Hossa signing is blatant salary cap cheating
by FFSEnough on Jul 1, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
63 comments
What business does any team have in signing a 30 year old player to a 12 year deal?
To cheat the cap, that's what.
Hossa has clearly accepted that he will be playing the rest of his NHL days in Chicago. Not a bad move for him. However, there's no way the guy's playing 12 years of that contract. What Chicago has done is cut Hossa's cap hit in half by assuming the guy will retire in 6-8 years, thus removing the cap hit (but still having to pay him).
NHL needs to step in and stop this blatant bull-crap before it gets out of hand.
This is essentially a 5-7 year deal for 8-12M a year that looks like a 5-7 year deal that only hits the cap for 5M per.
Queue the first 50-year deal in the NHL in 3...2... ...
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
1 recs |
63 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It’s been going this way for a while. Hossa’s contract isn’t much different than the ones Zetterberg and Franzen have in Detroit or what Danny Briere has or Scott Gomez.
Sucks, but that’s the way it is. Teams are always going to try and find the loophole.
I’m just going to laugh in the next CBA if/when ownership starts bitching and moaning about these contracts when it’s their GMs that are thinking them up and handing them out like checks on payday. And they’re approving it. Of course not all teams are doing it, but the practice certainly is spreading.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
by Hooks Orpik on Jul 1, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. It’s the ownership. They forced the salary cap for “cost certainty” and then find every loophole they can to blow prices to astronomical levels again. I don’t really see any solution to this. Maybe the NHL could expand the “signing players over 35 rule” and say that any contract year you give to any player over 37 is guaranteed to count against you even if they retire. That would at least mean Hossa’s 5+ million would be on the CHI books for the whole 12 years, even if the cap hit is still lower than it should be.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, the player is also betting that he’s going to be ready to retire before 40. If he stays healthy, valuable, and still wants to play, he’ll be playing for less than market value. At 30, you may not think that will happen, but there are a number of guys over 40 still playing and contributing.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 1, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’ll be getting paid enough to cover his 40 year old production. He’s not going to be a stud at that age, even if he is still playing.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valid point. Just making an observation. It’s an ego thing, too, you know.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 1, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point. Never underestimate the professional athlete ego. Hossa’s had to have been feeling pretty bruised lately.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the easiest solution is to limit the amount by which salary can decrease from year to the next. Make it 5 or 10 percent, and this problem becomes a lot less significant.
by David M. Getz on Jul 1, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but I kinda like the creative accounting in some respects. If GMGM takes a front loaded deal to Backstrom and does the math to show the present value of the contract is about 6 mill per year, but the cap hit is only about 5 because it’s front loaded I think GMGM should be able to do that. It’s still manipulating the cap but it’s not as nefarious to me because you are signing a guy for years that you know he is playing.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NHL can reject any contract they want if they feel it’s “cheating.” They don’t, and the owners probably aren’t going to vote to close the loophole unless they also soften the cap.
Yeah, it’s creatively getting around the cap. As long as it’s available to everyone, though, it really doesn’t matter. Team’s aren’t going to cry foul over it too much because they know they might need it to be available for themselves if the cap dives the way it looks like it might.
by brs03 on Jul 1, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it’s creatively getting around the cap. As long as it’s available to everyone, though, it really doesn’t matter.
Bingo. Everyone’s playing by the same rules. It’s not cheating.
Is it a loophole that ought to be closed? That’s another debate. But it’s not cheating.
by David M. Getz on Jul 1, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m comfortable with this use of the word “cheating.” It’s BS, and to me BS can be called cheating even if it’s within the rules.I use that word that way all the time, anyway.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 1, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does he get paid if he retires?
You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.
by ChrisAm on Jul 1, 2009 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No, and since he’s under 35 if he retires before the contract ends the cap hit disappears for Chicago.
Hossa’s getting $53 million over the first seven years of this contract ($7.57 million a year). Hossa’s 30 years old. How much do you want to bet Hossa retires at the age of 37?
So this really is probably a 53mm/7 year contract but it’s signed as a $62.4mm/12 years so that what should be a $7.57mm cap hit is only a $5.2mm hit.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
by Hooks Orpik on Jul 1, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So he is getting 7.57M per year for the first 7 years and 1.88M of the remaining 5 years? I hadn’t seen the K deals.
