Ilya Kovalchuck (Retired)

I just meant that it is best to follow the rules instead of changing on the fly.

I'm all for any ruling that lets someone off the hook.  Not sure they should maintain any rights to the player however. 

Sidenote:  In my other league the same person has Kipprusoff, Andy MacDonald, and Kovalchuk.

I guess I don't see what the problem is.

You're getting two years of cap relief instead of 3 because Kovalchuk was 30 when he retired. I really don't think it's a bad rule just because it doesn't happen often.

I agree that it sucks when it happens, but I guess I would try to think about it this way - 1) did the existing rule affect how Kovalchuk was signed to his 'existing' 5-yr contract in this league? [Answer is likely 'No.'] or 2) will 'knowledge' of this rule affect how any other young players are signed in this league? [Answer is likely 'No.']

If the rule is not affecting actions, then what's wrong with it? Most of the discussion seems to be around the arbitrary nature of the scale, but there are several 'arbitrary' rules. Will we change them all?

**EDIT TO ADD**
Additionally, while New Jersey won't pay any 'real' dollars over the 12 years which were negated by adding Kovalchuk to the 'voluntary' retired list, they are on the hook for 'salary cap recapture penalties' until the end of Kovalchuk's contract in 2025.

Out of the 72 million left on Kovalchucks' contract, the devils are on the hook for 3 million.  A mere 4 % hit at 250k a year.  A far cry from 33% or 16.5% if I use another asset in a buyout.  If we want to agree on a 4% hit of .86 mil.  That's fine.  But we won't because that's arbitrary. 

But again... this is a fantasy league.  And when a fantasy league punishes it's owners more than the NHL would, there's a problem.  Especially when I have him signed only to 3 more years and the devils had him signed to 12 more years. 

And are you saying because this rule doesn't affect people that much, no reason to change it?  That's not a good reason to keep a rule.  When a newly turned 30 year old star in his prime retires out of nowhere and the rule punishes a team financially also...  (as if losing a star wasn't punishment enough)  ...there's a problem.  The saying..."well it doesn't happen that much" is not a reason to not change it.

2 years on the 30-32 bracket is not enough especially in hockey.

I think this is a stupid rule basketball rule applied to 30 year olds in hockey.

The reason this rule was put in was this reason alone.

To hold people accountable in FA to not backload contracts to aging vets or sign them to long contracts knowing that the player is just going to retire soon and they will get their money back.

It wasn't meant for a situation like this.  So if it wasn't, then correct the rule appropriately.

As the rules are now.

A 37 year old can get 1 year back if they retire but a 30 year old only gets 1 more year? 

Come on...

Actually, the cap penalty the Devils are on the hook for doesn't have anything to do with the money owed. It's due to the front-loading of the contract. Had he retired in 2 years (or even worse 4 years), they would have paid a significantly higher penalty for a heavily front-loaded contract. My point was, they still got penalized for him retiring.

While I agree that rules shouldn't be made to arbitrarily punish fantasy owners that don't align with 'real' NHL rules, our 'fantasy' league doesn't follow all the NHL's contracting rules, so some generalities are going to be necessary to avoid abuses. They won't all be perfect in every situation, but, if we are all aware of the rules, we can try to avoid the pitfalls.

I don't think this rule warrants a change because 1) you knew the rule when you signed Kovalchuk and had no problem with his contract or the ramifications and 2) knowledge of the rule will not change how other players are signed during free agency this year or ever. Further, there is no way to 'adapt' the rule to fit this case and every other case that may eventually arise which means a 'new' rule, just to serve this case [my point is why add a rule to cover a special case when the existing rule works even if it's not 'perfect']. I agree, the rule's intent is to stop back-loaded contracts to older stars from being 'forgiven' in the event of a retirement - which I think it does. The way it's worded is even better because it (should) serve as a deterrent to any long-term contracts being 'forgiven' for arbitrary retirements such as this one.

I can understand your frustration. I simply disagree that anything should be changed.

