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

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by blender

Why do so many people believe that there is a handshake deal?

Why would any player or team agree to such a thing?
It doesn't make sense.
Carolina wanted the player and they tendered an offer sheet that they knew would get it done.

If Carolina likes what they are seeing from the player they will offer him a longer term contract as soon as they are allowed and if the player likes the offer, he will sign it. If he doesn't like it he will play for his QO, or become a UFA.

This isn't complicated.

I think the better part of the planet is convinced that most human interactions these days are part of a large conspiracy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

It is incumbent on a professional athlete with a finite shelf life to do precisely this. Especially in their prime earning years.

No, it's not.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who said anything about "binding"?

I think it is fairly uncontroversial to think that there would have been some discussion about what an extension would look like; there have been media suggestions that this is precisely what has happened. If Kotkaniemi is happy in Carolina I think there is a very good chance he signs a long-term deal at the earliest opportunity. I know this is absolutely astonishing to some posters here, but not everyone in the world is determined to squeeze every last cent out of his employer at all costs. Some players will prioritise their long-term stability and comfort within an organization even at the expense of what they (might) get on offer from elsewhere.

I have no doubt that there has been some discussion of what a long term contract might look like.

But a number of posters have suggested that Carolina is not concerned about the large required QO, because a long term deal has already been agreed upon.

My point is simply that no long term could have been agreed upon. If is has been, it’s cap circumvention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, it's not.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Ok then. The mods have spoken.

[GreenLantern2814]

I think it’s sort of a given to all parties involved that there is a desire to be part of the Hurricanes long term. They didn’t give up a 1st and 3rd on a 23 year old (or however old) centre to rent him, and the player has no reason to want to go anywhere else.

Why wouldn’t Kotkaniemi sign a reasonable extension whenever it’s allowed?

He’s Jesperi Kotkaniemi. Secure the bag, son.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I have no doubt that there has been some discussion of what a long term contract might look like.

But a number of posters have suggested that Carolina is not concerned about the large required QO, because a long term deal has already been agreed upon.

My point is simply that no long term could have been agreed upon. If is has been, it’s cap circumvention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If the total compensation is below the cap, how is it circumvention?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the total compensation is below the cap, how is it circumvention?

Kotkaniemi is making $6.1 million this year, and might be worth a third of that. Call it $2.1 million.

Now suppose he has a handshake agreement to sign with the Hurricanes for four years at a million dollars a year less than he would otherwise, to compensate for being overpaid this year. That's an extra million per year that the Hurricanes can spend on other players for those four years, because they offloaded the cap hit for that money to a year when they were spending less.

The extra million would be the cap circumvention. For the deal to be kosher, there would have had to be a single five-year contract with the same cap hit for all five years – but then Montreal would most likely have matched.

In any case, as you pointed out, the NHL is an exception to the rule that oral contracts are binding, because the CBA specifically requires all contracts to be in writing. If either the Hurricanes or Kotkaniemi think there is a binding deal between them beyond this season, they have another think coming.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Kotkaniemi is making $6.1 million this year, and might be worth a third of that. Call it $2.1 million.

Now suppose he has a handshake agreement to sign with the Hurricanes for four years at a million dollars a year less than he would otherwise, to compensate for being overpaid this year. That's an extra million per year that the Hurricanes can spend on other players for those four years, because they offloaded the cap hit for that money to a year when they were spending less.

The extra million would be the cap circumvention. For the deal to be kosher, there would have had to be a single five-year contract with the same cap hit for all five years – but then Montreal would most likely have matched.

In any case, as you pointed out, the NHL is an exception to the rule that oral contracts are binding, because the CBA specifically requires all contracts to be in writing. If either the Hurricanes or Kotkaniemi think there is a binding deal between them beyond this season, they have another think coming.

If the league could prove a handshake deal, like I said before, none of that is circumvention unless the Canes would be over the cap in an averaged deal. As long as the Canes are under the cap, it’s not circumvention. The AAV is simply averaged. It’s just like Nylander’s contract, which paid $9M the first full year and 6.0 the rest. The AAV was 6.92.

It used to be circumvention when front loaded contracts were clearly aimed at paying a lot now and then very little for the last couple years and the player was expected to retire before those low priced years kicked in.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the total compensation is below the cap, how is it circumvention?

Maybe my choice of words is poor.

You cannot agree in advance of the deadline to a deal. For example, the Flames could sign Johnny for one year today, but they couldn't also agree that in January they will sign him for an additional 8 years. If they did, and it came out, the Flames would be sanctioned.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the league could prove a handshake deal, like I said before, none of that is circumvention unless the Canes would be over the cap in an averaged deal. As long as the Canes are under the cap, it’s not circumvention. The AAV is simply averaged. It’s just like Nylander’s contract, which paid $9M the first full year and 6.0 the rest. The AAV was 6.92.

