Marchand staying in FLA

[TheJackBurton]

Always seems like a great idea until you all of a sudden have 8 guys with 4 years left on their contract producing at 25% of the value of that contract and you can't trade them because they all have NMC.

[BalotelliMassive]

Always seems like a great idea until you all of a sudden have 8 guys with 4 years left on their contract producing at 25% of the value of that contract and you can't trade them because they all have NMC.

Something tells me that winning four straight cups will help them get over that somewhat....

[dhsux]

Because Ryan Suter was the oldest skater in the NHL this year at 39-40 years old. Marchand is supposed to play until he’s 43? Please. This is cap circumvention.

Cap circumvention? That’s called keeping the most important players for another cup run. That’s how you run a team.

It’s cap circumvention when you sign a player below market value to play 3 years longer than any current NHLer.

Nobody forced Marchand to sign the contract. He signed where he wanted to play because he knows he can win there.

Marchand gets paid the same either way. Why would he have to be forced? The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to knowing there is little chance he’ll actually play the full thing and they can LTIR him at the end.

What if Marchand signed 6 years with a different team as a UFA?

I would call it cap circumvention.

"The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to"

Well if that's the point, and every team has the same opportunity, then I disagree.

You can substitute any team. It’s cap circumvention because it breaks the spirit of the salary cap. You’re paying a player over a longer period of time than you reasonably expect him to play. Non-rich teams can’t really afford to do that. The Blues could not do that. If this was Vegas everyone would be screaming about it.

Understood but there is a problem predefining an age limit for a nhl player contract. It's age discrimination and violates a whole host of statutes federally and locally in the states and Canada. You cannot in effect say you can't play over a certain age. There is nothing wrong with penalties to deal on the backend with cap circumvention but on the front end it is extremely problematic.

I mean the CBA can have all sorts of provisions about player ages and contracts as long as the NHLPA agrees. The NHL is not normal employment. Contracts for all 35+ players are different as is. Part of why the infamous Kovalchuk deal was voided was that it lasted until he was 44, which was longer than anyone expected him to play. The backdiving nature of the money on that one was egregious, but wealthy teams can do essentially the same by using LTIR now. That’s how this contract will almost certainly end, with Marchand on LTIR for several years making millions to not play. That absolutely should be considered cap circumvention when it’s clear as day from the start what is going on.

The NHL is not immune from compliance with employment statutes. Sure the Union and the league can agree to a whole host of rules as collective bargaining partners but what they cannot due is implement rules that violate employment statutes. Any rule installing an age limit on a contract clearly violates the ADEA as the criteria is based solely on age. Same analogy you couldn't have a contract rule that said black or Hispanic players are not eligible for contracts as that would clearly violate civil rights statutes.

What about restrictions on contract lengths for players in later years? Keep age out of it rather impose on veterans after certain years of service.

They do this in early years, correct? RFA, UFA time played restrictions are in place as we speak.

[Old_Goat]

Cap circumvention? That’s called keeping the most important players for another cup run. That’s how you run a team.

It’s cap circumvention when you sign a player below market value to play 3 years longer than any current NHLer.

Nobody forced Marchand to sign the contract. He signed where he wanted to play because he knows he can win there.

Marchand gets paid the same either way. Why would he have to be forced? The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to knowing there is little chance he’ll actually play the full thing and they can LTIR him at the end.

What if Marchand signed 6 years with a different team as a UFA?

I would call it cap circumvention.

"The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to"

Well if that's the point, and every team has the same opportunity, then I disagree.

You can substitute any team. It’s cap circumvention because it breaks the spirit of the salary cap. You’re paying a player over a longer period of time than you reasonably expect him to play. Non-rich teams can’t really afford to do that. The Blues could not do that. If this was Vegas everyone would be screaming about it.

Understood but there is a problem predefining an age limit for a nhl player contract. It's age discrimination and violates a whole host of statutes federally and locally in the states and Canada. You cannot in effect say you can't play over a certain age. There is nothing wrong with penalties to deal on the backend with cap circumvention but on the front end it is extremely problematic.