I think for someone in kovalchucks position (not really retiring, just switching leagues essentially) I have no problem letting akron off the hook for his cap hit all 3 years. I think there should be a rule if a guy switches leagues his contracts voided and if he ever returns is a FA . It wont happen alot likely but would make sense. Just my 2 cents

Your point is invalid Fred and has nothing to do with retiring.  I was merely humoring you.  The devils wouldn't have received a penalty at all normally at all for a player retiring.  They received the penalty because of how they structured his salary when they first signed him.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2010-09-13-devils-kovalchuk-fine_N.htm

The 3 million left that is on the devils cap is from that original penalty and has nothing to do with him retiring.
Under normal circumstances in the NHL, there would be no cap penalty.  So how can you justify a fantasy league giving a cap penalty?  Except by saying, well that's the rule... and you knew it so too bad.  Well I didn't know we were adapting basketball rules and their age qualifiers.  Had I known, I would have said something but I do enough already.  I don't have time to watch every league like a hawk. 

Instead of arguing that the rule doesn't affect anyone so it shouldn't be changed (even though it is affecting someone right now)  ...the question should be asked...is the intention of the rule being fulfilled here.

It clearly is not.  It is unnecessarily punishing a team financially who is already being punished by losing a star in his prime...instead of preventing people from signing old aging vets to long contracts in order to win the FA bid.  The intention of the rule does not apply here.  I did not sign Kovalchuck to a longer contract in order to win the bid.  I drafted him with a high pick in the original draft and planned for him to be one of my building blocks.  Now I lose him and I get stuck with 7 million of dead money because some idiots tried to give Jason Kidd a long contract in basketball.   

Stupid

You must not be reading things closely, again... The Devils have a cap recapture penalty which amounts to $3M paid over the remaining years of Kovalchuk's contract - 12 years. It's not the original fine, which was real dollars for violating the 'spirit' of the collective bargaining agreement. The $3M cap recapture penalty is a calculation from the current CBA and is determined by the difference of real dollars paid on a contract and the cap hit consumed ($23M paid in the first 3 years vs $20M cap hit in the first 3 years) when a player voluntarily retires. Any team with a retiring player is subject to this penalty. Players over 35 are handled differently and the full cap hit of the retired player is consumed.

That's the 'real' NHL, not our fantasy league, our 'CBA' rule is different... And to my knowledge, hasn't changed since it was adopted. Now it affects someone and we cry foul? Because someone didn't read it close enough because he's a busy guy?!?! Really? I can agree that the rule covers more ground than it may or may not have intended, but does it make it a bad rule or unfortunate for those affected?

I guess what I'm not seeing is a suggestion for a new rule, just griping about why a rule, which pretty clearly outlines the situation, shouldn't apply. Ask yourself this - would you have complained that the rule was crap had Kovalchuk retired last year and you would have voided the entire term (since he was only 29) or would you complain if Kovalchuk waited until next year when you would, again, have voided the entire remaining contract (2 years remaining and 2 years 'allowance')? I doubt it. You're complaining because he retired this year and it's going to cost you $7M in cap space...

I can be a pretty unsympathetic guy and I'm sorry about that, but I don't see why a rule that outlines the situation pretty clearly isn't valid... If that wasn't the intention, then why isn't there another rule?

I have no stake in this but this rule was originally made so you couldn't outbid another owner by back loading a long contract on someone like Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Marcus Camby. The intent behind this rule was to punish those owners and discourage those types of contracts. This obviously wasn't the intent here. If this Russian had played for the next three years in the NHL would any owner be ok with paying out his full contract? Yes. Vice versa for hoops, was the intent of signing Nash or Kidd to 4-5 year contracts when they're in their late 30s to play them for those years OR to simply outbid the other owners.

Also just noticing this but the hoops and NHL retirement scale is different from the baseball one.

Are you sure, that's not what this article says.  It doesn't say that the cap restructure penalty is from someone retiring.  It's from how they structured his contract and so heavily frontloaded it to circumvent the cap.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9470677/ilya-kovalchuk-new-jersey-devils-announces-retire

As a result of the 30-year-old's retirement, the Devils will have to pay a cap restructure penalty of about $300,000 until 2024-25 -- when the contract was set to expire -- NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said on TSN Radio. That is because the cap advantage on Kovalchuk's contract was approximately $4 million over the first three seasons of his 15-year, $100 million deal, which was signed in 2010, according to Daly.

