This is getting ridiculous.

The contracts all go through the league office for approval in the first place, correct?  If there are any concerns, errors, gripes, or whines, address it then and there.  Otherwise, the contract fits the rules of the CBA that both sides signed in the first place, the team and player both agree with it, no one is coerced into signing anything against his will, and it should be fine.

Like a wedding - if you don’t say anything when the “speak now or forever hold your peace” line comes up, then shut up and leave the couple alone.  If you can’t find anything wrong when the contract is reviewed initially, then the league and the players’ association should both shut up.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/31/09 at 12:40 PM ET

Well, that an Philly screwed this one up.  The Pronger contract can’t circumvent the cap, because retired or not, that cap hit stays because of the age he’ll be extending it.

Posted by Navarath on 07/31/09 at 12:57 PM ET

what’s Bobby Clarke going to say today?

Posted by Greg on 07/31/09 at 01:00 PM ET

In principle, all contracts that smells of salary cap circumvention should be examined closely before being approved. It isn’t rocket science to look at the length of the contract, the age of the player in question at the last year of the contract, and salary distribution over the years. Simple common sense and a percentage rule of thumb could easily be applied.

The probable problem is the lack of enforcable rules to punish obvious salary cap circumvention by teams like Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. (I haven’t heard or read of any rules in that regard.) I can’t imagine that further investigation will accomplish anything beyond an ineffective scare and rethorical hand waving by the likes of Bill Daly. Unless some kind of smoking gun is found laying around.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/31/09 at 01:06 PM ET

what’s Bobby Clarke going to say today?

“But Crosby’s contracat starts at 9 million a year and ends at 7.5 million a year!!”

Who’s next? Vinny? Franzen?

Posted by Kstewy16 on 07/31/09 at 01:13 PM ET

@ Moq -

There are some rules regarding how great a drop can be between years - I remember that because Lecavalier’s first long contract was rejected for that reason, so for example a team couldn’t pay someone $40 million in the first year and then $500,000 for each of the next 30 years or something crazy like that.  Other than that, if it fits within the rules, I think the league should worry about something more important.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/31/09 at 01:15 PM ET

@ Baroque

Yes, there are the 100 percent and 50 percent rules to increases and decreases in salary. But they are rather ineffective for the given cases where long-term contracts are involved. Infraction of those rules would be disallowed long before any investigation. The current examples from Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia are mostly against the “spirit” of the CBA. Unfortunately, making a case for infraction of spirit is rather difficult without something a bit more substantial in terms of evidence.

That being said, I regard Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia as cheaters from a moral standpoint.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/31/09 at 01:56 PM ET

That being said, I regard Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia as cheaters from a moral standpoint.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/31/09 at 02:56 PM ET

That’s some awfully strong language all-things considered. 

Then again, I have a big problem with the salary cap in the first place (the CBA itself, if you will).  Considering the Red Wings voted against the lockout and have been against the salary cap since day one, I guess you’re right that they are cheating in a sense.  Then again, the difference there is that the two long-term “cheating” contracts they got were from home-grown talent and are just as much a risk to the player as they are to the team who signed the guy.

GMs who have a problem with what the Wings have done can’t see the forest through the trees. All they see is long-term contracts that circumvent the cap which, in Philly’s and Chicago’s case are scary in that they were given to mercenary players.  I’d say the culture of the teams works as a mitigating factor.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/31/09 at 02:45 PM ET

That being said, I regard Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia as cheaters from a moral standpoint.

I personally regard the cap itself as “cheating”.

This is a business, either you can afford and handle it, or you can’t.  Pro sports is the only business where, short of sheer monopoly, someone can step in and help a poorly-run business and make things easier for them.

That’s not capitalism.

Posted by Primis on 07/31/09 at 03:28 PM ET

Well, my statement does read a little harsher than intended. Sorry about that.

I don’t like it, and have my private opinion on the issue, but no rules were broken.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/31/09 at 03:58 PM ET

What is “cheating” about it?

