Miikka Kiprusoff. World Class talent.
In previous years.
He struggled this season, and was quick to sign a long term contract in October 2007. His extension kicks in as he turns 32. A 5.833M cap hit. Reasonable, and both parties bear some risk in the contract.
CONTRACT STRUCTURE
According to www.nhlscap.com
Year 1 8,500,000
Year 2 7,000,000
Year 3 7,000,000
Year 4 6,000,000
Year 5 5,000,000
Year 6 1,500,000
According to www.nhlnumbers.com
Year 1 8,000,000
Year 2 8,000,000
Year 3 8,000,000
Year 4 6,000,000
Year 5 3,500,000
Year 6 1,500,000
Front-loaded you say? No big deal. Plenty of contracts are frontloaded, including Souray and Roloson on the Oilers.
THE ISSUE
Apparently, his agent isn't exactly a bundle of smarts. He was quoted in a Finnish Newspaper:
"From what I've heard from Miikka, he sees the contract as a four to five year deal. Calgary simply wanted to divide the expenses over longer period of time"
"I Think this is Miikkas last contract. I think he has made enough money to keep his bed warm and his beers cold.
Looking at the contract structure closely, Kiprusoff is earning 33.5M over the first 5 years of the contract, close to the 7M/year price he was asking when you consider the present value effects.
So did the Flames effectively shed 1M off the cap hit, with a *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* oral agreement in a scenario where Kiprusoff retires after year 4 or 5 of the contract? Given that Miikka is under 35, the Flames do not incur a cap hit in the event he retires.
The Agent's quotations are direct and to the point. It's a situation where the Flames invade/circumvent "the spirit of the salary cap" should the agent's comments have some truth in them.
And if Miikka Kiprusoff does indeed retire before the completion of the contract, does the NHL brass come hard on them?
Given the NHL's historical reputation of an entity that is too soft and doesn't punish their offenders harsh enough, perhaps the Oiler should engage in this sort of trickery and sign Shawn Horcoff to a cap friendly 10 year deal.
In which he retires after 7.
Posts
6 comments:
Year 1: 10M
2: 7
3: 4
4: 3
5: 2
6: 2
7: 2
8,9,10: league min
10 Years, ~31M.
Great idea.
From a player's perspective, I don't see why you would agree to something like that. 5 years is a long time, and what happens if you change your mind during that span and decide to play out the last year? You're then stuck playing for a miniscule amount. In that sense there's a major potential financial downside, and no major financial upside.
Rage:
But he gets more money up front, which is certainly major financial upside.
$8,000,000 today is worth a helluva lot more than $8,000,000 in 8 years.
I understand the benefit of frontloading. What I disagree with is the idea that a player will have years in his contract that he has no intention of playing out, but are only in there to decrease the cap hit.
Good grief... I hope you're not suggesting that there is actually a "spirit" to that massive legal document that needs to be heeded, apart from the actual text of the thing.
Matt - it's a case where it's difficult to prove that the said player intended to retire at the inception of the contract.
Post a Comment