[Trade] PK Subban for Shea Weber. 1 for 1.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

But they did sign it they could have said go for it philly

They didn't know about the future cap recapture penalties at the time though. Had they known, it might have influenced their decision. I agree with the above, no way the NHL penalizes them when the time comes.

If the NHL can decide to lessen the penalties for NJ re: Kovalchuk for 'reasons', there's reason to think they might do the same for Nashville. Especially because they weren't actively trying to circumvent the cap like NJ was.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They didn't know about the future cap recapture penalties at the time though. Had they known, it might have influenced their decision. I agree with the above, no way the NHL penalizes them when the time comes.

If the NHL can decide to lessen the penalties for NJ re: Kovalchuk for 'reasons', there's reason to think they might do the same for Nashville. Especially because they weren't actively trying to circumvent the cap like NJ was.

Because they didnt exist.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They didn't know about the future cap recapture penalties at the time though. Had they known, it might have influenced their decision. I agree with the above, no way the NHL penalizes them when the time comes.

If the NHL can decide to lessen the penalties for NJ re: Kovalchuk for 'reasons', there's reason to think they might do the same for Nashville. Especially because they weren't actively trying to circumvent the cap like NJ was.

but yea I cant see the nhl letting that happen that hit could kill a club

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because they didnt exist.

Yep, it was implied. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[Jason14h]

No cap circumvention penalty will ever be paid by any NHL team. The 'rule' was put in so teams stopped signing these types of contracts.

The last thing the NHL and NHLPA wants is a team having a dead cap space of X million a year.

They just haven't figured out a proper way to address the situation, which they will/may? fix next CBA. (With more holes I am sure

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

No cap circumvention penalty will ever be paid by any NHL team. The 'rule' was put in so teams stopped signing these types of contracts.

The last thing the NHL and NHLPA wants is a team having a dead cap space of X million a year.

They just haven't figured out a proper way to address the situation, which they will/may? fix next CBA. (With more holes I am sure

Dead cap space doesn't matter because the players are guaranteed 50% of the revenue regardless. Any discrepancy as a result of a cap penalty would just slightly lessen the escrow the players are subject to (as I understand it).

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

No cap circumvention penalty will ever be paid by any NHL team. The 'rule' was put in so teams stopped signing these types of contracts.

The last thing the NHL and NHLPA wants is a team having a dead cap space of X million a year.

They just haven't figured out a proper way to address the situation, which they will/may? fix next CBA. (With more holes I am sure

The rules were already 'fixed' in the CBA when the recapture penalty was introduced. In the 2013 CBA it is impossible to front load contracts like it was in the 2005 CBA:
1. The term on contracts were capped to 7 or 8 years.
2. The lowest year's salary can't be less than 50% of the highest year's salary
3. Salary can't vary by more than 35% from year to year

If they wanted to prevent those type of contracts (i.e. Weber, Hossa, etc.) from being signed, they already did that without adding recapture penalties.

The recapture penalty was designed to be punitive to teams who signed long term contracts with low salary years tacked on to decrease AAV under the 2005 CBA. There are no recapture penalties for contracts signed under the 2013 CBA.

Whether the NHL has the balls to stick and cripple a franchise with a $24 million cap penalty is another question. They probably won't.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's funny, I just raised the "retroactive rule application" problem in reference to Luongo's deal hurting the Canucks, and basically everyone's reaction was "THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET!!2"

Here, where it's a non-rival getting screwed by it, it suddenly seems really unfair to many people.

Bottom line is, no matter who signed the deal, no matter whether it went against the "spirit" of the rules, you cannot have retroactive rule-making. That's just a basic principle of rule-making. If governments did it, it would destabilize the entire country - can you imagine doing something legal and then the government passing a law the next day retroactively applying a prison sentence to you?

People will put up with this because the stakes are lower - it's just sports, and it's just millionaires having to pay money to other millionaires. Doesn't change the fact that it's fundamentally unfair.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's funny, I just raised the "retroactive rule application" problem in reference to Luongo's deal hurting the Canucks, and basically everyone's reaction was "THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET!!2"

Here, where it's a non-rival getting screwed by it, it suddenly seems really unfair to many people.

The difference is not between a rival and a non-rival. The difference is between a team that signed a contract voluntarily, and a team that was forced to match a foolishly large and onerous contract offered by a different franchise, or else lose the player for a few draft picks. The Predators had no part in negotiating that deal; neither the ludicrous term nor the back-diving salary were their idea.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

People will put up with this because the stakes are lower - it's just sports, and it's just millionaires having to pay money to other millionaires. Doesn't change the fact that it's fundamentally unfair.