You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.
by ChrisAm on Jul 1, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chicago over paid. Hossa has been barely a point per game player. No chance he’s worth what they’re paying him when he’s 35.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 1, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he underwhelms in the playoffs… which is where they need someone to step up.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s always a first time for showing up in the playoffs. See Kozlov, Viktor.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 1, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hossa had a first time showing up in the playoffs… it was when Sidney Crosby was his center. He’s been on some high powered offenses and only once did he really step up in the playoffs.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh. I just don’t think he’s worth that money or that kind of commitment.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 1, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah reading comprehension fail on my part
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 2, 2009 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also showed up in 2003 for the senators.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Jul 3, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the Record
Hossa has 31/45/76 in 97 playoff games. He’s no Claude Lemieux, but he’s not terrible in the playoffs, either.
As a comparison, Pavel Datsyuk has 22/42/63 in 98 playoff games, Teemu Selanne is 35/37/72 in 105 games and yet you don’t hear people discuss what disappointing playoff performers they are. He has also scored more playoff points/game than Corey Perry, or John Leclair, or even Claude Lemieux…
I could go on, but the point is: players have very little control over what their team does or doesn’t do in the playoffs on an individual level (unless those players are named Pronger, Brodeur, Roy or Hasek). Hossa’s playoff underperformance is vastly overstated – he had the misfortune of playing for underwhelming Senators teams for most of his career.
by D'ohboy on Jul 2, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just like your Gary Roberts back and forth with Hooks you are missing something. Hossa was a key member of those OTT teams and his under performance was a key reason the team underperformed. He was basically a non-factor for DET for most of these playoffs, even though they needed him to step up in Datsyuk’s absence. I used to kill Datsyuk for his playoff disappearing acts but the last three playoffs he has really stepped up (maybe 2.5 playoffs). Datsyuk also plays for DET, and as we know it takes a while for the younger players to get quality time. His first Cup he was a rookie and probably didn’t get much more ice than Abdelkader and Helm did this year (but I haven’t looked that up). Hossa had one playoff year when he was over a point per game (with Crosby). This year, still on a loaded team with plenty of support, he went back to below a point a game. More important than the sheer numbers though, he failed to come through with any impact plays, which is what you need your studs to do.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 2, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And like Hooks, you’re missing the forest for trees and extrapolating a small sample of data to castigate a player about something over which he has very little personal control.
Hossa was an important member of those OTT teams, but he was hardly one of their key players, particularly early on. Recall that he was 20-22 years old for their first-round exits in 99-01. The Sens traded him to the Thrashers when he was 25, and just as he was coming into his peak in the playoffs (16 pts in 18 games in 02-03). Criticizing him for his performance back then is like blaming Bobby Ryan for the Ducks’ loss to the Red Wings. Yes, he could have done more, but it was hardly all his fault. We’re talking about a team that used to put Patrick Lalime in goal and had Alexei Yashin as their #1 C – Hossa was the least of their problems.
Furthermore, wingers in hockey are like wide receivers in football – they require everyone else to do their job correctly before they can really contribute. They are inherently less valuable than goalies, defensemen or centers, and are less able to guide the outcome of a particular playoff series. Just try to think of the last Conn Smythe winner who was a winger (hint, he played for the Devils). Wingers, despite representing the largest contingent of the team (usually 8 players), have only accounted for 13.6% of all Conn Smythe winners. By contrast, centers have won 34%, defensemen 20%, and goalies 32%.
The reason that I disagreed with Hooks, and the reason that I disagree with you now, is that playoff stats are inherently a rather small sample for most players, and are therefore subject to massive variations based on one particular year. You argue that if you take out the one year in which Hossa played with Crosby, his stats don’t look that good. I’d counter that if you remove Roberts’ stats from the 01-02 playoffs, his stats don’t look as good, either. You can play that game with most any player who’s had one or two great playoff runs. To put it in a more Caps-oriented perspective, is Mike Green a playoff stud for putting up a point/game last year, or is he a dud for his performance this year? Obviously, we can’t tell because the sample is too small and injuries played a major role this year. There are very few players who consistently put up over a point/game in the playoffs, especially after the mid-90s proliferation of the butterfly and the neutral-zone trap. Those guys have names like Sakic and Forsberg and Jagr, and they’re all headed to the Hall of Fame.
