Is Burke Handicapping Himself?

[gilmourthegreat]

What bothers me the most about Burke's stance is that he seems to ignore the eventual utility of Parise-type contracts to teams near the salary floor.

Assuming that the NHL continues on with groups of rich, middle and poor teams, there will be franchises which struggle to spend the CBA-mandated payroll. For such teams, there is great value in a high-cap, low-salary contract. Such a contract might be worth more to a team than some of its own picks and prospects.

I bet that once the first generation of mega-contracts gets down to its final two years, small-market teams will be lining up for the chance to get 6 million closer to the cap, floor while only paying 2 m for the privilege.

Burke is potentially missing the boat twice.

 

[caver]

I think Burke's opposition to these contracts is based on his belief that they circumvent the intent of the salary cap. The new CBA should address this. If it allows these types of contracts then Burke has to start doing business that way or he should not be an NHL GM.

 

[Kin]

I never said he would, but, he has said in the past that he's not against these really long contracts for the right player if the structure is right, so, he could, in theory, since Kessel to a 12 year deal that falls in line with his feelings on the matter.

Flat out, verbatim, Brian Burke said "I won't do 10 year deals" on the radio yesterday.

Here it is

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/2012/07/03/brian_burke_pts/

It's at about 6:56. He also said he won't do deals with years at artificially low numbers.

 

[caver]

If it becomes an accepted way of doing business after the next CBA and Burke still says that; then he is handicapping his team and he should be fired.

 

[bustaheims]

Flat out, verbatim, Brian Burke said "I won't do 10 year deals" on the radio yesterday.

Here it is

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/2012/07/03/brian_burke_pts/

It's at about 6:56. He also said he won't do deals with years at artificially low numbers.

Okay, well, I clearly missed that interview.

 

[Kin]

The only logical reason to sign a player for that long is to get around the salary cap, which to me defeats the purpose of having a salary cap. If players could get paid 100 million dollars over 6 years, why would they sign for 13?

That completely ignores the financial incentive a player has to front load their deal. If I'm a player who could sign a 10 year, 100 million dollar deal I'd absolutely want it to be 95 million the first year, the minimum after that.

 

[bustaheims]

I bet that once the first generation of mega-contracts gets down to its final two years, small-market teams will be lining up for the chance to get 6 million closer to the cap, floor while only paying 2 m for the privilege.

A lot of that potential is likely be washed away with the new CBA. Expect to see the floor significantly lowered (if not eliminated entirely) or replaced with real spending minimums to qualify for revenue sharing - which is the real issue for cap floor teams. 10 years from now, when these monster deals on on the verge of expiring, the landscape of the league will likely be very different and the league will likely be working under another new CBA.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't think Burke would have problems with front loading if he actually felt Kessel would play for the full 12 years.

He's been pretty emphatic that he won't offer deals that drastically drop off in value the last few years.

Yes, I've read and heard his interviews. He's not against front-loading, he's against artificially dropping a cap hit by adding on cheap years at the end where it's not realistic the player will play.

I see a difference between the two.

And yes, he's also stated he won't do 10 year deals. You can front-load a 4 year deal.

 

[Kin]

I think people are making way too many assumptions about how the next CBA will play out. It's primarily going to be a battle over %'s of revenue, there's no way to know what else comes out of it.

 

[Kin]

Yes, I've read and heard his interviews. He's not against front-loading, he's against artificially dropping a cap hit by adding on cheap years at the end where it's not realistic the player will play.

I see a difference between the two.

And yes, he's also stated he won't do 10 year deals. You can front-load a 4 year deal.

Alright, so go back and re-read my original post that you're responding to. He won't do the deal I'm talking about. At this point the specifics of why are more or less beside the point.

 

[Bullfrog]

Ok. I've reread your post, and it still states as one of the reasons he wouldn't do it is because it's heavily front-loaded.

That's what I responded too. i.e. just pointing out that it's not the front-loading per se that he would object to.

I think the specifics of why he wouldn't want to make that deal are important to the discussion.

 

[L K]

I don't think Burke would have problems with front loading if he actually felt Kessel would play for the full 12 years.

He's been pretty emphatic that he won't offer deals that drastically drop off in value the last few years.

Yes, I've read and heard his interviews. He's not against front-loading, he's against artificially dropping a cap hit by adding on cheap years at the end where it's not realistic the player will play.

I see a difference between the two.

And yes, he's also stated he won't do 10 year deals. You can front-load a 4 year deal.

While I find it very hard to believe that Luongo is going to play until he is 53, I do find it a little odd that Burke, the man who prides himself on character and respect, is essentially calling the players character into question when he calls these deals moves where the player has no intention of fulfilling them.

 

[Kin]

I think the specifics of why he wouldn't want to make that deal are important to the discussion.

