[News] Ken Holland says Zetterberg is done playing hockey

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Yamer

A $3 million cap penalty is a punishment as it would handicap a team for a player who, through no fault of their own or the team's, can no longer play.

But it’s not a penalty.

Is it a penalty for a players salary to be counted against the cap? Why should the Wings get a gift of $14 million over the previous nine years? It was exactly the same with the Flames and Kipper.

The amount that a player is paid over the life of his contract is what should count against the cap.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Which is absolute b.s. He is never playing hockey again so he is retired, LTIR is intended for players who have a lengthy injury but will eventually return to action. Clear cap circumvention.

LTIR is intended for players who can not play because of injury.

Excluding players who are so injured they can never play again would be extreme b.s.

I don't know how you can say "clear cap circumvention" to something that was clearly intended in the CBA.

There is no more reasonable case of using LTIR than for someone who is inured for a lengthy period and will never return to action. it's an entirely sensible and intended result.

So if, for example, Connor McDavid gets into a horrific car accident and is relegated to a life in a wheelchair, he should be "retired" and the Oilers should not be able to replace his cap hit?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But it’s not a penalty.

Is it a penalty for a players salary to be counted against the cap? Why should the Wings get a gift of $14 million over the previous nine years? It was exactly the same with the Flames and Kipper.

The amount that a player is paid over the life of his contract is what should count against the cap.

It is a penalty. The Wings gave Zetterberg that contract with the expectation he would play to every dollar given. If he had been healthy enough, he probably would have. He can't, because the job he did for Detroit broke his body down to the point he can't.

Kipper walked away voluntarily, Zetterberg isn't. Not comparable. I'm not understanding the bulk of your argument of this post. Am I missing something?

Why should a team carry a cap hit for something that was beyond their or the player's control?

EDIT: Whoops, I missed your qualifier in the OP. I understand your point now. Still don't think it's a fair compromise, however. Already paid them above the cap AND be hit with a recapture?

[Buff]

I remember in 2004 playoffs when we played the Wings. Flames fans were harsh on Datsyuk and Zetterberg for their ineffectiveness during the playoffs. The both turned that around a season or two later!

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I guarantee insurance isn't paying out the remainder of this deal because they would want to see medical proof that he can't come back in any of the three last seasons.

I expect that the NHL requires medical proof that he is unfit to play.

If Zetteberg really could play, he'd want to finish his career for a few years in Sweden. This would prevent him from doing so, Much like Hossa would have wanted to do so in Slovakia.

I have little doubt these players cannot play any longer, because they have forfeited any right to do so. And at a time when they were both still very good players in the NHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Yamer

It is a penalty. The Wings gave Zetterberg that contract with the expectation he would play to every dollar given. If he had been healthy enough, he probably would have. He can't, because the job he did for Detroit broke his body down to the point he can't.

Kipper walked away voluntarily, Zetterberg isn't. Not comparable. I'm not understanding the bulk of your argument of this post. Am I missing something?

Why should a team carry a cap hit for something that was beyond their or the player's control?

Recapture is not a penalty. I see it as two entirely different concepts.

I am not talking about the real dollars. These teams generate cap savings in the early years of big contracts by mismatching the cash stream with the AAV. This takes care of itself when the player plays to the full term of the contract.

When they don’t that’s when there is a problem IMO. Let’s face it, a 12 year contract that pays the player nearly $8 million per in the first few year, but $1 million per in the last two years when he is 38 and 39 is obviously contemplating the possibility of the player walking away.

IMO to say it is beyond Detroit’s control is wrong. The contract was front loaded for a reason.

As others have stated, it is a way for players to get paid up front. And for big market teams to have an advantage. It’s not the system I would prefer.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Recapture is not a penalty. I see it as two entirely different concepts.

I am not talking about the real dollars. These teams generate cap savings in the early years of big contracts by mismatching the cash stream with the AAV. This takes care of itself when the player plays to the full term of the contract.

When they don’t that’s when there is a problem IMO. Let’s face it, a 12 year contract that pays the player nearly $8 million per in the first few year, but $1 million per in the last two years when he is 38 and 39 is obviously contemplating the possibility of the player walking away.

IMO to say it is beyond Detroit’s control is wrong. The contract was front loaded for a reason.

As others have stated, it is a way for players to get paid up front. And for big market teams to have an advantage. It’s not the system I would prefer.

Yeah, I edited my post late. I get what you're saying. And you're right that the contract was structured so as to minimize impact in the last few years in expectation of a possible retirement.

However, I do think there is a difference if a player decides to retire because he's older, doesn't want to play anymore, is satisfied with his career, doesn't feel it's worth it to play for a reduced salary, etc. and a player that is told he might be paralyzed within a decade if he keeps playing and makes the smart decision for prolonged quality of life.

The decision has been taken away from the player, unless he's mental, and the team could not anticipate that kind of injury 9 years ago.

And I guess we differ in the idea that a recapture in any sense could be non-penalizing. Discussing this specific case, IMO if your proposal was in the CBA, it would be an unjust penalty against the Detroit Red Wings.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm sure Dipietro has another 42 years left on his contract.

Nope, his contract was bought out. He's being paid until 2029 though.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Yeah, I edited my post late. I get what you're saying. And you're right that the contract was structured so as to minimize impact in the last few years in expectation of a possible retirement.

However, I do think there is a difference if a player decides to retire because he's older, doesn't want to play anymore, is satisfied with his career, doesn't feel it's worth it to play for a reduced salary, etc. and a player that is told he might be paralyzed within a decade if he keeps playing and makes the smart decision for prolonged quality of life.

The decision has been taken away from the player, unless he's mental, and the team could not anticipate that kind of injury 9 years ago.

And I guess we differ in the idea that a recapture in any sense could be non-penalizing. Discussing this specific case, IMO if your proposal was in the CBA, it would be an unjust penalty against the Detroit Red Wings.

But isn’t that the risk of a long term deal? That the player will be less effective or unable to play in the last few years? The Wings got the benefit of Zetterberg in his prime and none of the risk (from a cap perspective, from a cash perspective they are out). So as a deep pockets team they are advantaged.


To put it another way, if Zetterberg signs a nine year deal that AAV is going to be higher.

I fundamentally don’t see recapture as a penalty. It keeps everything whole. IMO of course.

[rollie619]

Well I guess we should've signed Iggy to an 11 year deal in 2008. Would've won the cup not having to dress 15 guys.