In other words, had they not structured it so.  There would be no penalty.

MistaDuMa wrote:Also just noticing this but the hoops and NHL retirement scale is different from the baseball one.

Son of a mother...

Baseball
29 and under - All years
Players 30-32 - 3 years
Players 33-35 - 2 years
Players 36-37 - 1 year
Players 38+ - 0 years


Good catch

Hockey should mirror baseball scale the most since both leagues have guys routinely go to 40 or near 40, whereas Hoops doesn't and football definitely doesn't.

http://www.capgeek.com/new-cba/

Scroll down to "Cap Advantage Recapture - (Roberto Luongo Rule)"

The recapture penalty applies to any long term contract that offers an advantage. The Kovalchuk calculation is

Season   Salary   Cap Hit
2010-11  $6M     $6.666M
2011-12  $6M     $6.666M
2012-13  $11M   $6.666M

Real Dollars - $23M
Cap Hit - $20M
Cap Advantage - $3M

Fred Bear wrote:The recapture penalty applies to any long term contract that offers an advantage.

Exactly

The cap hit isn't because he retired, it's because of the structure of the contract. 

Teams are not financially punished for a player retiring (except over the age of 35) unless they structured it in such a way that would offer them an advantage if he did so. 

And even in extreme situations such as Kovalchuck where they obviously tried to circumvent the cap, they only took a 4% cap hit (3 mil of the 72 mil owed) spread out over 12 years.

Yet in a fantasy for fun league where I did not try to circumvent the cap and he only had 3 years left instead of 12, i take a 33% cap hit?

I dont know about football heard farves coming back again   

Integrity wrote:Hockey should mirror baseball scale the most since both leagues have guys routinely go to 40 or near 40, whereas Hoops doesn't and football definitely doesn't.

And I'll say this because i'm getting tired of arguing with the argument...well that's just the rule.

I will agree that I am complaining because the rule affects me.  I've never claimed differently.  But that doesn't make it wrong.  The intention of the rule is being misapplied here.

If Kovalchuk was 29 and retired.  I wouldn't have complained.  If he retired next year, I wouldn't have complained.  I wouldn't have complained for both because the rule wouldn't have any negative affects.  But since he retired this year, I am complaining because the rule is negatively impacting a team and is making my team pay 7 for a star retiring in his prime.

But then again, if it happened to anyone else and they complained, I would agree with them that the rule was misapplied and should be corrected. 

I wouldn't put out the dumb argument...well that's the rule and you knew it and you are just complaining because it affects you so too f-ing bad.

DmanofGod1 wrote:

I wouldn't put out the dumb argument...well that's the rule and you knew it and you are just complaining because it affects you so too f-ing bad.

That's the difference between you and I. I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that it's a rule, you knew it, and you are just complaining because it affects you, so too f-ing bad. In fact, you just admitted it... 

I do find it interesting that this rule misapplied is a disgrace, but the RFA rules as they are applied to veterans is not. I pointed it out in another thread, but no comment from you or others... Arbitrary...

I've been following this discussion and have switched my thoughts hearing everybody make their case.

Initially, my thoughts were, "here we go again, another owner looking out for their own interests and wanting a rule changed to benefit them." To be honest, I hate changing rules midseason (not this case) and in the middle of an issue (this case). Yes, I can easily agree with FredBear that the rules were there all along, esp. when Kovalchuck was signed, so too bad, so sad.

However, I must admit that Dustin brought up a great point about the rule's intent. It was to make owners think twice about backloading contracts or outbidding in FA by adding on years to aging players. The age criteria in each of the sports is completely different, as already mentioned by many of you so having a "one-size-fit-all" rule for all 4 sports leagues is not only unfair, but incorrect. Not to criticize anybody bc I know all the commish's in this league work hard and put in a lot of time BUT who represented FCC when this was implemented for all leagues? Moving forward, I think each league should make sure their members have input when it comes to rules, it only makes sense.

To follow, some quantitative analysis to support my claims that this rule needs to be changed. On a side note, although I support Dustin's views, I will add one more thing that will go against what he's aiming for.

