Comments on: Weber Offer Sheet: CIRCUMVENTION?

By: ICDogg

ICDogg — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:43:00 +0000

I think the only way that “27 in the first year” applies is being the number the Preds are locked into paying Weber if Nashville matches the offer, because of the crazy RFA rule that restricts a trade based on a 365 day year rather than by the league year, which the contracts are tied to. That probably should be changed to correspond with the league year.

But all that means, I think, is that the Preds are, under the current scenario if they match, effectively locked in for two years before trading Weber. To trade him after one year would make no sense after having paid his July 1 bonus. That is, unless the NHL would allow the Preds to accept a large amount of cash as part of the compensation for trading Weber before the 2013-14 season, which conceivably would be allowed taking into consideration the structure of the contract being traded.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:58:00 +0000

If you take what people seem to have accepted as true enough — that he would be getting 27 in the first year — then it follows from that he’s only getting 4 in year seven. But that’s the lesser of two points I made. The greater point is the most obvious one: the CBA did not intend for people to be able to get double the allowed maximum salary in a single year’s time. Although who knows, maybe the CBA doesn’t mind. Since it’s sentient.

Clearly, the league has approved the contract, so the debate is academic at this point.

By: ICDogg

ICDogg — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:00:00 +0000

Moving up payments 26 days because of the date of the offer sheet is creating a domino effect how? It’s just moving up payments by a matter of days. I just don’t see how that holds up.

I think if you’re going to disqualify a contract on the basis that it violates the “spirit of the CBA”, you need a lot better reason.

By: Spectors Hockey | NHL Blog Beat – July 23, 2012.

Spectors Hockey | NHL Blog Beat – July 23, 2012. — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:00:57 +0000

[...] MCSORLEY’S STICK: There could be grounds for the league to reject Shea Weber’s offer sheet from the Flyers, though it probably won’t happen. [...]

By: Quisp

Quisp — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:15:00 +0000

The logic is faulty if you assume that only a literal interpretation of the CBA is possible. But by that line of reasoning, the Kovalchuk contract would never have been challenged, much less voided by the arbitrator. Everything hinges on whether or not the league (i.e. Bettman) thinks that the CBA, as intended in 2005, would have prevented this practice if it had anticipated it. Because if the answer is yes, then that alone is reason enough to rule against it.

In other words, you have to step outside of a literal reading of the CBA in order to judge the logic of the argument, because the authority of that very same literal reading of the CBA is attacked by the argument. And, more generally, any all-encompassingly literal reading of the CBA has already been invalidated by Kovalchuk.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:42:00 +0000

The logic used in here is faulty.
• The CBA states that a player’s salary in any single season may not be more than 20% of the Upper Limit as set in the year in which the player signed his contract.
• Using the signing bonus mechanism to pay Weber $14MM in season one and another $13MM on 7/1/2013 has, literally, the effect of paying him $27MM in season one.
• You could argue that paying Weber $27MM between late July 2012 and July 1 2013 violates the spirit and intent of the rule that caps compensation at 20% of the Upper Limit, which, I might add, the contract exceeds by almost 200%.
The problem is that the 27 million is payed over two seasons, as the NHL season begins on July 1 of each year, and signing bonuses are due on the first day of each season. So while the 27 million is due in one calendar year, it is actually 14 million in each season.
Additionally, the league has already allowed this when they approved Brad Richards’ contract last season, which paid him a signing bonus of 10 million with a 2 million dollar salary in 2011-2012 and an additional 8 million dollar signing bonus this year, for a total of 20 million dollars. Since he signed his contract on July 2, all 20 million would be paid out in one calendar year. The Parise and Suter contracts would also be in a similar boat, paying 25 million over the first two years.
There is no difference in RFA and UFA contracts per the CBA. The only difference stated between RFA and UFA in the CBA is that the club owning the rights of the RFA has the first right of refusal. Otherwise, contracts may be structured exactly the same for either type of individual insofar as term and payment.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:11:00 +0000

I didn’t mean to suggest that they would (stop it). I’m sure they won’t unless it impacts whatever they’re doing with the current (2012 CBA) negotiations in a way that benefits them.

I especially agree with the “not a circumvention to be a jerk” part of your argument.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:29:00 +0000

I’ll clarify that I feel that the ability to spread signing bonuses out like Philly is doing here should not be allowed to continue going forward. I believe that all signing bonuses should only be payable immediately upon signing the contract and must fit within the other limitations about how much you’re able to pay a player in a given league year.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:26:00 +0000

Right, there are multiple ways to define a year built into the CBA, but for payments given to players, there is one, and that one defines the year as 7/1 to 7/1

The thing is that if we’re going to discuss the spirit of the CBA as being there to punish teams that want to use economic wherewithal that isn’t shared by all 30 clubs, then we’ve got a much trickier situation. Essentially, the Kovalchuk deal as it now stands shouldn’t have been allowed because not every team in the league could have afforded to sign him to the same deal (made extra funny by the fact that it appears New Jersey seems to be having that problem now).

There isn’t an added level of financial responsibility to not be jerks when it comes down to a player having RFA status. If the spirit of the CBA is to make every team perfectly financially competitive, then the entire means by which they set the ceiling and floor violates that spirit.

I don’t feel the league will stop this.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:13:00 +0000

Oh, the CBA defines a year in many different ways, depending on the situation. Sometimes, it’s a calendar year. Sometimes, as when determining whether a player is 18 years old, it’s not even 9 months (January 1 to September 15), sometimes it’s 12 months from the date in question, and sometimes it’s July 1 to June 30. But this is not the point.

The point is, by using signing bonuses in a way that was not intended or envisaged by the CBA, it invites the question of whether or not the CBA — had it seen this coming — would have allowed such payments to be crammed into 366 days (or whatever year-like number) in this way.

Because if it’s true that the CBA “would not have allowed it” had it “seen it coming”, it’s also true that the CBA can not allow it in the present, on the grounds that it violates the spirit and intent of the CBA.