[FL4WL3SS]

The only complaints would have come from the NHL for the B's trying to circumvent the cap, but the deal follows the letter of the law, and prior precedent (is that redundant?) shows that they have to allow it, as PSK mentioned earlier.

To further expound on your point - I don't see why people think the NHL would have any sort of problem with these deals. If a team wants to strap themselves down with long term deals for which they will need to take a consistent cap hit for the life of the contract (i.e. taking a $4M cap hit when you're only paying the player $.5M), then all the power to that team and the NHL should have no problem with this. Basically teams are taking the short term benefits at the expense of the overall long term health of the franchise. Will some of these players still be a bargain in 7 years? Most likely, but not all of them will.

If a team wants to sign a bunch of these contracts, then eventually they will have to pay the price and that's a decision that each franchise has to make; it's a trade-off. So while some of these deals don't seem fair now, there will come a time when teams need to make tough decisions on buyouts/trades/cap hits/etc. If the player is ok with this, then I really don't see a problem and I really don't see the NHLPA having any sort of problem with their players having job security for a long time.

[j44thor]

His salary those years does not reflect his cap hit. His cap hit will remain at $4 million every year.

And the NHLPA can't say shit. Savard signed this deal under his own free will, and is being paid handsomely for his services. There is absolutely nothing they can complain about. The NHLPA can't even make itself a breakfast sandwich, let alone form a coherent protest to a mutually agreed upon contract.

The only complaints would have come from the NHL for the B's trying to circumvent the cap, but the deal follows the letter of the law, and prior precedent (is that redundant?) shows that they have to allow it, as PSK mentioned earlier.

Yeah the cap hit part was stupidity on my part.

I wasn't suggesting that the NHLPA could do anything about the contract, moreso that is just doesn't help their cause when a top 10-20ish player in the league signs for well below market value.

Would anyone have been surprised if the B's had extended Savard at a 6-6.5M cap hit per year? Surely someone would have given him that kind of money in the off-season. At least this takes some of the sting out of the Thomas contract.

[The Four Peters]

You're confusing cap hit with what he'll likely make. If you look at it as a 4 year, 25.5 million contract, he's making 6.375/yr, right about where everyone would expect.

And again, the NHLPA has a lot more things to worry about than Marc Savard's AAV. You're comparing them to the MLBPA in that regard, which is like comparing Stanislov Chistov to Bobby Orr.

[The Four Peters]

To further expound on your point - I don't see why people think the NHL would have any sort of problem with these deals. If a team wants to strap themselves down with long term deals for which they will need to take a consistent cap hit for the life of the contract (i.e. taking a $4M cap hit when you're only paying the player $.5M), then all the power to that team and the NHL should have no problem with this. Basically teams are taking the short term benefits at the expense of the overall long term health of the franchise. Will some of these players still be a bargain in 7 years? Most likely, but not all of them will.

If a team wants to sign a bunch of these contracts, then eventually they will have to pay the price and that's a decision that each franchise has to make; it's a trade-off. So while some of these deals don't seem fair now, there will come a time when teams need to make tough decisions on buyouts/trades/cap hits/etc. If the player is ok with this, then I really don't see a problem and I really don't see the NHLPA having any sort of problem with their players having job security for a long time.

I agree with your point, I wasn't trying to express the NHL's opinion as my own. I was just saying that if anyone were to put up a stink, it sure would be the NHL.

And while I do think these deals circumvent the spirit of the cap somewhat (in that they are signing years neither the team nor the player has any intention to fulfill just to lower the cap hit), they do still come with the risks you describe and certainly are within the letter of the rules. I wouldn't be surprised to see the NHL institute rules around this in the next CBA, even though I think there are much bigger things they should be focusing on.

[Spaulding Smails]

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins...d_looks_li.html

I stated in a couple articles earlier that I wanted to stay in Boston for the rest of my career," Savard said. "Looks like I'm going to have that chance. So I'm happy about that. Over the last few years, I've watched this town grow back into a hockey town. Hopefully our goal as a team and a staff comes true that we can bring a Cup here to Boston.