They're really not. If his rationale for not wanting to sign the deal is that all of the alarm clocks would laugh at him the point remains the same, namely, that he would walk away from a player who wanted that contract.

As for the structure, I mean, if it helps you can take "Heavily front-loaded" to mean that there will be at least a couple of years at the end of the deal that are for very little money. I don't think Burke could pull off, "Yeah, I signed a long term deal with a couple of million dollar years at the end of it but he totes promised me he'll play them so it's totally different than all those other cheaters".

 

[bustaheims]

I think people are making way too many assumptions about how the next CBA will play out. It's primarily going to be a battle over %'s of revenue, there's no way to know what else comes out of it.

Well, it's not like they're unfounded assumptions. We know that the league doesn't like these long-term deals. They've already taken some action to limit them and they've informed teams to expect changes in that area in the forthcoming CBA. There have also been a number or reports about smaller market teams struggling to stay in the black with the way the floor has risen and larger market teams being upset about propping up smaller markets while losing their talent to them. I think it's pretty safe to assume there will be changes in these 3 areas.

 

[Kin]

Well, it's not like they're unfounded assumptions. We know that the league doesn't like these long-term deals. They've already taken some action to limit them and they've informed teams to expect changes in that area in the forthcoming CBA. There have also been a number or reports about smaller market teams struggling to stay in the black with the way the floor has risen and larger market teams being upset about propping up smaller markets while losing their talent to them. I think it's pretty safe to assume there will be changes in these 3 areas.

Well, they're unfounded in a couple senses. First, there's the sense that most of them are based on "inside reports" or the like and that we don't really know what's being said at the bargaining table. Likewise, they're unfounded in the sense that they're just a list of things the League wants to see happen in the next CBA. I could have given you a similar list of things the NBA wanted to see happen in their last CBA and they didn't get. Lastly, there's the issue of whether those are "shut down the league" kind of issues. Yeah, they might want them but if it's make or break and they can get a deal done at the revenue percentage they want but not those, we haven't heard anything resembling those issues being ones that they'll go to war over.

 

[Bullfrog]

They're really not. If his rationale for not wanting to sign the deal is that all of the alarm clocks would laugh at him the point remains the same, namely, that he would walk away from a player who wanted that contract.

As for the structure, I mean, if it helps you can take "Heavily front-loaded" to mean that there will be at least a couple of years at the end of the deal that are for very little money. I don't think Burke could pull off, "Yeah, I signed a long term deal with a couple of million dollar years at the end of it but he totes promised me he'll play them so it's totally different than all those other cheaters".

I disagree with that last part. If he signed a high-end 27 year old to a 10 year deal with the last two years at $1M, I'd have to believe that the player intended on finishing that contract. I -- and Burke it seems -- don't believe those players that have contracts to 41-43 years of age intend on finishing them. That makes it different.

 

[TML fan]

The only logical reason to sign a player for that long is to get around the salary cap, which to me defeats the purpose of having a salary cap. If players could get paid 100 million dollars over 6 years, why would they sign for 13?

That completely ignores the financial incentive a player has to front load their deal. If I'm a player who could sign a 10 year, 100 million dollar deal I'd absolutely want it to be 95 million the first year, the minimum after that.

But that's my point. The only reason to tack on that many years is because you can't have a 95 million dollar cap hit.

 

[Kin]

I disagree with that last part. If he signed a high-end 27 year old to a 10 year deal with the last two years at $1M, I'd have to believe that the player intended on finishing that contract. I -- and Burke it seems -- don't believe those players that have contracts to 41-43 years of age intend on finishing them. That makes it different.

Well, the contract I mention is 12 years for Kessel who'd be 27 at the time. So it'd take him to 39. Is that legit? Suter's deal will take him to 40, is that ok? The truth is Burke has no idea when any of these guys will stop playing hockey. Guys retire at 36, some guys retire at 42.

 

[Kin]

But that's my point. The only reason to tack on that many years is because you can't have a 95 million dollar cap hit.

No. Players will want to sign long term deals because it guarantees them money. A ten year deal for 100 million dollars is the constant in this situation, right? So because there's a financial incentive to front load it rather than take ten million a year there's no reason to assume those years are bogus or tacked on to beat the cap.

I mean, regardless of the salary structure the cap hit remains the same.

 

[TML fan]

But that's my point. The only reason to tack on that many years is because you can't have a 95 million dollar cap hit.

No. Players will want to sign long term deals because it guarantees them money. A ten year deal for 100 million dollars is the constant in this situation, right? So because there's a financial incentive to front load it rather than take ten million a year there's no reason to assume those years are bogus or tacked on to beat the cap.

I mean, regardless of the salary structure the cap hit remains the same.

A 5 year deal at 100 million dollars guarantees them the same money that a 13 year deal would. It just won't fit under the cap.

A shorter term gives the player greater flexibility. So, if you could get the same amount of money on a short term, why would you commit yourself for that long?