Gaudreau/Monohan Signing Bonus

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

NHL teams can't afford to take the high road on signing bonuses and lose out on good players.

They are rivals in between lockouts.

There is a talent scarcity and the players use it to their advantage to get NTCs, NMCs, buyout proof contracts, and now lockout proof contracts.

Player agents find the loop holes.

I would be shocked if there isn't something tabled to cap signing bonuses during the next lockout, but there isn't much teams can do about it now.

If your team takes the moral high ground, you fall behind your rivals in the acquisition of talent.

When you're talking RFA deals it is certainly entirely within their own control to give or not give these "lockout proof" contracts out, yet they do so anyway. There is little to no way that a team would lose a RFA player over this bonus, it just may take a little longer to complete a deal.

If you're talking UFAs I get that it may become the norm for sure though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

When you're talking RFA deals it is certainly entirely within their own control to give or not give these "lockout proof" contracts out, yet they do so anyway. There is little to no way that a team would lose a RFA player over this bonus, it just may take a little longer to complete a deal.

But that's like saying there's little reason to give them over a million dollars...You still have to get pen to paper. If Gaudreau's only signing a 6 year contract if he's lockouted protected...you might concede the lockout protection. Evidently the Flames did.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

When you're talking RFA deals it is certainly entirely within their own control to give or not give these "lockout proof" contracts out, yet they do so anyway. There is little to no way that a team would lose a RFA player over this bonus, it just may take a little longer to complete a deal.

Clearly you have figured out a way to sign the players to team friendly deals with lockout protection! Just don't give them in and wait for them to sign anyways

Your question has been answered numerous times. It is a contract negotiation, and the lockout protection is something players want negotiated into their deals.

Any owner can choose whether or not to give them it. As long as the league doesn't do something stupid like lock the players out, it doesn't have any real effect. If they do, that's on them.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Clearly you have figured out a way to sign the players to team friendly deals with lockout protection! Just don't give them in and wait for them to sign anyways

Your question has been answered numerous times. It is a contract negotiation, and the lockout protection is something players want negotiated into their deals.

Any owner can choose whether or not to give them it. As long as the league doesn't do something stupid like lock the players out, it doesn't have any real effect. If they do, that's on them.

Very interesting nonetheless. I will have to ponder this further the next time I am dropping a deuce.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

When you're talking RFA deals it is certainly entirely within their own control to give or not give these "lockout proof" contracts out, yet they do so anyway. There is little to no way that a team would lose a RFA player over this bonus, it just may take a little longer to complete a deal.

If you're talking UFAs I get that it may become the norm for sure though.

Less risky for sure, but there is the possibility that the RFA says "FU trade me" if the team doesn't meet his demands.

Even in the cases where the demands weren't met (Hamonic, Drouin, Yakupov), the players were moved out within a couple of seasons. Granted these guys didn't request a trade for salary reasons with the possible exception of Drouin.

Ryan O'Reilly may be a better example. He was moved on from Colorado after contract negotiations went sour, although its unclear if he requested a trade.


Perhaps an RFA only agrees to sign a short term contract that ends before the lockout season, and then gets that signing bonus in free agency.

Or he signs an offersheet.

When given the choice between standing their ground or potentially souring a relationship with a needed player, I think most teams will just bite the bullet.

[sureLoss]

There is an alternative to giving out signing bonuses for lockout protection.

And that is to have the salary dip in the year the lockout is expected while increasing the salary in all other years.

There are, however, CBA rules on how much salary can differ from year to year that might limit the effectiveness of this approach.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by the2bears

It's 'Monahan'.

There can be only one!!!

[robaur]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Because it was a negotiation that takes both parties to agree to. Monahan and Gaudreau fought for the lockout protection contracts, probably conceding something else until both parties were happy to have the contracts signed. That's how contracts work.

It's a gamble for the Flames (and every team handing out these contracts) but it's become pretty much the norm for big name players. It could create an interesting dynamic as the "haves" of the NHLPA will still be making bank if there's a lockout while a lot of the lesser players will want to get the negotiations going so they can get some actual cash. Similarly, teams with a lot of money set up in these "lockout contracts" will be hoping to get the ball rolling as they will still be paying millions to players not playing, while teams not doing so may be a little bit less inclined.

This is a reason as to why insurance was created.

If there isn't insurance covering these "lockout" bonuses...I think a product might be created just for this purpose by an insurance company.

[ZedMan]

With the record the NHL has negotiating CBAs, what underwriter would want to take on that kind of risk?

[Weitz]

Not to mention they are paid 2.5 months before the cba expires.

[agulati]

There is merit to the discussion, but I would rather our team not be the one to break the status quo of such contracts and thus risking losing high end players.

Also this is part of negotiations, and if teams have an issue with this, they should negotiate to add this to the next CBA.

P.S. Can someone please get Monahan's name fixed in the title?

[The Cobra]

The richer teams do this as it's away to give the players a little more without it costing anything on the salary cap.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The richer teams do this as it's away to give the players a little more without it costing anything on the salary cap.

Signing bonuses are included as part of a player's salary and absolutely count 100% against the salary cap.

[bax]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The richer teams do this as it's away to give the players a little more without it costing anything on the salary cap.

Not accurate

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by bax

Not accurate

I didn't say this correctly.

By giving signing bonuses, it's a better deal financially for the player as he gets money if there is a lock out or not.

The cap hit is the same so it doesn't cost a team any more in terms of cap hit. But it's a better deal for the player.

So, the player gets a bit better financial deal ant it doesn't cost the team any more in terms of cap hit.

The more signing bonus a player gets, the better the financial deal is for him ( due to receiving money during a lock out) , although the cap hit remains the same in either case.

That is what I meant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jason14h]

Bonuses also mean be player gets the money immediately and thus it has a higher value of money

On 6 mil salary paid bi-weekly at say 5% interest getting it all as a bonus is a couple hundred thousand extra in money value

[Huntingwhale]

Who are about the bonus. It could be 99.99999% signing bonus and a $1 salary. All that matters is cap hit.

[GullFoss]

lockout protection

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Who are about the bonus. It could be 99.99999% signing bonus and a $1 salary. All that matters is cap hit.

Yeah really. Who cares, it's not our money. Sucks to see that both sides are already betting on another lockout though.

I'd be really curious as to whether or not any of the TV deals are lockout protected

Can't wait to see "thank - you fans !" on the ice in January 2021. I'd imagine that Jerseys will be 1/2 price on opening night too!!

[nfotiu]

I'm surprised the union would allow this. It's going to be tough to have solidarity if the star players all continue to get paid during a lockout, while the majority don't get anything.