Gaudreau/Monohan Signing Bonus

[Hot_Flatus]

I have not seen this in another thread and have recently discovered an oddity in the Flames signing bonus section. Does anyone know what the strategy behind the $3.5M signing bonus in 2020/2021 for both Gaudreau and Monohan in their current deals is?

Could this be a move to make them more trade-able later in their deals as less cash would be owed?

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/flames/signing-bonus

[calgaryblood]

Lockout protection.

[Southside]

Lock-out protection.

[sureLoss]

As stated above. Lockout protection. They will get paid the signing bonus even if there is a work stoppage.

[Hot_Flatus]

If this is lock-out protection, why would the team agree to these terms? If my understanding is correct, they would still be owed said bonus if the season is wiped out that year....seems silly to give that type of concession.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If this is lock-out protection, why would the team agree to these terms? If my understanding is correct, they would still be owed said bonus if the season is wiped out that year....seems silly to give that type of concession.

How so? It's pretty common among long term signing of late.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If this is lock-out protection, why would the team agree to these terms? If my understanding is correct, they would still be owed said bonus if the season is wiped out that year....seems silly to give that type of concession.

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.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If this is lock-out protection, why would the team agree to these terms? If my understanding is correct, they would still be owed said bonus if the season is wiped out that year....seems silly to give that type of concession.

Some people would say it's silly to give millions period

Most new large contracts feature this, I think McDavid gets $12m in bonus money that year

[the2bears]

It's 'Monahan'.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If this is lock-out protection, why would the team agree to these terms? If my understanding is correct, they would still be owed said bonus if the season is wiped out that year....seems silly to give that type of concession.

Players have all the power between lockouts.

If Gaudreau says a signing bonus in 2020 is a deal breaker are you prepared to potentially lose the player over it?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

How so? It's pretty common among long term signing of late.

If every owner owes a couple of their players bonuses that range from $2-5M, the players will definitely have some significant leverage to use against them in a potential work stoppage.

I like this as it's another tool that may prevent a prolonged stoppage, however, it makes absolutely no sense to offer up that kind of arrangement knowing the track record of CBA negotiations of late.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If every owner owes a couple of their players bonuses that range from $2-5M, the players will definitely have some significant leverage to use against them in a potential work stoppage.

I like this as it's another tool that may prevent a prolonged stoppage, however, it makes absolutely no sense to offer up that kind of arrangement knowing the track record of CBA negotiations of late.

Well the more players getting "lock out bonuses" the morel likely you will see a longer lockout. I am not sure if you were meaning the opposite or if I am confused.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by the2bears

It's 'Monahan'.

If I run into Sean I'll be sure to apologize for the typo.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If every owner owes a couple of their players bonuses that range from $2-5M, the players will definitely have some significant leverage to use against them in a potential work stoppage.

I like this as it's another tool that may prevent a prolonged stoppage, however, it makes absolutely no sense to offer up that kind of arrangement knowing the track record of CBA negotiations of late.

I agree it's in the players favour. But it was probably a way to negotiate a lower aav. In a cap work that's a win for the team as well.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Well the more players getting "lock out bonuses" the morel likely you will see a longer lockout. I am not sure if you were meaning the opposite or if I am confused.

I don't imagine 31 ownership groups will be overly thrilled to be paying what could easily be north of $150M - $200M collectively to players that are not playing.

I don't see how having one or two players per team with this perk has any bearing on what the rest of the NHLPA would be doing....way too small of the voting percentage to matter to that side of the coin.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I agree it's in the players favour. But it was probably a way to negotiate a lower aav. In a cap work that's a win for the team as well.

Fair enough. Just strikes me as quite odd that this trend is appearing to be common for the higher end player given the relationship/climate brewing between the two groups.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Well the more players getting "lock out bonuses" the morel likely you will see a longer lockout. I am not sure if you were meaning the opposite or if I am confused.

Yes but it also drives a wedge and separates the NHLPA into two factions. It'll be easy for McDavid to prolong the fight for more when he's been paid 12 million already. But a good part of the association won't be getting paid and can very well turn on itself the longer it goes on

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If I run into Sean I'll be sure to apologize for the typo.

It's easy enough to fix both cases in this thread. Otherwise your apology would be meaningless

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Fair enough. Just strikes me as quite odd that this trend is appearing to be common for the higher end player given the relationship/climate brewing between the two groups.

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.

Does that make it seem more logical?

[Oling_Roachinen]

It was in the 2016 off-season that lockout and buyout protected contracts really took a climb.

Stamkos (8.5M), Ladd (5.5M) and Eriksson (6M) each have a salary of 1M a year throughout the entirety or majority of their contracts, the rest made up in signing bonuses.

Benn, Price and McDavid also have a 1M salary for the potential lockout season. Even Vlasic's new contract has a 5M signing bonus for 2020-2021 season.