Cheating would be paying a player an additional $5 million in bonus money to a separate account so he can play for a salary of $3 million and keep the cap hit down.  Cheating would be coercing a player into signing a contract by showing up at his home late at night and talking him to death until he gave in.  Cheating would be altering the terms of a contract after it was already signed and buying off the agent so he would testify that the player was mistaken if it came to that.  Cheating would be teams colluding to hold players out of the lineup alternately so a playoff series would be guaranteed to go seven games and get the most money for both markets. Cheating would be making up the rules on the fly and modifying them at a whim as the league decided to do so, for the maximum advantage to themselves.  Those are all cheating.

There are rules, written down and both accessible and applicable to all.  Any contract that conforms to the rules is legal, correct, and by definition not cheating - the “spirit of the CBA” talk is honestly bull**** as the only “spirit” the owners care about is the spirit fans have that kept them opening up their wallets even after the owners locked out the players for a year to get rid of the union head and make sure the “greedy players” couldn’t take too high a proportion of the league revenues from the owners since, of course, they don’t actually do anything to deserve their salaries - such as suffer concussions, torn ligaments, broken bones, separated shoulders, herniated discs, severed arteries, and speared testicles.

If an owner doesn’t like the CBA that he started whining about approximately 20 nanoseconds after it was signed - the CBA that they INSISTED they HAD to have to “save the game” and have 30 healthy franchises in 30 healthy markets - they can get bent.  They got what they wanted and if they don’t like it now because some other GM is taking advantage of the rules better then their own GM, then fire his sorry ass and get someone competent.  Or keep him in office because he’s the owner’s son’s golf buddy.  Whatever.  Either way, they should STFU because this is what they asked for and now they have it.  Deal with it or get out of the business.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/31/09 at 04:03 PM ET

Why is the NHL salary cap so harsh?

NFL have the franchise tag.
NBA have re-sign exceptions, minimum wage exception, luxury taxes.
MLS have the Beckham Rule.

So why the is NHL’s cap so hard? The same teams are winning (i.e. Detroit) or losing (Atlanta, Toronto). I just don’t get it…

Posted by Guilherme from Brazil on 07/31/09 at 04:15 PM ET

How come the NHL never inverstigated DiPietro’s deal?

why pentalize teams that found loopholes in the socialism CBA?

Posted by FlyersFan on 07/31/09 at 04:51 PM ET

The NHL brass must be idiots to only realize this now.  While it is not cheating, it does give an unfair advantage to teams that have the money to “front load” contracts so heavily.  It allows them to give players big money while keeping the cap hit low.  In the end, they can either a)trade the contract to a team struggling to make the “cap floor”, or b) buy out the contract for a figuratively speaking marginal cap hit if the final years are low cost” c) the player retires seeing as he got 80-90 percent of his money on a 12 year contract in his first 8 years.

This is nothing new.  This is what Phili “tried to do” but they failed miserably when they thought they could get the contract through before he turned 35. HAHA

Posted by Luongo-is-my-hero on 07/31/09 at 05:04 PM ET

How come the NHL never inverstigated DiPietro’s deal?

Because DP’s deal isn’t structured anywhere close to the same as these guys. His is just straight 4.5 million a season. If he retires, thats his decision. It isn’t a deal manufactured with the intent of him not playing the the last couple seasons which have very low salary in order to lower the cap hit.

Posted by Kstewy16 on 08/01/09 at 02:01 PM ET

The problem I have with the “this violated the spirit of the CBA argument” is that, plainly, it’s bullshit.

Isn’t the “spirit of the CBA” to allow all teams to be competitive?

Well, doesn’t “holding onto the players you’ve drafted and developed and have been in the system and are coming into their own” constitute part of “being competitive”?

Henrik Zetterberg has been in the Detroit system for TEN years.  They watched him from afar, helped him develop and now he’s on this (I think) third contract.  How does retaining this guy go against the spirit of the CBA?  The spirit of the CBA should be to allow teams the opportunity, if team and player both want it, to retain that player.

I would say that the Detroit contracts are VERY MUCH in the spirit of the CBA.

Posted by Garth on 08/01/09 at 02:20 PM ET