Love it.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I haven't felt this good about a Bruins move in a long, long time. Just...wow.

Savard has really impressed me with this deal.

[PedroSpecialK]

I know I and most others here rag on WEEI, but this is a great listen. Check out the Kessel question at 3:22.

[Eddie Jurak]

Well, I have to hand it to Chiarelli on this one, and to Savard as well (unless the economy stays in the shitter he definately left money on the table). I was opposed to long terming Savard because I think he is at the top of his game right now, and won't be the same player at the end of a long term deal. But this contract accounts for that, keeps the cap number low, and pays him a fair (for both sides) salary during the early years. I still think he'll probably be overpaid in years 3-4, but this is a guy who, even in decline, can be a key PP contributor throughout the whole deal.

There is very little downside attached to this deal (which is atypical for a deal that long-terms a 32 year old guy). A career ending or altering injury could happen to any player at any time. I suppose Savard could turn into Alex Zhamnov, but that's not likely, given that he wants to be here, is happy with his contract, and the league is not radically changing its style of play as happened in 2005-06.

He might decide, after 4 years, that he is worth more than $1 million per (and he may well be worth more), but even then the Bruins can simply buy him out at little cost to themselves. They may already have a gentleman's agreement to do so.

[PedroSpecialK]

He might decide, after 4 years, that he is worth more than $1 million per (and he may well be worth more), but even then the Bruins can simply buy him out at little cost to themselves. They may already have a gentleman's agreement to do so.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Due to the low contract number at the end, contrary to popular belief, Savard's buyout cap hit by year is simply the AAV - (player's buyout payment per year under the 2/3*AAV/2 rule - salary due in the given year). As such, Savard's buyout cap hit for, say, year 6 of the deal is $4.007m - ($1.35m - $525,000) = $3.197m. Bruins will be able to waive him if he's not playing well though, or he'll retire.

Another intriguing possibility would be dealing him to a team with lots of cap room due to internal budgets. The actual salary is low while the AAV help them either reach the cap floor or doesn't have an impact on their cap picture. But I think I said this before and may be repeating myself.

[The Four Peters]

Another intriguing possibility would be dealing him to a team with lots of cap room due to internal budgets. The actual salary is low while the AAV help them either reach the cap floor or doesn't have an impact on their cap picture. But I think I said this before and may be repeating myself.

One thing to keep in mind though is what sort of no-trade/no-movement clause this has. With him sacrificing dollars to stay here, he might want to also build in a safeguard that he doesn't get shipped to Nashville or somewhere at the end. Frankly, I don't blame him.

[BoSoxFink]

I haven't seen this anywhere else yet, but it looks like Kessel misses Savard and possibly wanted him to come play with him in Toronto.

You can count ex-Bruin Phil Kessel among those who were disappointed when Bruins center Marc Savard inked a seven-year contract extension this week. Speaking on the Dale & Holley Show on Thursday, Savard said he and Kessel have stayed in touch after his former linemate was traded to Toronto in September, and that he heard from his ex-teammate during his contract negotiations with Boston.

"We’ve texted a lot," Savard said. "He was obviously one of the guys telling me to wait and not sign."

The 32-year-old admitted that Kessel had a hard time learning some of lessons that Savard experienced upon his arrival in Boston in 2006-07.

"Some things he did reminded me of myself a lot," said Savard. "It’s a humbling experience especially when you are young like that, I think he handled it well. He went through some tough times. As Toronto gets better, he’ll get better."

To hear the full interview, which includes Savard’s thoughts on his contract extension, the Bruins' play this season and his hope to bring the Stanley Cup to Boston,

Savard interview on WEEI

You can also listen to the interview with Savard on that page as well.

This post has been edited by BoSoxFink: 03 December 2009 - 11:17 PM

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

I got a post in my google reader that the NHL is investigating the Savard contract. It was from rotoworld, which is blocked by my office, so I don't have any details. Anyone hear anything? This is all I have - didn't see anything on boston.com or tsn.ca.

