiums a year, they would bring in $128 mill. If they ended up paying out $100 mill, they pocket $28 mill. Not going to make money on each club each season. Some, they lose money on, some they make money on.

They have declined to insure some players due to past injury history, namely for concussions. Can legit make a case against not insuring someone who will be 38 at the start of an 7/8 year contract that ends at age 45/46 that has an annual salary of $8 mill, which puts the money he's due during his 40's of like $40 mill at stake.

 

[BlueBaron]

The question is why would the Pens want this when they can 1 year him til retirement?

 

[Garbageyuk]

The NHL only cares if it’s cap/CBA compliant. The last CBA (or the one before last?) took care of a lot of the funny business teams were trying to pull to circumvent the cap (e.g., Weber contract). As long as there’s none of that, I don’t see why they’d care. They are clearly okay with LTIR shenanigans, so that’s not a concern either, if it were to occur.

 

[Hammman]

They still had contract that season on cap, they traded like a year later to no real benefit anyway. This is just a weird or cruel to still maintain this issue. They weren't as like good as Tampa is at making it like cap wasnt there, they still had the 5.4 cap hit. They never benefited in anyway from Hossa retiring they suffered. They missed the playoffs every year since then unless you count the bubble when they were 21st in standings.

It's just like this thread, why would anyone care if Crosby signed 8 years for less than his standard going rate of 8.7 mil. Maybe he'll take 8 years 7 mil. I'm sure there will be no impact if the team sucks and he ltir retired earning money in that phase. Why would people be mad or block that?

This isn't how a CBA works. You can't just say "Aw shucks, they're going to be bad anyways, we'll let it slide." What do you do when a top team turns around and does the same thing?

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

This isn't how a CBA works. You can't just say "Aw shucks, they're going to be bad anyways, we'll let it slide." What do you do when a top team turns around and does the same thing?

You’re technically right, but have you seen how the NHL has dealt with the LTIR loophole? They haven’t.

My understanding is that by age 38 or so pretty much any NHLer could get a doc to say “he can’t play anymore.” Just a lotta shit you could probably have fixed enough to be in game shape if you really wanted, but it’s also a legit reason for retirement. Like, yes, if I have surgery and do grueling rehab for 6 months I might be a passable 4th liner- it’s not really as black/white as it’s presented, imo.

Additionally, I believe independent docs have strong incentive to side with teams. They get to keep working with that team if they do what the team likes, so even if they aren’t technically employed by ‘em- I’d rather be on the good side of an organization with money and access to tech and whatnot, ya know? I believe that came from a player interview regarding injury opinions- that even independent evaluation isn’t unbiased.

 

[conFABulator]

90% of cap shenanigans could be solved by simply making salary paid equal cap hit instead of averaging it.

If #3 was the plan all along then that is cap circumvention in the first 3 years at least, saving 5.5 per year when the cap isn't over 100 million. And if you're front loading the contract to get most of the money in the 1st 3 years that kinda makes #3 seem pretty intentional.

It's not the plan though, it is one of the options. With this option they are not getting out from the cap obligation and they are carrying the cost of the contract for five more years. It would be difficult to prove intent here.

 

[CBJx614]

The NHL wouldn't reject it, but they have said they are going to start monitoring teams that offer deals like that and will act accordingly if they think teams are using it as a form of cap circumvention. So good luck to the pens if they do.

 

[SpezDispenser]

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

Always. To be honest, I expect us to forfeit a first for the Tanev contract just for being in the same Provence as the offense took place.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

It's not the plan though, it is one of the options. With this option they are not getting out from the cap obligation and they are carrying the cost of the contract for five more years. It would be difficult to prove intent here.

Front loading the contract so the bulk of the money is paid out in the first 3 years would ring a few bells if Sid retires after those years. And the NHL is not a court of law, they don't need to outright prove intent to levy a punishment if they see fit ala NJ and Kovalchuk.

And yes they are still carrying the cap hit for those extra years but as you point out the cap likely keeps going higher and frankly once Sid is gone the Pens are likely in for some lean years when the cap space likely won't matter to them anymore.

 

[AKL]

History tells us that they wouldn't reject it, but if they didn't like it they would let it go through, and then retroactively punish the Penguins the next time they update the CBA.