|
|
Post by Corey Scott on Jul 14, 2016 21:02:57 GMT -5
Alright, since we stated not trying to highjack Joe's thread figured I would start something here instead. If you want my full posts, view the thread here vhockey.proboards.com/thread/18335/shark-tank?page=2&scrollTo=86422 but keep comments about it in this thread. Anyway, short version. Are we trying to punish people in general for acquiring the older player with a longer contract (trade or signing) or are we trying to punish the people who actually create the long expensive contract to an older player (signing only)? Keep in mind this is referring to the buyout rule for players age 35 or older that was introduced (last year? two years ago?). |
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers on Jul 14, 2016 21:31:45 GMT -5
People are responsible for the contracts they sign. People are responsible for the contracts they acquire. This isn't a form of punishment to the GM, but we can't stop GMs from punishing themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Seo on Jul 14, 2016 21:32:46 GMT -5
IMO, the buyout rule is fine as is.
Cap recapture is different because it was designed to punish teams that artificially lowered a player's cap hit by tacking on additional years at the end of said player's contract. That was legal within the confines of the CBA at the time, but the NHL specifically warned those teams that there would likely be repercussions for those deals in the new (now current) CBA because they were essentially a form of cap circumvention.
That's not the case here: AAVs are consistent from year to year, there's a 5-year maximum on contract lengths, and the buyout parameters are laid out clearly for any team that wants to acquire a veteran player whose contract is affected by those parameters.
Don't like the buyout costs? Don't acquire the player or sign him to that contract. If you manage to trade that type of contract afterwards, good on you, the acquiring team should have to deal with its consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 14, 2016 21:37:39 GMT -5
Its fine as it is. People should be responsible for the players they acquire no matter what the contract status or their age.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Jul 14, 2016 21:46:33 GMT -5
Waaah
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Scott on Jul 14, 2016 21:56:11 GMT -5
IMO, the buyout rule is fine as is. Cap recapture is different because it was designed to punish teams that artificially lowered a player's cap hit by tacking on additional years at the end of said player's contract. That was legal within the confines of the CBA at the time, but the NHL specifically warned those teams that there would likely be repercussions for those deals in the new (now current) CBA because they were essentially a form of cap circumvention. To the bolded part. Is that not exactly what teams are doing with offering extra years to older players? The extra years are done to 1) lower cap hit 2) increase total salary being paid so that they win the free agency bid. While these two things are "different" I really don't see them as being different in any material sense. I don't mind the rule as is, I just figured this would allow for less issues in the future while also increasing GM options all around. The league initially input the whole free agency thing to increase movement of players etc throughout the league. Figured that slightly altering this rule (which should do the same) would be taken well, apparently not. But again quit saying the rule isn't there to punish GMs. A rule like this is specifically put in to punish GMs mistakes. It is a punishment, so quit trying to kid yourself. Don't know why you think it is a bad thing to admit it is a punishment anyway, nothing wrong with punishing GMs who make obviously bad decisions (or fairly risky decisions). |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 14, 2016 22:05:32 GMT -5
The future of the league argument to me is just an excuse. We've never had issues finding good, savvy GM's. The league is a pretty healthy one. There's no reason an Arizona-Detroit deal cant happen here in the VHL. These situations are rare and don't happen much to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning on Jul 14, 2016 22:15:55 GMT -5
The last deal like this signed was MSL. Nobody had a problem with the contract then nobody had any problem with it now
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Jul 14, 2016 22:31:28 GMT -5
First of all, this rule was put in place long before the free agent auction, so the implementation of the rule is totally unrelated to the phenomenon that we saw last year with teams signing veterans to lower AAV but higher total salary contracts over more season in order to win the auction.
This rule was originally discussed to deal with the Marc Savards, Tim Thomas' and the Chris Prongers of the world, as, before this rule, those players just kept getting the rating they had from their last full year for the duration of their contracts if they did not play the year before. This was unfair, as, based on age alone, there would a regression in production and therefore ratings, but we could not guess how much lower their rating would be. It was either their previous ratings, or no rating. We chose no rating.
Now, it would also be unfair if a GM had to continue to pay an unrated player a high salary because of factors like injuries and leaving for the KHL, so this rule was put into place to ensure GMs who did their homework and acted in good faith were not punished by factors out of their control.
We took this opportunity to address the issue of retirement as well. Before this rule, after a player's last year of ratings (which is to say a season after they retire), retired players would automatically come off the books, regardless of the term left on their contracts. This is all good and fair, until we started to realise a trend. Older players leave money on the table for added security in negotiations, which is natural given age-based regression, as a player gets older, their performance drops off, (In Datsyuk's case the offers from the agent were three years at 8 million+ or four years at 7.5 million). But with no consequences for signing veterans long term, as they would automatically come off the books after they retire, everyone opted for longer term at less dollars, knowing that they were getting the first few productive seasons on the cheap and may be off the hook for the last couple of assuredly less productive seasons. This was essentially cap circumvention. So we added the retirement clause to the rule.
As it is written, the rule protects those GMs that assume minimum risks by not offering long term contracts to veterans and yes, it does provide consequences to those that ignore the risks and take the cap savings that go with the additional risks. The rules are not made to punish the GM who signed the deal, or the GM who acquires the player... because it is not a punishment. The rules are clear, they mirror the intent of the NHL rules (which dictate that the cap hit of players who retire before the end of a contract signed after 35 years age remains on the books of the team he retires with), and, while the final say goes to Scott, there is no reason to make a change to this rule at this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 22:44:58 GMT -5
A lot of mic drops. I'm staying out of this purely based on being way new and nothing else needs to be said. I just figured I would drop by with my incredibly important contribution to this thread.
|
|