Perhaps I’m a little defensive of Marian, because he led my home-town junior hockey team (the Portland WinterHawks) to a Memorial Cup when I was younger. Still, the principle is the same – judging players by what they don’t accomplish in a handful of games is a flawed method for evaluating talent or value to a team. It’s essentially the same rationale behind Al Davis’ attempts to sign every SuperBowl MVP.
by D'ohboy on Jul 3, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IIRC Hossa was on crutches when Portland won the Memorial Cup, but that’s not the point. I’ve watched Hossa for a long time, and listened to the “one of the best two way forwards” hype about him. I’ve never seen him be able to carry a team, especially not in the playoffs. I just don’t see how you can justify giving him that kind of long term contract when he hasn’t ever shown himself to be more than a complimentary player (albeit a pretty good one). I agree that playoff statistics aren’t going to be the only thing to determine this argument, but I’m not one of the people that are generally relying on statistics around here. I watch Hossa and don’t remember ever thinking he was a difference maker in a playoff series. With his talent and hype, he should be one. Regarding Green’s playoff numbers, I don’t think anything about 16 points in 21 NHL playoff games is condemning for an NHL dman, even as bad as his playoffs were this year. I think his 34 points in 40 Calder Cup Playoff games also supports the conclusion that he can step up when he has to. I’m not buying the “wings are the WR of the NHL” argument, it’s a different sport, with different roster make up. I don’t think any position in hockey translates particularly well to an NFL position.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 11, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should offer Mats Sundin a 40 year 16 million dollar contract.
by SA-Town on Jul 1, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think the biggest issue I have is that we missed out doing this with Ovie. Not just because he would be counting, say 7 mil per year instead of 9.5, but because we could play the Lidstrom Card and maintain that nobody makes more than he does, and other players would, to a degree, respect it.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jul 1, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but Ovie’s contract will be up when he’s 35 right? So we’d have had to tack on like 4-5 more years. These kinds of contract shenanigans work better with the 28-30 year old UFA, not the 22 year old RFA.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 1, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah and contracts longer than 15 years aren’t insurable (and thus are void) so we wouldn’t have been able to extend the AO K for much longer. That’s why the Pisles had to try to sign DiPietro twice.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
15 years aren’t insurable (and thus are void)
Interesting…where’d you find that tidbit?
by Yoshietree on Jul 1, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have a link off hand. I just remember the NYI tried to sign DiPietro to an 18 year deal or something but couldn’t get it insured and so they had to restructure the deal to be 15 years. If/when I find a link I’ll post it back here for you.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grassyass. Not trying to call you out or anything, just never heard of it before.
by Yoshietree on Jul 1, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even one more year @ $1M would have knocked his cap hit down by about 500K.
by nuftjedi on Jul 1, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
500K on AO isn’t going to cost us.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
think about last year when we were literally down to 5 figures. and think about calgary dressing 17/18 guys. don’t discount 500k.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jul 1, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not discounting 500K per se, I just think that for us to keep our impact players together at some point they are going to have to agree to a discount. 500K can be worked around for role players to fill in the core but 500K won’t cost us Backstrom.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
alan muir worries the hossa signing will prevent the hawks from locking up toews/kane/keith next season. if so, the move itself flies in the face of ted’s plan for the caps…overpay to reward your own players, not to bring in UFAs. personally, i couldn’t be more happy with GMGM and the caps front office right now. even if knuble’s age catches up to him next season, the caps’ recent front office decisions have been consistent and defensible.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 1, 2009 6:20 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
I rec’d this. I totally agree it may work for chi town it may not. Point is, they decided to go this route and go all in with Hossa. GMGM and the caps are going a different route, we want our home grown players to take us. I like our plan.
by vt caps fan on Jul 1, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d. It’s the right kind of risk and the right level. And when Backstrom signs his long extension later this month, we’ll be happy again that this is their philosophy.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 1, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
all in favor say i.
