Poll: Should Iginla's contract be voided by the NHL as cap circumvention?

[troutman]

I think the CBA has a "catch-all" provision that allows the NHL to void contracts that look and smell like cap circumvention? They can close loop-holes that are technically allowable. Like tax evasion rules with the CRA.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by SilverGS

Teams creating contracts within the rules? My goodness void them all!

All other past contracts that pissed of people were also within the rules.

[Goodlad]

The reason contracts like Kovalchuk's were considered "cap-circumvention" is there were additional years at the end of the contracts for very little salary that the player clearly had no intention to play. This gave the contract an artificially lower cap hit than it should have been.

The Bruins will have to carry the full cap-hit for this contract, even though a large portion may be deferred to next season.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It's not cap circumvention to do something that's allowed in the rules.

Tell that to New Jersey at next years draft when they don't have a 1st.

[Anduril]

The Bruins still have to deal with the additional cap, just not until next year. Just delayed consequences.

[SilverGS]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

All other past contracts that pissed of people were also within the rules.

True. Other than Kovalchucks and Luongo's most were ok I think. They just should have said the cap hit sticks with you to the end of the contract regardless of the player still playing barring career ending injury maybe. That left it open and in the end any team could have done the same thing.

So if Iggy's contract may be construed as circumventing the cap what is this rule supposed to be used for? It seems the Bruins are doing exactly what it is meant for.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Tell that to New Jersey at next years draft when they don't have a 1st.

This is nothing like what the Devils tried to do. The Devils pushed the front loaded contract beyond what is reasonable as it was 100% clear that they designed their contract to use the player's retirement to get out of the contract prior to its conclusion.

The Bonus and Deferred Bonus system does not have any such escape route. Its not like Iginla can retire next summer and allow the Bruins to avoid paying his bonus. Regardless of what happens, the deferred bonus has to hit the team's salary cap.

[atb]

Interesting that it doesn't include a NTC/NMC, so in theory if Iginla isn't working out in Boston, they could ship him at the deadline to any destination.

[Huntingwhale]

I personally like these bonus contracts a lot more then I like the guaranteed ones. I just think a player will put forth more of an effort if he knows he has to work for his money, rather then mailing it in all season and knowing he is guaranteed the full amount.

Now Iggy's contract is a bad example. We all know he's going to play those 10 games and make his money. But look at someone like Toews contract. When the Hawks won it '10, one of the bonus conditions was to win the Conn Smyth. He did so and was awarded that contract. I believe Selanne had something like that after the lockout, something like score 30+ goals. He ended up scoring 48 that seasons.

I don't think it's circumvention at all. It's within the rules and the league allows it. It seems to me that fans, for some reason, are the ones who get all riled up when they see contracts like this in place.

I think players should have to ''earn'' their millions of dollars. Bonus contracts are a great way to do that. If you suck all season and don't hit your goals, then you don't get paid that amount. The real world works that way too.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Wolven

This is nothing like what the Devils tried to do.

I never said it was. However, there was also no solid rule against what the Devils did. Unless you were in the room when the deal was signed and saw them shake hands agreeing that Kovalchuk would retire before it occurred you can not point to any section of the CBA saying a rule was broken with Kovalchuk's contract outside of the very vague "intentions of the CBA."

Originally Posted by SilverGS

So if Iggy's contract may be construed as circumventing the cap what is this rule supposed to be used for? It seems the Bruins are doing exactly what it is meant for.

The bonus cushion wasn't intended to defer payment of 35+ contracts, it was to provide some insurance that a team could still spend to the cap without having to make room for a player like Knight winning the Hart Trophy. Giving a player an easily attained 10 game bonus of 4M is no different than giving him 4M salary.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by tempz

I feel like this is going to become a common thing now.

It won't become that common because these types of bonuses can only be given to players who are over 35 who sign a one-year contract, or under-35 veteran players coming off a major injury who sign a one-year contract. That greatly limits the number of these deals that can be given out.

[Bertuzzied]

??? I thought the entire $6mil was for this years cap hit.

Isn't this why Cervenka had a $3.75mil cap hit last year but didn't make nearly as much?

On capgeek it shows the entire $6mil. It shows the Bruins over the cap but $4mil is Savard's cap hit.

http://www.capgeek.com/bruins/

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I don't think it's circumvention at all. It's within the rules and the league allows it. It seems to me that fans, for some reason, are the ones who get all riled up when they see contracts like this in place.