What is fundamentally unfair is that a team should be allowed to pay a player (say) $10 million a year and only have $5 million show up against the salary cap, because the salary is being averaged against hypothetical future years that the player will never play. You are complaining about the remedy as if the original cap evasion had never happened. Of course it would be unfair to penalize a team if there had been no evasion – but that is not what happened.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It doesn't matter if there was "evasion" or not. It's either against the rules or it isn't. If you don't like the way the rules are being "evaded", change the rules - which they did. But you can't punish people for clearly legal activities when the activities were carried out.

It also doesn't matter if it's a matched deal. Nashville still signed the damned contract. It wasn't involuntary; no one forced them to do it. If it had been against their will it wouldn't even be enforceable.

It is simply a clearly, fundamentally unfair practice to take an action that was within the rules when it was done and retroactively apply a punishment to it. If that's not clear to everyone from a first principles standpoint, I really need to get into politics.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Bottom line is, no matter who signed the deal, no matter whether it went against the "spirit" of the rules, you cannot have retroactive rule-making.

That's a pretty odd statement to make since they did change the rules retroactively. Both the League and Players signed off on it. If anyone was opposed to it, it wasn't enough to vote against ratifying the CBA.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That was a normative statement. Obviously you "can" have retroactive rule-making. Parliament could pass a law tomorrow stating that posting on Calgarypuck is a crime punishable by death, with retroactive application to today, but that wouldn't be in any way fair. That kind of thing is contrary to s.11(g) of the Charter for a reason. Again, obviously it's not as dramatic because the consequences of being fundamentally unfair are less here (it's just a sports league) but it doesn't change the principle.

[cam_wmh]

Ah, edited my post.

I see the discussion since, is whether the NHL would implement retroactive penalties as opposed to grandfathering contracts under previous CBA's. Carry on

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It doesn't matter if there was "evasion" or not. It's either against the rules or it isn't.

As a matter of fact, it does matter whether there was evasion or not. Cap circumvention is clearly forbidden by both the 2005 and 2013 CBAs, and the league commissioner is given pretty much carte blanche to punish offending parties as he sees fit. These back-diving deals were agreed by the NHL and the NHLPA to constitute circumvention, and both parties agreed on a penalty to be imposed for it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If they constituted circumvention under the 2005 CBA, there was a remedy provided in that same CBA to address cap circumvention. It was, in fact, used (sort of) to deal with the Kovalchuk contract. In other words, you use the rules that are there, the punishments set out in existing rules, to deal with any breach of those rules. You don't make new rules to apply to past actions. Ex post facto law is fundamentally unfair. Period.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If they constituted circumvention under the 2005 CBA, there was a remedy provided in that same CBA to address cap circumvention. It was, in fact, used (sort of) to deal with the Kovalchuk contract. In other words, you use the rules that are there, the punishments set out in existing rules, to deal with any breach of those rules. You don't make new rules to apply to past actions. Ex post facto law is fundamentally unfair. Period.

The new rules were applied to contracts that were still in effect. There was no ex post facto punishment of contracts already completed.

Would you have been happier if Gary Bettman had simply declared the same cap penalty before 2013 that the NHL and PA agreed on in 2013?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

If he had the right to make a declaration of that type as punishment for a specific contract being deemed cap circumvention under the 2005 CBA, and properly exercised that power at the time, then yes, that would have been fine. But I don't think that right existed, and in any event, he didn't. Instead, the NHL and PA agreed to a blanket rule covering all contracts that applied to contracts already made. It doesn't matter when the contract terminates; the relevant activity is entering into the contract. That's the point where both parties are bound by its terms and can't change them to take into account a punitive rule aimed at contracts of that type that doesn't exist yet.

You're trying really hard to find a good reason why a fundamental principle of rule-making shouldn't apply here. There's really only one - "we don't care if it's unfair, it's just sports".

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Bottom line is, no matter who signed the deal, no matter whether it went against the "spirit" of the rules, you cannot have retroactive rule-making. That's just a basic principle of rule-making.

If everyone agrees to the "retroactive rule-making" then why not? Where did you find these basic principles, anyway? Here's another one, "Rules are meant to be broken."

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Locke

Honestly, I think its all about the money.

Weber's contract is longer but a huge chunk of it has already been paid and his actual dollars back-dive hard at the tail end whereas PK is still owed a lot of money.

The money is definitely a big part of it. The Canadiens had some sticker shock, the dollar tanked compared to when the deal was signed, and they had a limited window to get out from under the contract.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Where did you find these basic principles, anyway?

I quite look forward to Corsi's answer to this one. I think he has you there. you fundamental principles making up guy, you.

Damn where is that text colour button...