whether or not knuble is the/an answer, it’s keeping with the philosophy of the organization. at some point chicago is going to lose one of their young studs and it will be because they had to have a career loser when they were already thisclose.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jul 1, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see the problem. They’re going to be on the hook for 5 mil for 12 years. It gives them maybe a 5 year window for him to help them get the Cup. He’s not going to be that beneficial, but since the contract is the same throughout, they’re still going to be penalized 5 mil for year 12. And likely, he won’t be playing. I see this as a smart signing, honestly, but that they’ll be hurting for it for a bit.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Jul 1, 2009 9:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This signing would look a lot better if not for the Campbell signing last year.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 1, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In addition to that: once you’re talking five, seven, ten years out that salary cap is going to be a lot higher (in nominal dollars, anyway)
by David M. Getz on Jul 2, 2009 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
possible some of these players make gentleman’s agreements to retire at a certain age? would this be explicitly banned by the CBA?
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 1, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if it’s explicitly banned, but I couldn’t possibly imagine a 30 year old pro athlete arbitrarily deciding then that he’ll retire at, say, 37…who knows what will be going on then in terms of team competitiveness/health/etc.
by Kerry Fraser's Hairspray on Jul 2, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, as soon as i wrote that i realized how unlikely it would be for hossa to agree on an exact retirement age (or even a range). for someone who is 37 or 38 and decides to sign an extended deal, i could see this being an issue.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 2, 2009 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IIRC, if a player over 35 signs then retires, he still counts against the cap, right? So, it wouldn’t make sense to sign a 37 year old to a 10 year deal, since it would still hurt the cap number after he retires…unless it’s Chelios.
by Kerry Fraser's Hairspray on Jul 2, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Signing over 35 players to long deals is something that doesn’t happen for this very reason…
…unless you’re the Oilers with Bulin.
by brs03 on Jul 2, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expanding on the Problem
What’s the point of having a salary cap if you are going to allow this kind of stuff to happen?
A salary cap in any sport is in place to prevent the “rich” markets from overspending the tiny ones and keeping all of the teams on the same “playing surface” in yearly spending. The argument about “all the teams are playing by the same rules” does not apply, because if your team is one that is not profitable or worse, hemorrhaging money, you can not AFFORD to sign any player to a deal like this.
I know the cap hit disappears when the player retires, but I thought all contracts were guaranteed to the player. While the cap hit is gone, I believe CHI will still owe him the remainder of his deal. Someone please provide a link to clear up the confusion. But that’s really not much of an issue, as this contract is most likely front loaded to make it
A) Easier to move Hossa when he’s 35+
and
B) easier on the team financially when he does retire.
Sure, there would be ways to fix the problem, but it doesn’t really matter. CHI is blatantly undermining the sole purpose of having a salary cap. If the league would step in when a team signs a guy for 50 years, shouldn’t they also step in when a team signs a guy to play longer than 99% of players in the league.
by FFSEnough on Jul 2, 2009 9:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m no expert, but I’ve got to assume that guaranteed or not, that applies to if your playing (or injured) or the team cuts you (buyout, demotion). If you retire, that’s not being available to play, it’s your choice. I can’t see it being payable.
I pretty much agree that there should be some kind of constraint in years, maybe based on the age of the player at the time of signing. For example, a 25 year old signing for 15 years may be marginal, but at least there are plenty of players still going at 40. A 30 year old signing for 15 years, not so much.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 2, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re being way overly dramatic.
All this does is effectively raise the cap a certain amount (without raising the floor, mind you, which is great for the small market teams that can’t spend) while raising the amount of risk available to those who want to spend everything they can.
I don’t disagree that the practice is borderline at best and will probably be addressed more definitively soon. But, regardless, these deals are 100% within the rules and the league has the right to reject them if they think the term is unreasonable.
They haven’t, because they know either they’re legit enough or this is a tactic that the league needs to keep the right level of talent despite the lower revenues (or whatever other justification they might use for keeping the ownership happy).
This isn’t even remotely negating the purpose of the salary cap. At worst (if that’s the perspective you take) it’s just creating a bit more wiggle room. But these aren’t risk-free deals, and someone is going to get burned eventually. That is why this isn’t “cheating.”
by brs03 on Jul 2, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But these aren’t risk-free deals, and someone is going to get burned eventually.