NHL will investigate the Marc Savard contract - Marc Savard © Boston Bruins
from Rotoworld Hockey
The NHL has begun an investigation of Marc Savard's recently signed seven-year/$28.05 million deal.

[PedroSpecialK]

They did the same with the Pronger, Hossa, and (I believe) Zetterberg contracts. Just a formality - they've allowed the precedent, and this is the only way the NHL can say "we don't like this". The others are more egregious, as Savard's only has him committed through age 40 as opposed to Pronger's age 42 deal.

[Haunted]

So, the NHL knew this would be possible when agreeing to the current CBA, yet has decided it has a problem with it? Surely this was the very reason they use AAV to determine cap hit rather than actual pay, correct?


I just don't get NHL management.

[lexrageorge]

Boston Herald is picking it up as well:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/hockey/...rc_savard_deal/

Sounds like the NHL has hired an outside firm to investigate several contracts, Savard's being one of them.

I'm sure some NHL owners are crying foul. Likely be a big stink will be raised in the next round of CBA negotiations.

[TheRealness]

Could you imagine if they tried to invalidate the contracts? The NHLPA would stir up a massive shitstorm.

The NHL is so very very poorly run. It's almost comical, if it wasn't so sad.

"This is the new rules."
"Sweet, this is a new contract under those new rules."
"We don't like the new rules and hate your contract, and your face."
"But you made those rules."
"AND WE HATE THEM AND YOUR FACE! INVESTIGATION! INVESTIGATION! I HATE YOUR FACE!!!!!"

[TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle]

Could you imagine if they tried to invalidate the contracts? The NHLPA would stir up a massive shitstorm.

The NHL is so very very poorly run. It's almost comical, if it wasn't so sad.

"This is the new rules."
"Sweet, this is a new contract under those new rules."
"We don't like the new rules and hate your contract, and your face."
"But you made those rules."
"AND WE HATE THEM AND YOUR FACE! INVESTIGATION! INVESTIGATION! I HATE YOUR FACE!!!!!"

Intervention! Intervention!

[Salem's Lot]

I think it's comical to lump Savard in with these other contracts. Year 7 of Savard's new deal will be his age 39 season. You could make an argument that he will probably regress to being a 3rd line center at age 39, and the going rate for 3rd line centers in 2016-2017 may be higher then a $4 million cap hit. I think the only way he doesn't play the whole seven years of the deal is if he gets injured, which is the chance you take with any long term deal. The only way the league could step in here is if Chiarelli or the agent were stupid enough to talk about a buyout/retirement in emails during the negotiations. If they are that dumb, the Bruins have bigger problems on thier hands.

[FL4WL3SS]

I can't take full credit for this because TFP turned me onto some of the great interviews that 98.5 gives, but apparently Chiarelli does a regular spot on Thursdays around 4:20pm. I was just listening to the conversation that Felger and Massarotti had with him yesterday and came away very pleased with a few things he said.

F&M did a nice job of breaking down the Savard contract with Chiarelli, but more importantly they got into the logistics of the cap and specifically revenue sharing and how it pertains to front-loaded contracts. Long story short, Chiarelli basically admits on air that the team has allotted more money for contracts next season than what is required by the salary cap. What this means is that there is a plan in place to offer a few more cap friendly deals to some free agents (most likely our own), i.e. front loaded contracts.

As a fan, this makes me extremely happy to hear.

You can listen here.

[PedroSpecialK]

Good interview, but you can't buy him out at a reasonable rate - you can waive him, send him to Providence, or trade him, but almost every major media figure is ignoring the fact that Chiarelli simply will not buy Savard out because it'll cost close to his AAV based on how the buyout structure is in the NHL.

In the words of Stevie Janowski, "GOD, YOU'RE ALL MAKING ME SO ANGRY". It shouldn't bother me, but it does and will continue to. Oh well.

Really surprised by Chiarelli's candidness regarding the cap and the Bruins' salary structure for the coming season. Also, Felger doesn't realize is that by spending more now, Jacobs is going to be spending less in 4-5 years when Savard's real salary goes down.