| Smith Re-signs - 2 years 2.2MM per [message #789891] |
Thu, 22 July 2021 11:11  |
 |
 Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| Quote: |
PuckPedia
@PuckPedia
The #LetsGoOilers re-signed 39 y/o G Mike Smith to 2 year $2.2M Cap Hit Deal:
Yr 1: $1.9M Base
Yr 2: $2.5M Base
.923 SV% in 32GP
Rep'd by Kurt Overhardt
@KOSportsInc
|
Why is it going UP when he's 40???
"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireBobbyNicks
|
|
|
|
 |
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:11 |
| Quote: |
PuckPedia
@PuckPedia
The #LetsGoOilers re-signed 39 y/o G Mike Smith to 2 year $2.2M Cap Hit Deal:
Yr 1: $1.9M Base
Yr 2: $2.5M Base
.923 SV% in 32GP
Rep'd by Kurt Overhardt
@KOSportsInc
|
Why is it going UP when he's 40???
|
lol. If he retires the cap stays, so...I dunno. Is that 2nd year incentive for him to not retire?
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am ok with this deal. That money is fine for a backup in year two. We should be worried about the franchise crippling contract Hyman is about to get.
|
|
|
|
 |
smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
|
|
The Oilers just gave the oldest active NHL goalie a raise and second year.
What else is new.
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
 |
Mike
Messages: 1397
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick
1 Cup
|
|
I don't mind the raise all that much. I don't understand the 2nd year. With a second year AAV should have been for at best what he made this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| Mike wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:21 |
I don't mind the raise all that much. I don't understand the 2nd year. With a second year AAV should have been for at best what he made this year.
|
Only logical reason would be to incentivize him to not retire and leave us with 2.2M of dead space. Getting the boost of money in the 2nd year may keep him working hard to at least still fill the backup role.
Of course the problem is how we feel we need Smith so badly still to give him a 2 year deal at 40.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| Mike wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:21 |
I don't mind the raise all that much. I don't understand the 2nd year. With a second year AAV should have been for at best what he made this year.
|
I don't understand why the Oilers felt that they needed to do this. It's again a bad bet by the team. Did they really think there were a line-up of teams ready to give Smith this deal? This is expensive back-up money - and two of his last three seasons were awful.
I figure it's one of three things:
1) Smith's agent told Holland he had rumblings that other teams wanted him and Holland panicked.
2) The Oilers decided to give him the "good soldier" contract like they gave Eric Gryba with money that they are fine with being sunk on later.
3) Smith was arguing for $4MMish for this year, and so they agreed on the second year to spread it out.
Maybe the Oilers looked at the improvement from 2020 to 2021 (.902 to .923) and just extrapolated that forward though? Didn't want to miss out on the .963 season at age 40...
No matter how you cut it, it's a dumb decision to go any longer than one year for him. But, that's the Oilers!
"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireBobbyNicks
|
|
|
|
 |
CrudeRemarks
Messages: 1703
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton
1 Cup
|
|
| Adam wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:34 |
| Mike wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:21 |
I don't mind the raise all that much. I don't understand the 2nd year. With a second year AAV should have been for at best what he made this year.
|
I don't understand why the Oilers felt that they needed to do this. It's again a bad bet by the team. Did they really think there were a line-up of teams ready to give Smith this deal? This is expensive back-up money - and two of his last three seasons were awful.
I figure it's one of three things:
1) Smith's agent told Holland he had rumblings that other teams wanted him and Holland panicked.
2) The Oilers decided to give him the "good soldier" contract like they gave Eric Gryba with money that they are fine with being sunk on later.
3) Smith was arguing for $4MMish for this year, and so they agreed on the second year to spread it out.
Maybe the Oilers looked at the improvement from 2020 to 2021 (.902 to .923) and just extrapolated that forward though? Didn't want to miss out on the .963 season at age 40...
No matter how you cut it, it's a dumb decision to go any longer than one year for him. But, that's the Oilers!
|
Complete airball here. Smith should be signing one year, Joe Thornton-esque, deals at his age. I guess maybe with the upcoming Koskinen buyout KH wanted to paint the town red...
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
I wonder how many NHL players have gotten raises at age 39 and 40? I have to imagine that is a very short list.
"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireBobbyNicks
|
|
|
|
 |
Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton
No Cups
|
|
leageu minimum one year deal with bonuses for performance.
You want 4 mill, you need 925 or above and we need to win in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
 |
welcometotheOC
Messages: 646
Registered: April 2010
Location: Also, sadly, Cowtown
No Cups
|
|
| Dragon_Matt wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:29 |
leageu minimum one year deal with bonuses for performance.
You want 4 mill, you need 925 or above and we need to win in the playoffs.
|
There is something to be said for cost certainty though. Did Smith not make 2.5 million or more this past season it he met his bonuses?
The new contract is 2 years so no bonuses allowed, correct?
|
|
|
|
 |
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Dragon_Matt wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:29 |
leageu minimum one year deal with bonuses for performance.
You want 4 mill, you need 925 or above and we need to win in the playoffs.
|
Nah.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton
No Cups
|
|
true about cost certainty, but I have serious doubts he'll be over 900 again.
Nothing about a 39 year old signing for more than league minimum is a good idea.
really, nothing about signing a 39 year old for anything other than a goalie coach is a good idea...
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Dragon_Matt wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:43 |
true about cost certainty, but I have serious doubts he'll be over 900 again.
Nothing about a 39 year old signing for more than league minimum is a good idea.
really, nothing about signing a 39 year old for anything other than a goalie coach is a good idea...
|
Grit? Heart? Leadership? Glue? Good? Guy? Determination? These reasons and more can't be measure by advanced metrics like age.
I don't mind the signing except for that it seems so lazy.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
CrudeRemarks
Messages: 1703
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton
1 Cup
|
|
| CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:52 |
| Dragon_Matt wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:43 |
true about cost certainty, but I have serious doubts he'll be over 900 again.
Nothing about a 39 year old signing for more than league minimum is a good idea.
really, nothing about signing a 39 year old for anything other than a goalie coach is a good idea...
|
Grit? Heart? Leadership? Glue? Good? Guy? Determination? These reasons and more can't be measure by advanced metrics like age.
I don't mind the signing except for that it seems so lazy.
|
I like how we knew Holland wanted a one year deal and Smith was pushing for multiple, so the Oilers GM held his ground and gave multiple.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.
|
|
|
|
|
welcometotheOC
Messages: 646
Registered: April 2010
Location: Also, sadly, Cowtown
No Cups
|
|
| Dragon_Matt wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 12:43 |
true about cost certainty, but I have serious doubts he'll be over 900 again.
Nothing about a 39 year old signing for more than league minimum is a good idea.
really, nothing about signing a 39 year old for anything other than a goalie coach is a good idea...
|
I didn't say the contract was a good idea. Smith probably wanted too much for a one year with easily reachable bonuses (3-4 mill ? , just guessing ) so they offered 2 years at what is actually only a small bump of about 400K over what he earned last year including bonuses - at least from what I can see on a brief search - and a bigger $2.5 for the second year to avoid unknown bonuses that might affect the following year's cap.
They should have just either stuck with a one year $1.5 million with a bigger bonus than last year. Cost certainty isn't there but risk is less for wasted cap in case of retirement/cliff diving.
|
|
|
|
 |
Pseudoreality
Messages: 108
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife
No Cups
|
|
I honestly don't mind this. A $2.2M experienced backup that can share the load is reasonable. A $2.2M starter with a 0.923 save percentage is an amazing deal.
The Keith deal was bad. The numbers being proposed for Hyman are criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| Pseudoreality wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 13:01 |
I honestly don't mind this. A $2.2M experienced backup that can share the load is reasonable. A $2.2M starter with a 0.923 save percentage is an amazing deal.
The Keith deal was bad. The numbers being proposed for Hyman are criminal.
|
In the two years prior to last year's renaissance, Smith had save percentages of .898 and .902...last year was his best save percentage since 2011-12. Do we really believe it's representative of what we should expect from him going forward?
"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireBobbyNicks
|
|
|
|
|
|
CrudeRemarks
Messages: 1703
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton
1 Cup
|
|
| Pseudoreality wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 13:01 |
I honestly don't mind this. A $2.2M experienced backup that can share the load is reasonable. A $2.2M starter with a 0.923 save percentage is an amazing deal.
The Keith deal was bad. The numbers being proposed for Hyman are criminal.
|
It's the continuation of the whole death by a thousand cuts thing. Smith is worth half that price. He's old and will get hurt, that's just reality. Add that to the existing and upcoming buyouts, the overpay to Kassian and probably Barrie, and it just means you are playing without a full deck of cards. Oilers will be forced to operate without their full cap flexibility because of their own constantly updating list of mistakes.
A bonus driven contract would have made more sense, even if it approached the same numbers. Only Smith benefits from the term and locked in salary number here.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.
|
|
|
|
 |
inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 11:11 |
| Quote: |
PuckPedia
@PuckPedia
The #LetsGoOilers re-signed 39 y/o G Mike Smith to 2 year $2.2M Cap Hit Deal:
Yr 1: $1.9M Base
Yr 2: $2.5M Base
.923 SV% in 32GP
Rep'd by Kurt Overhardt
@KOSportsInc
|
Why is it going UP when he's 40???
|
That’s assistant GM money. Pack your bags and grab a phone.
|
|
|
|
|
Pseudoreality
Messages: 108
Registered: December 2002
Location: Yellowknife
No Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 13:07 |
In the two years prior to last year's renaissance, Smith had save percentages of .898 and .902...last year was his best save percentage since 2011-12. Do we really believe it's representative of what we should expect from him going forward?
|
And the two years prior to that he had a 0.914 and 0.916 save percentage. I didn't expect him to have a sub 920 last year or expect that in the next two years either. I do expect him to be an experienced backup who can share the load. That is what he is getting paid to do. It is just bonus if he has another unreal season.
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| Pseudoreality wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 13:58 |
| Adam wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 13:07 |
In the two years prior to last year's renaissance, Smith had save percentages of .898 and .902...last year was his best save percentage since 2011-12. Do we really believe it's representative of what we should expect from him going forward?
|
And the two years prior to that he had a 0.914 and 0.916 save percentage. I didn't expect him to have a sub 920 last year or expect that in the next two years either. I do expect him to be an experienced backup who can share the load. That is what he is getting paid to do. It is just bonus if he has another unreal season.
|
So here's the thing:
38 years old - .923
37 years old - .902
36 years old - .898
35 years old - .916
34 years old - .914
You expect someone getting older to get worse, and goaltenders often drop off a cliff after a certain age. I don't think the 34 and 35 year numbers are relevant to his 39 and 40 year old numbers, and I think the 38 year number is clearly an outlier.
If he's sub.910 then he's a sub-par goalie in the NHL, even as a back-up. We've payed him like a premium back-up...and for two years no less!
"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireBobbyNicks
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
Good catch RDO
Look at the Oilers gaming the system. Maybe this is the start of the turn around.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:42 |
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
Good catch RDO
Look at the Oilers gaming the system. Maybe this is the start of the turn around.
|
Could be, but more likely we boost the 2nd year because we are scared of having to look for a goalie next summer again, so we REALLY REALLY want Smith to stay for 1 more year.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:44 |
| CrusaderPi wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:42 |
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
Good catch RDO
Look at the Oilers gaming the system. Maybe this is the start of the turn around.
|
Could be, but more likely we boost the 2nd year because we are scared of having to look for a goalie next summer again, so we REALLY REALLY want Smith to stay for 1 more year.
|
This is not a helpful comment.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
Jim Matheson @jimmathesonnhl
Mike Smith makes $1.9 mil this season and $2.5 mil in 22-23. Second season increase in salary is because of escrow situation. Set at 10 percent. It is 14-18 percent this upcoming season.
Jim "can you tell me the list of names you want to try to trade for Mr. Holland?" Matheson thinks we're just being nice and giving Smith a raise to ensure he gets consistent take home pay. Regardless, how this cap hit is gone if Smith retires is good news.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
NetBOG
Messages: 2948
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
2 Cups
|
|
I don't mind the money on this deal, I just hope this isn't the solution in the team's mind.
At bare minimum, they need to find a successor now. Smith and Kostko for another year is not good enough.
I worry that Holland just shuts the book on goaltending for another year and moves on to other things.
|
|
|
|
|
welcometotheOC
Messages: 646
Registered: April 2010
Location: Also, sadly, Cowtown
No Cups
|
|
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Awesome catch, RD thanks!! So, risk is lower than assumed by most posters here (including me!).
|
|
|
|
|
Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton
No Cups
|
|
the risk is lower, unless he has a strong start and in late October we sign him to a 2 year extension.
|
|
|
|
 |
nullterm
Messages: 1033
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC
1 Cup
|
|
This is fine. He's a good backup. But still need a starter, ain't it ain't Kosk who is also at best a backup.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
|
|
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good catch indeed!
Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty
|
|
|
|
|
Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
|
|
So he’ll be grooming Konovalov?? #TheRussianFuhr
Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty
|
|
|
|
 |
Rocksteady
Messages: 527
Registered: March 2007
No Cups
|
|
Plan the parade! Locking up Smith is the lynch pin in getting the cup!
...this org...
at least my signature on this board is still true... after all these years.
The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.
Generally Disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
Oscargasm
Messages: 5911
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG
5 Cups
|
|
Deal that was official on Thursday is now officially official in the official leagues eyes, officially.
Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty
|
|
|
|
bigEfromGP
Messages: 816
Registered: July 2006
Location: GP, AB
No Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
My understanding from that is the raise was still not a requirement, they just had to ensure it wasn't less in the second year.
| CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:17 |
| CrudeRemarks wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:00 |
The president thinks he has the ideal male body.
|
It's hard to disagree that he has the ideal male body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| bigEfromGP wrote on Sat, 24 July 2021 12:15 |
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
My understanding from that is the raise was still not a requirement, they just had to ensure it wasn't less in the second year.
|
yeah. Maybe Matty is right, trying to help keep Smith flatter on the takehome pay after escrow jumps up in 22/23
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
CrudeRemarks
Messages: 1703
Registered: November 2010
Location: Edmonton
1 Cup
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Sat, 24 July 2021 13:58 |
| bigEfromGP wrote on Sat, 24 July 2021 12:15 |
| Kr55 wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Thu, 22 July 2021 14:12 |
The reason the cap hit is more in the second year is because of a rule change for players over 35. If the second year is more than the first, Smith can retire and the contract just disappears with no penalties.
|
Good call.
| Quote: |
The new CBA Memo of Understanding contains a new rule that allows a player to sign a multi-year 35+ deal that is not front loaded, and they can retire if they want. The cap hit disappears when they do.
The new CBA MOU says this:
64. 35+ Year Old Rule for Cap Counting
CBA §50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) shall have no application to a multi-year SPC that has: (1) total compensation (Player Salary and Bonuses) that is either the same as or increases from one League Year to the immediately subsequent League Year, and (2) a Signing Bonus, if any, that is payable in the first year of the SPC only.
|
|
My understanding from that is the raise was still not a requirement, they just had to ensure it wasn't less in the second year.
|
yeah. Maybe Matty is right, trying to help keep Smith flatter on the takehome pay after escrow jumps up in 22/23
|
Gotta remember cost of living goes up each year, and Mike is going to be on a fixed income soon.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you can get a lottery pick.
|
|
|
|