In my short and not-so-good memory with this league, I only remember 2 rules that were changed in BoS to close a loophole/misuse of the rule.
1) In year #1, I bought out Chad Qualls and then resigned him within a week to a one year min contract. At the time, there was no rule about buying guys out and then resigning them after a time frame. So, I was allowed to go ahead with the signing but immediately after, rules was changed.

2) Sam''s Konerko RW/trade to me in offseason. He was allowed to continue with the trade (damn it!) and then rule was modified immediately.

SO if history repeats itself, the rule would be enforced for Kovi and then now we begin the discussion to change it for more practical reasons. However, I'd be fine if it's decided that we change the rule for Dustin and the future, meaning he gets all the money back.

And to redo the rule, I would suggest this since even the NHL has the 35 year old rule.

Retiring 

29 and under - All years
Players 30 - 5 years
Players 31 - 4 years
Players 32 - 3 years
Players 33-34 - 2 years
Players 35-37 - 1 year
Players 38+ - 0 years

In my mind, no one is circumventing the cap if they sign a 30 year old to 5 years.  They aren't hoping he retires.  Same thing with a 31 old to a 4 year contract and so on. 

This makes sure this doesn't happen to someone again but still catches people that are signing 34 year old aging vets to 4 or 5 year backloaded contracts in order to circumvent the cap and win a FA bid.  Because once they hit 35, you only get 1 year back.

My problem with the rule is that there's no exception for player who continue to play in other leagues, with the big money teams in the khl can offer guys to come back "home" and play in Russia, who's to say other big names coming into the nhl who don't adjust well to the American life will just bail back to Russia when entering or in there prime like kovalchuck. Should be an exception for guys who continue in other leagues

Fred Bear wrote:

DmanofGod1 wrote:

I wouldn't put out the dumb argument...well that's the rule and you knew it and you are just complaining because it affects you so too f-ing bad.

That's the difference between you and I. I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that it's a rule, you knew it, and you are just complaining because it affects you, so too f-ing bad. In fact, you just admitted it... 

I do find it interesting that this rule misapplied is a disgrace, but the RFA rules as they are applied to veterans is not. I pointed it out in another thread, but no comment from you or others... Arbitrary...

Okay you aren't arguing, whatever that means.  Moving on then from the ignorance of that's the rule instead of trying to make sure this doesn't happen to someone else again for the betterment of an enjoyable league.

If we could get this rule change voted on and I still had to take a 3.5 mil hit and use of a buyout.  I'd at least be glad the rule was changed.

http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/RetireeAgeDistribution.php

The link above shows details of the NHL average retirement age.  Yes, the mean and median sits at ~28 years but that includes many players that are even worthy of fantasy league status.  So many of the players who retire at 28 or younger or mostly guys that couldn't cut it or who suffered a career-ending injury.  Not the intent of this rule.

I don't have numbers that indicate when the top 300 players retire but there's a significant drop-off in retirement age at 31 and 33/34.  To me, I'd say our FCC retirement clause begins at age 33.  I can support this more with the graph in the link but won't bother until we decide to change this rule.

London (Kiefer) wrote:My problem with the rule is that there's no exception for player who continue to play in other leagues, with the big money teams in the khl can offer guys to come back "home" and play in Russia, who's to say other big names coming into the nhl who don't adjust well to the American life will just bail back to Russia when entering or in there prime like kovalchuck. Should be an exception for guys who continue in other leagues

 Bingo.

The KHL is growing and they don't have the salary cap limitations that the NHL does because they are trying to grow.  This is going to happen to other players in the following years.

I like the proposed change to the retirement age but I think there would still be abit of a problem. Lets say someone signed jägr to a 2 year deal and after one he decides to go play in the khl, in my opinion that last year should be voided.

And with the crazy money thrown around in other khl now I think this rule is much needed

Again that should be more discussion from others but imo

Jagr is old, you know the risk you take in signing him to a multiyear deal.  If you get lucky and he plays another year, then he does.  But if he doesn't, that was the risk you took in order to win the bid.

The thing is there with jägr if he retires then ya you should be on the hook but if he goes to Russia and is playing in the khl then he should be voided, just my opinion but with the cash they can throw big bucks at these guys and swipe them away