I think players should have to ''earn'' their millions of dollars. Bonus contracts are a great way to do that. If you suck all season and don't hit your goals, then you don't get paid that amount. The real world works that way too.

Agreed. The reason people get all uppity about these contracts is because it is not the norm for the NHL.

I would love to see the bonus system implemented more often in contracts. Take the Gomez contract as an example. If his contract had been more performance bonus based he would have hit his bonuses in the first year and then had his earnings decrease as his performance dwindled down to his 7 goal season.

I guess the danger of signing a contract that is heavily performance based is that the team could try to bench the player in order to hinder his progress toward hitting said bonuses. It would look awful on the team to do so but they could still try to do it anyway.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I never said it was. However, there was also no solid rule against what the Devils did. Unless you were in the room when the deal was signed and saw them shake hands agreeing that Kovalchuk would retire before it occurred you can not point to any section of the CBA saying a rule was broken with Kovalchuk's contract outside of the very vague "intentions of the CBA."

The bonus cushion wasn't intended to defer payment of 35+ contracts, it was to provide some insurance that a team could still spend to the cap without having to make room for a player like Knight winning the Hart Trophy. Giving a player an easily attained 10 game bonus of 4M is no different than giving him 4M salary.

The difference between a contract like Iginla's & Alfredsson's this year to a contract like Kovalchuk's is this - In the case of Iginla's and Alfredsson's, the future cap penalty to the team is guaranteed. In the case of Kovalchuck's (and others), the future cap penalty wasn't guaranteed.

That's why this is not cap circumvention, and Kovalchuk's was. Either way, the hole was closed retroactively, so even if Kovalchuk's contract was allowed to stand, the current cap recapture penalties would cover the difference.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

??? I thought the entire $6mil was for this years cap hit.

Isn't this why Cervenka had a $3.75mil cap hit last year but didn't make nearly as much?

Totally different situations. Cervenka was on an entry-level deal with full bonuses. His base salary was low but all his potential bonuses went against the cap.

This Iginla deal is for +35 year old players.

[Mike F]

All of the money stays "within the system", with any money paid in excess of his cap hit this year automatically recaptured next year, so there's no problem in my book.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I never said it was. However, there was also no solid rule against what the Devils did. Unless you were in the room when the deal was signed and saw them shake hands agreeing that Kovalchuk would retire before it occurred you can not point to any section of the CBA saying a rule was broken with Kovalchuk's contract outside of the very vague "intentions of the CBA."

Right... Considering the Devils are not going to have a 1st round draft pick in the next draft I do not think "being in the room" is a requirement for knowing that they took the "front loaded, retirement assumed" contract too far.

Either way, the difference is that the Devils were penalized for making a contract that would allow them to use the player's retirement to get out of the contract earlier than it was designed for. The Bruins are going to have to pay Iginla his entire contract and eat his entire cap hit.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Totally different situations. Cervenka was on an entry-level deal with full bonuses. His base salary was low but all his potential bonuses went against the cap.

This Iginla deal is for +35 year old players.

hmmm i didn't know there was a difference. Why does it still say he is a $6mil cap hit on Capgeek?

[Resolute 14]

The clause allowing this is unchanged from the previous CBA, so this isn't a new loophole in the new agreement. It is also worth noting that the bonus will not automatically defer to next year's cap, only that the "performance bonus cushion" allows for the possibility.

[SilverGS]

Originally Posted by getbak

It won't become that common because these types of bonuses can only be given to players who are over 35 who sign a one-year contract, or under-35 veteran players coming off a major injury who sign a one-year contract. That greatly limits the number of these deals that can be given out.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I never said it was. However, there was also no solid rule against what the Devils did. Unless you were in the room when the deal was signed and saw them shake hands agreeing that Kovalchuk would retire before it occurred you can not point to any section of the CBA saying a rule was broken with Kovalchuk's contract outside of the very vague "intentions of the CBA."

The bonus cushion wasn't intended to defer payment of 35+ contracts, it was to provide some insurance that a team could still spend to the cap without having to make room for a player like Knight winning the Hart Trophy. Giving a player an easily attained 10 game bonus of 4M is no different than giving him 4M salary.

From what getbak says it seems it is for over 35's and 1 year contracts as well to allow teams to bring in a veteran for one year but pay the cap hit the following year.

Doesn't matter in the end there is no circumvention since the cap hit is there at some point. Unlike Kovalchuck's where the chance of him playing into what was it 43-44 was not high and according to the rules the cap wouldn't count. If they made the cap count then go for it. You are basically sacrificing your future team for your current team.