The Flyers with Daniel Breire, for example…
by David M. Getz on Jul 2, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The argument about "all the teams are playing by the same rules" does not apply
Yeah, it does. It’s not cheating if it’s not against the rules and when you’re talking the kind of stakes we’re talking about with NHL teams “spirit of the law” doesn’t apply. The issue of whether the CBA should be modified that it is against the rules is another discussion.
I know the cap hit disappears when the player retires, but I thought all contracts were guaranteed to the player. While the cap hit is gone, I believe CHI will still owe him the remainder of his deal.
No, the contract only gets paid if the player is providing the service he’s being paid to provide. Otherwise wouldn’t we see guys sign five year deals and then just retire and collect their money? In fact, paying players after retirement is barred by the CBA because it would allow teams to circumvent the cap.
But that’s really not much of an issue, as this contract is most likely front loaded to make it
A) Easier to move Hossa when he’s 35+
I doubt it. At that point his cap hit will still be decently sized and he’ll be a less productive player (probably).
by David M. Getz on Jul 2, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens if a hockey player “pulls a Favre” and retires, but then comes back with the same team? If he signs a new contract for a lower amount, that would be a way around the cap hit, right?
by Scott in Shaw on Jul 6, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would imagine unretiring would reinstate the contract, same as it did in the NFL. But then, I always think logically, which is obviously not the way the sports business works.
by gfcaps fan on Jul 6, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also consider that even in other cap based leagues, the rich will have the advantage of being able to front-load contracts and raise the future value of the deal, i.e. give me my guaranteed moola up front and it’s going to be worth more than giving it to me in 5 years.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jul 2, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
CHI is going to pay for this contract when they have to resign Kane, Toews, and Keith. They aren’t undermining the purpose of the salary cap, they are just making a decision about which personnel are priorities.
by Fehr and Balanced on Jul 2, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last Wednesday’s biggest free agent deal had Marian Hossa signing with the Blackhawks for 12 years/$62.8 million, the vast percentage of which ($55.3 million) will be paid over the first seven years in equal installments of $7.9 million. The cap hit is a fairly economical $5.23 million. Because he is 30, well under the collective bargaining agreement’s "senior’’ threshold of 35, Hossa’s cap number would disappear if he were to choose to retire at any time. Considering the deal pays him a total of only $7.5 million over the last five years, it’s a decent bet he will call it quits after 2015-16 and take that $5.23 million cap figure with him. Meanwhile, the Hawks will have had him on the books for those seven years with a cap number discounted by one-third of his real wage. It’s all legal, and it’s modeled after what the Red Wings did with Johan Franzen and Henrik Zetterberg, but it’s also a dodgy loophole that no doubt will get a lot of attention when the next CBA is hammered out in a couple of years.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jul 5, 2009 9:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, then I misread. Wow. They’ll have to look at it, but no, it’s not cheating. But if Hossa takes a bad injury/slips in terms of his talent, but still wants to come back, and contributes in a very mediocre way…well, I think if he plays until he’s 42, the Nylander deal will look awesome. Granted, the Blackhawks could park him in the AHL.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on Jul 5, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s got little incentive to try and play that long, though. Unless he never achieves anything good before then, 1 mil isn’t much incentive to go through the rigors of offseason training, etc. to try and come back and play again.
It’s definitely a risk of course, but it’s not a big one given the pay structure.
by brs03 on Jul 5, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d go through the rigors of off-season training, etc, to open a door for Varly at 500,000. (Probably free, I don’t need the money in this case)
by zephyr on Jul 8, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 22 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
14 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 15 |
|
Atlanta
|
12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 13 |
|
Florida
|
14 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 11 |
|
Carolina
|
15 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 7 |
(updated 11.7.2009 at 9:10 AM EST)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Friday's WHL Roundup
- Shinnimin has four points as Americans hammer Giants 8-2 to keep West lead
- Eakin scores 20th goal of season in Swift Current's 4-1 win over Cougars
- Gal scores winner to lift Spokane over Thunderbirds 3-1
- Murray's short-handed goal leads Heat to fourth straight win, 4-2 over Ice Hogs
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