I mean the CBA can have all sorts of provisions about player ages and contracts as long as the NHLPA agrees. The NHL is not normal employment. Contracts for all 35+ players are different as is. Part of why the infamous Kovalchuk deal was voided was that it lasted until he was 44, which was longer than anyone expected him to play. The backdiving nature of the money on that one was egregious, but wealthy teams can do essentially the same by using LTIR now. That’s how this contract will almost certainly end, with Marchand on LTIR for several years making millions to not play. That absolutely should be considered cap circumvention when it’s clear as day from the start what is going on.

The NHL is not immune from compliance with employment statutes. Sure the Union and the league can agree to a whole host of rules as collective bargaining partners but what they cannot due is implement rules that violate employment statutes. Any rule installing an age limit on a contract clearly violates the ADEA as the criteria is based solely on age. Same analogy you couldn't have a contract rule that said black or Hispanic players are not eligible for contracts as that would clearly violate civil rights statutes.

What about restrictions on contract lengths for players in later years? Keep age out of it rather impose on veterans after certain years of service.

They do this in early years, correct? RFA, UFA time played restrictions are in place as we speak.

Good point.

[TheJackBurton]

Always seems like a great idea until you all of a sudden have 8 guys with 4 years left on their contract producing at 25% of the value of that contract and you can't trade them because they all have NMC.

Something tells me that winning four straight cups will help them get over that somewhat....

4 straight cups?

yeah that's not happening.

[IsDurbanodoingtime]

Cap circumvention? That’s called keeping the most important players for another cup run. That’s how you run a team.

It’s cap circumvention when you sign a player below market value to play 3 years longer than any current NHLer.

Nobody forced Marchand to sign the contract. He signed where he wanted to play because he knows he can win there.

Marchand gets paid the same either way. Why would he have to be forced? The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to knowing there is little chance he’ll actually play the full thing and they can LTIR him at the end.

What if Marchand signed 6 years with a different team as a UFA?

I would call it cap circumvention.

"The point is that Florida gets around the cap by paying him less now than other teams would have to"

Well if that's the point, and every team has the same opportunity, then I disagree.

You can substitute any team. It’s cap circumvention because it breaks the spirit of the salary cap. You’re paying a player over a longer period of time than you reasonably expect him to play. Non-rich teams can’t really afford to do that. The Blues could not do that. If this was Vegas everyone would be screaming about it.

Understood but there is a problem predefining an age limit for a nhl player contract. It's age discrimination and violates a whole host of statutes federally and locally in the states and Canada. You cannot in effect say you can't play over a certain age. There is nothing wrong with penalties to deal on the backend with cap circumvention but on the front end it is extremely problematic.

I mean the CBA can have all sorts of provisions about player ages and contracts as long as the NHLPA agrees. The NHL is not normal employment. Contracts for all 35+ players are different as is. Part of why the infamous Kovalchuk deal was voided was that it lasted until he was 44, which was longer than anyone expected him to play. The backdiving nature of the money on that one was egregious, but wealthy teams can do essentially the same by using LTIR now. That’s how this contract will almost certainly end, with Marchand on LTIR for several years making millions to not play. That absolutely should be considered cap circumvention when it’s clear as day from the start what is going on.

The NHL is not immune from compliance with employment statutes. Sure the Union and the league can agree to a whole host of rules as collective bargaining partners but what they cannot due is implement rules that violate employment statutes. Any rule installing an age limit on a contract clearly violates the ADEA as the criteria is based solely on age. Same analogy you couldn't have a contract rule that said black or Hispanic players are not eligible for contracts as that would clearly violate civil rights statutes.

What about restrictions on contract lengths for players in later years? Keep age out of it rather impose on veterans after certain years of service.

They do this in early years, correct? RFA, UFA time played restrictions are in place as we speak.

With respect to the question of age discrimination and the federal statute, those protections apply to 40 up with employers of 20 or more. Plus the restrictions you are speaking of (I believe a d of I am understanding you correctly) don't necessarily imo discriminate against employment. If you applied a contract term restriction to someone over 40, it doesn't restrict employment by age because someone in theory could be free to sign a new deal after the term limited deal expired.