It used to be circumvention when front loaded contracts were clearly aimed at paying a lot now and then very little for the last couple years and the player was expected to retire before those low priced years kicked in.

If the league could prove such a handshake deal, the Canes would be punished in some fashion. Regardless of the cap implications, it effectively means that the amount that Montreal had to match was grossly overstated. Montreal was deceived as to the true contract. If there is a handshake deal for 6 years at $3M, the true contract 1s really 7 years at about $3.44M, which Montreal likely matches, as the compensation would be based on an AAV of $4.82M.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Maybe my choice of words is poor.

You cannot agree in advance of the deadline to a deal. For example, the Flames could sign Johnny for one year today, but they couldn't also agree that in January they will sign him for an additional 8 years. If they did, and it came out, the Flames would be sanctioned.

That's true but only because the max deal is 8, not because of the cap. Of course, proving anything but a wait and see deal would be pretty hard. If the Flames didn't honour it all Johnny could do would be to bad mouth them as backstabbers, because handshake deals are unenforceable under the CBA.

A cap circumvention handshake deal would be a written deal for an 8 year contract with a 30 year old which pays $8M in the first 3 years and $1M for the remainder but with a handshake that the player retires in 4 years.

[Robbob]

You can have a deal in principle. Nothing is signed. The player assumes some risk here. If Kotkaniemi gets a major injury then Carolina won't sign him.

[PepsiFree]

No one would get punished for a non-binding handshake deal. That's ridiculous.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No one would get punished for a non-binding handshake deal. That's ridiculous.

That's the point that has been debated, that's its not a binding agreement. Many have said that the Canes have a 6 year deal in place that will be added to the one year deal. My point is that while they may have had discussions, no deal can be finalized. If JK pops 30 goals, or gets badly injured, all bets are off.

But if it's proven that they actually signed a postdated deal and stuffed it in the drawer, heads will roll.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That's the point that has been debated, that's its not a binding agreement. Many have said that the Canes have a 6 year deal in place that will be added to the one year deal. My point is that while they may have had discussions, no deal can be finalized. If JK pops 30 goals, or gets badly injured, all bets are off.

But if it's proven that they actually signed a postdated deal and stuffed it in the drawer, heads will roll.

In the past, I think the league has punished the "you will retire, right?" handshake deals. Or at least voided the deal. That was the Kovalchuk situation.

[Hack&Lube]

This doesn't quite feel like revenge anymore on the part of the Canes.

The Habs can just take that 1st and 3rd and flip it for a decent center to fill their middle.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This doesn't quite feel like revenge anymore on the part of the Canes.

The Habs can just take that 1st and 3rd and flip it for a decent center to fill their middle.

Someone like, let's say, Christian Dvorak.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If the league could prove such a handshake deal, the Canes would be punished in some fashion. Regardless of the cap implications, it effectively means that the amount that Montreal had to match was grossly overstated. Montreal was deceived as to the true contract. If there is a handshake deal for 6 years at $3M, the true contract 1s really 7 years at about $3.44M, which Montreal likely matches, as the compensation would be based on an AAV of $4.82M.

They wouldn't be punished at all. The offer was one-year at 6.1. After that deal expires, KK becomes a restricted free agent and is free to negotiate any deal with the Canes. Yes, he has to be qualified at that, but if he signs before he becomes a free agent, his next contract doesn't have to be that amount. If their is a handshake deal, then that's all it is. A handshake, and either party can change their mind before that contract is signed when he is allowed to.


It's not deception, it's not cap circumvention. It's using the tools at your disposal to take away an asset from another team. Only the one year is guaranteed at this point.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Ped

They wouldn't be punished at all. The offer was one-year at 6.1. After that deal expires, KK becomes a restricted free agent and is free to negotiate any deal with the Canes. Yes, he has to be qualified at that, but if he signs before he becomes a free agent, his next contract doesn't have to be that amount. If their is a handshake deal, then that's all it is. A handshake, and either party can change their mind before that contract is signed when he is allowed to.


It's not deception, it's not cap circumvention. It's using the tools at your disposal to take away an asset from another team. Only the one year is guaranteed at this point.

I am talking about an agreed upon deal that both parties consider in place. Signed and put into a drawer.

If either can back out if things change, there is nothing wrong with that.

But many posters that they had already agreed to a deal that would make this deal look much better. My point was simply that such a deal could never be binding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[blender]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's true but only because the max deal is 8, not because of the cap. Of course, proving anything but a wait and see deal would be pretty hard. If the Flames didn't honour it all Johnny could do would be to bad mouth them as backstabbers, because handshake deals are unenforceable under the CBA.

A cap circumvention handshake deal would be a written deal for an 8 year contract with a 30 year old which pays $8M in the first 3 years and $1M for the remainder but with a handshake that the player retires in 4 years.

That deal isn’t even allowed under the CBA, so not a great example.