[News] UPD: Habs do not match Canes offer sheet to Jesperi Kotkaniemi (1 yr, $6.1 mil)

[Traditional_Ale]

The legend that is now the Carolina Hurricanes began on that fateful day in 2006 when they saved the universe from imploding on itself. Us, as Flames fans, need to remember this more than anyone.

I love the Canes.

[Knightslayer]

Both teams somehow lose this fiasco. Almost like a murder suicide.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

There is no tampering, the player was a RFA. Any team can negotiate with an RFA, it is right in the CBA. If the Canes have a handshake deal with KK on a long term deal if he signed the offer sheet that is not tampering, the player was a free agent.

You missed the point entirely.

I did not use the word tampering.

No team can ever sign a player to a one year contract with a handshake deal on a future contract. That handshake deal is not binding on either party.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

What happens if he scores 30 goals playing with some elite players?

Will he sign a cheap 6 year deal, which basically proves cap circumvention?

How about he completely flames out, will the Canes honour the non- enforceable deal and still sign him for 6 years, again proving cap circumvention?

No deal can be agreed to legally at this stage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think if Carolina poached a 22 year old 30 goal scorer, for a late 1st and a 3rd, this is a good problem to have

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Knightslayer

Both teams somehow lose this fiasco. Almost like a murder suicide.

That's probably a fair take. The big winner is the player.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

What happens if he scores 30 goals playing with some elite players?

Will he sign a cheap 6 year deal, which basically proves cap circumvention?

How about he completely flames out, will the Canes honour the non- enforceable deal and still sign him for 6 years, again proving cap circumvention?

No deal can be agreed to legally at this stage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You missed the point entirely.

I did not use the word tampering.

No team can ever sign a player to a one year contract with a handshake deal on a future contract. That handshake deal is not binding on either party.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You answered your own question. There is no cap circumvention without a contract, let alone “proof”.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1434536135129190400

https://twitter.com/user/status/1434533972327940102

[keratosis]

Hope he sends his mom a bit more.

Sent from my SM-A715W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1434536135129190400

Christmas GIFTS??

Maybe he does actually think he is getting a $20.0m signing bonus.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

You answered your own question. There is no cap circumvention without a contract, let alone “proof”.

My point is that he cannot have agreed to a long term reasonable deal. The poster said he likely had, which made the $6.1M offer sheet make sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Locke]

Christmas must be cheap in Raleigh.

[Sylvanfan]

This is pretty much what you need an offer sheet to be in order to pry the player away from another team. You need to offer the player about double of what the current worth is. In this case you could say it's even triple of what he should have realistically been paid for this upcoming year. So as much as I like the offer sheet and the revenge factor. I don't like seeing higher potential low production guys getting paid like this off an entry level contract. If this deal starts being used as a comparable in Arbitration cases look out.

[ricardodw]

So if KK backs up his 20 pts season with another 36 game 8 pt -11 season does the "secret handshake" agreement for 3M x 6 still stand?

The taunting in French now seems like a playground attempt to get the Habs to match.

I think this backfired on the Canes big time..... Who doesn't match an offer sheet......oopps

The Canes have filled the hole they created when they traded Warren Foegele for Ethan Bear. over the last 2 seasons Foegele has been a much better player than KK

Warren Foegele 6-2 198 25 years old 3 x 2.750

121 games 23 goals 50 pts .41 ppg +12 47 ES pts 3 SH pts 13:54 TOI/game


Kotkanemi 6-2 198 21 years old 1 x 6.100035

92 games 11 goals 28 pts .3 ppg -12 21 ES pts 14:02 TOI/game

Having Kotkanemi as #3LW doesn't make the Canes a better team than they were in
20-21

Ethan Bear might be lacking in replacing Dougie Hamilton's 40 pts from defense.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You missed the point entirely.

I did not use the word tampering.

No team can ever sign a player to a one year contract with a handshake deal on a future contract. That handshake deal is not binding on either party.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, you said cap circumvention which was also wrong. The handshake deal might not be legally binding but they can still do it and this probably happens quite a bit.

[Robbob]

Yeah it is no different than what Labanc did in SJ. Everyone knew that had something on the back burner when he signed that super cheap 1 yr deal.

Obviously Carolina still think there is up side and it cost them a late first and cap space for one year. If you ask me that is a great way to weaponize cap space.

[powderjunkie]

It's possible they have a few conditional handshake deals in place pending certain statistical targets/thresholds. Shorter bridge deal if his performance is poor vs. moderate-moderate deal for moderate performance vs. bigger-longer deal if he pops.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I'm sorry, you said cap circumvention which was also wrong. The handshake deal might not be legally binding but they can still do it and this probably happens quite a bit.

Well, if you can prove it, a handshake agreement is normally legally binding. Under the CBA it may not be since there are required formalities. BUT if you could prove it, I think it would not be be circumvention since it would amount to a single deal for an acceptable AAV. What it might be would be matchable by the Habs though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, if you can prove it, a handshake agreement is normally legally binding. Under the CBA it may not be since there are required formalities. BUT if you could prove it, I think it would not be be circumvention since it would amount to a single deal for an acceptable AAV. What it might be would be matchable by the Habs though.

As I was always told: "Verbal Agreements arent worth the paper they're written on."

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I'm sorry, you said cap circumvention which was also wrong. The handshake deal might not be legally binding but they can still do it and this probably happens quite a bit.

If the team and the player honour the deal even though if the subsequent year suggests the agreed upon contract is now ludicrous, it would be cap circumvention. Proving it would be very difficult I admit.

But it takes a few people lie about it.

If KK gets a 30-30-60 season, does he still sign a 6 year $3M deal?

I doubt it. They may have agreed on a deal in principle, but both sides understand that the subsequent year could very well change things.

If both sides have the clear intention to honour that deal regardless, that is cap circumvention,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If the team and the player honour the deal even though if the subsequent year suggests the agreed upon contract is now ludicrous, it would be cap circumvention. Proving it would be very difficult I admit.

But it takes a few people lie about it.

If KK gets a 30-30-60 season, does he still sign a 6 year $3M deal?

I doubt it. They may have agreed on a deal in principle, but both sides understand that the subsequent year could very well change things.

If both sides have the clear intention to honour that deal regardless, that is cap circumvention,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am guessing that a part of the agreement between the team and the player is that the new agreed-upon extension needs to be signed at the earliest opportunity, which I believe is in January. I would imagine that by mid-season both the team and the player will still be comfortable with the number and term on the extension.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk