Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Lecavalier Signs 11-year Extension With Tampa


Recommended Posts

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=243275&amp...s=secStory_main

Vincent Lecavalier's new deal with the Tampa Bay Lightning will carry him close to his 40th birthday.

The 28-year-old franchise centre signed an 11-year, $85-million contract extension with the Lightning that will kick in for the 2009-2010 season and run through the 2019-2020 campaign.

Lecavalier will earn $10-million per season in salary and bonuses for the first six seasons of the deal, before dropping to $8.5-million in 2016-2017, $4-million in 2017-2018, $1.5-million in 2018-2019 and $1-million and 2019-2020.

The declining value in the final years makes it much more palatable to the Lightning if Lecavalier should choose to retire at some point in one of those later years of the deal, but it also serves to lower the average cost of the contract for salary cap purposes.

That means Lecavalier could, for example, play the first seven years of the deal and earn an average of nearly $9.7-million per season, though the cap hit for the contract will be approximately $7.72-million. The other side of the coin, however, is that the cap hit would still be $7.72-million when the season salary drops in the final years of the new deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, am i the only one who thinks this is a ton of money for a guy who's only ever scored more than 100 pts one time?

I mean sure he's a phenomenal player. Better than most, but $10m a year for 6 years? Yikes. In the last 5 nhl seaons he's scored 78, 66, 75, 108 and 92 pts.

$10m seems way excessive IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel as though I've heard this before...

It was actually first reported by Bob McKenzie near the end of June but he said that they were still working out different parts of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way they worked it out he well make 10 million a season, if he had got 7.7 million a year it would have worked out too.

so 7.7 is well worth vinny....

This is all semantics. thats 7.7 every year - so when he's 38 years old his cap hit is still going to be $7.7m...will it be worth it then?

$8m a year for 6 years would have made a lot more sense imho. But we'll see. I'll be happy to say "i told you so" in 10 years time if you guys are still around :):lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will finally stop rumors of Vinny to Montreal. :rolleyes:

Probably not, Tampa is still in hot water if you ask me, with all the signings at forward. Their "D" still might not be good enough to get them in the playoffs. Stamkos is coming up and he could take over Vinny's spot within a year or two. That's a lot of cash to pay a 2nd line centre if that's the case. Obviously the only route he is coming to Montreal, or for that matter leaving Tampa is through a trade.

I dunno, I just don't see Vinny being in Tampa for more then a year or two. Not saying he is going to Montreal but I just don't see him staying there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all semantics. thats 7.7 every year - so when he's 38 years old his cap hit is still going to be $7.7m...will it be worth it then?

$8m a year for 6 years would have made a lot more sense imho. But we'll see. I'll be happy to say "i told you so" in 10 years time if you guys are still around :):lol::lol:

Yeah I'd take the cap-hit of 7.7 million every year for Vinny but not for eleven years.

Why lock him up way past his prime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised he signed on for the incredibly long term of the deal. Although I'm sure he would ok a move if this strange (politely put) ownership group does not succeed. Does anyone see a potential for disaster with these long term contracts? The US economy is in a down swing. Will it eventually effect pro sports? If so, the way the bargaining agreement is structured the salary cap could recede if revenues falter. Imagine trying to complement your star player in a $40 mil cap world. In fairness to the Ligthning, the average dollars per year of the deal seem reasonable for the caliber of player. But what's wrong with paying a player as he performs? I think 5 year deals would be a good maximum length for contracts but what do I know. I'm glad we have Bob as GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand the average salary is a downright bargain for Tampa. But signing him until he's 40: that's risky. You're putting a lot of stock in the hope that if Lecalvier goes downhill he retires (because he is less than 35 when he signed the deal (now) that salary will come right off the books). Otherwise, you could be spending a good chunk of cap space on a player who is contributing nothing.

But what is weird is the low amounts in the end years. There's a few possibilities here, and it could be some combination of them:

1. make Lecalvier happier by getting the money up front (financially this is in his favour)

2. make the decision to retire less difficult, so that if he's going downhill he doesn't just stay around for the money.

3. make trading Lecalvier somewhat easier. Although the cap hit is the same, say a team like Nashville that never gets close to the cap, they can get him for a very low price and really don't care that it pushes them closer to the cap.

4. Lecalvier may be happier knowing he can retire and still get almost all of the money out of this deal, he doesn't need to stay until he's 40.

But worst of all, 5. the two sides are trying to get around the salary cap. Lecalvier could have told the Lightning (although this would be under the table and unenforceable), that he has no desire to play until the age of 40, and promises to retire before the deal is over. This way he gets 10 million per season, but the Lightning's cap hit is substantially less. The "players who sign a deal at age 35 or higher's salary counts against the cap no matter what - retirement, minors, etc." was put in place for this exact loophole, but at the time I doubt Bettman was thinking GMs would be offering an 11 year deal to a 29 year old. I bet the next CBA modifies this clause to account for situations like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But worst of all, 5. the two sides are trying to get around the salary cap. Lecalvier could have told the Lightning (although this would be under the table and unenforceable), that he has no desire to play until the age of 40, and promises to retire before the deal is over. This way he gets 10 million per season, but the Lightning's cap hit is substantially less. The "players who sign a deal at age 35 or higher's salary counts against the cap no matter what - retirement, minors, etc." was put in place for this exact loophole, but at the time I doubt Bettman was thinking GMs would be offering an 11 year deal to a 29 year old. I bet the next CBA modifies this clause to account for situations like this.
Yes, good pick up, Graeme. They'll have to make the rule a certain age (whether it is the same 35, or a higher age), and ignore when the contract was signed.

Of course if Vinny is still playing very well at age 38, and with increasing caps / salary inflation for 9 years, top NHL salaries could be close to $20MM for the stars. Vinny would just hold out for a renegotiated contract then, rather than play for relative "peanuts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised he signed on for the incredibly long term of the deal. Although I'm sure he would ok a move if this strange (politely put) ownership group does not succeed. Does anyone see a potential for disaster with these long term contracts? The US economy is in a down swing. Will it eventually effect pro sports? If so, the way the bargaining agreement is structured the salary cap could recede if revenues falter. Imagine trying to complement your star player in a $40 mil cap world. In fairness to the Ligthning, the average dollars per year of the deal seem reasonable for the caliber of player. But what's wrong with paying a player as he performs? I think 5 year deals would be a good maximum length for contracts but what do I know. I'm glad we have Bob as GM.

Totally agree on all points.

Even without the US economy in trouble I'd still be worried the cap could come down or flatten out - there are a lot of franchises in trouble right now weighing down the league. A large portion of revenue growth has come from Canadian teams through higher ticket prices. That can't continue forever. The league still lacks a credible TV deal although there are always rumours. Sure there are some places like Chicago and maybe Boston poised for nice rebounds in fan interest but look at Detroit - brilliant team, great franchise, entertaining hockey and they still can't fill the building! That should set off a lot of alarm bells across the league. The US economy is very scary right now and Canada could follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada will most likely follow the harsh times that Good old usa is currently having,

That being said Hockey is more the a past time, and for canadiens to give up hockey. It would be like us giving up football,

Isnt going to happen

I did not realize that you lived in the USA! I don't think you have any worry about having to give up football.

Also, the people of Canada are Canadians, not canadiens. The Canadiens are the hockey club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree on all points.

Even without the US economy in trouble I'd still be worried the cap could come down or flatten out - there are a lot of franchises in trouble right now weighing down the league. A large portion of revenue growth has come from Canadian teams through higher ticket prices. That can't continue forever. The league still lacks a credible TV deal although there are always rumours. Sure there are some places like Chicago and maybe Boston poised for nice rebounds in fan interest but look at Detroit - brilliant team, great franchise, entertaining hockey and they still can't fill the building! That should set off a lot of alarm bells across the league. The US economy is very scary right now and Canada could follow.

Your Detroit example is bang on. Wings fans and just plain NHL fans from here in London were able to get tickets to all rounds of the play-off's. And I agree that new revenue streams for the league are very limited. It should be an interesting next five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...