• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Canes Sign Kotkaniemi To Offer Sheet/Habs Don't Match

Sara Civian has an article on The Athletic. At the bottom she says that according to Georges Laraque, the Canes already have a multi-year extension on the table at $4 million.

I figured that. Illegal if true btw.
 
CM2 is our board CBA guru, so I'll let him take on the technicalities here. I'm pretty sure that's an issue as well, but I certainly don't know for sure. Clearly the Canes had to negotiate the offer sheet with the kid and his agent, but I'm not at all certain of where the line is drawn in terms of what all you can negotiate and when.
CBA 26.3 is where the NHL could potentially come down, extremely hard, on any team proven to have "Circumvented" the CBA in any way. As I had posted earlier in this thread, that includes not being allowed to make any sort of side deals, promises, commitments, or understandings in any form, be they handshake deals, verbal or written agreements, on anything related to future actions, including new contracts, contract extensions, managing of Qualifying offers, etc.

Its vague enough to allow the league to determine all kinds of different ways a team could try to 'bend the rules' in a way that might be unfair to other teams and allows the NHL to pretty much dish out any sort of punishment it can come up with if it determines a team has done something that violates 26.3.

The trick of course is "is there proof that a team has violated 26.3"? If the Canes really have some sort of 'understanding' that an extension for less AAV could be coming in the future after January 1st, both the Canes and KK and his agent need to be absolutely sure that there is zero evidence of those discussions. No emails, nothing on paper, no dumb comments to the media from anyone in any official position saying something like "we had discussed the parameters for a longer term contract to be extended when allowed before signing the offer sheet".

Teams cheat in regards to Article 26.3. But as long as you properly navigate the process to leave no evidence, its not that hard to get away with it. However, you could say that THIS circumstance, an offer sheet with that big 1 year overpay, is unprecedented in regards to the current CBA. I would not recommend the Canes do anything to draw any attention to themselves if they decide to sign KK to an extension. Definitely don't offer that extension on January 1st for example. If Montreal doesn't match this offer sheet, you can fully expect the NHL and Montreal to be watching very closely for signs that the Canes might have violated Article 26.3.

As long as everyone denies any sort of 'pre-arranged' contract extension and no one leaves any 'paper trail', Canes should be ok. Even better of course would have been the Canes realizing the peril of violation of Article 26.3 and refusing to discuss ANYTHING beyond the offer sheet they just signed until such time that the Habs don't match. I know various 'pundits' claim something was already discussed, outlined, whatever. That is all just talk/speculation without evidence. If this has really happened, there better not be any evidence and everyone better keep their stories straight.
 
CBA 26.3 is where the NHL could potentially come down, extremely hard, on any team proven to have "Circumvented" the CBA in any way. As I had posted earlier in this thread, that includes not being allowed to make any sort of side deals, promises, commitments, or understandings in any form, be they handshake deals, verbal or written agreements, on anything related to future actions, including new contracts, contract extensions, managing of Qualifying offers, etc.

Its vague enough to allow the league to determine all kinds of different ways a team could try to 'bend the rules' in a way that might be unfair to other teams and allows the NHL to pretty much dish out any sort of punishment it can come up with if it determines a team has done something that violates 26.3.

The trick of course is "is there proof that a team has violated 26.3"? If the Canes really have some sort of 'understanding' that an extension for less AAV could be coming in the future after January 1st, both the Canes and KK and his agent need to be absolutely sure that there is zero evidence of those discussions. No emails, nothing on paper, no dumb comments to the media from anyone in any official position saying something like "we had discussed the parameters for a longer term contract to be extended when allowed before signing the offer sheet".

Teams cheat in regards to Article 26.3. But as long as you properly navigate the process to leave no evidence, its not that hard to get away with it. However, you could say that THIS circumstance, an offer sheet with that big 1 year overpay, is unprecedented in regards to the current CBA. I would not recommend the Canes do anything to draw any attention to themselves if they decide to sign KK to an extension. Definitely don't offer that extension on January 1st for example. If Montreal doesn't match this offer sheet, you can fully expect the NHL and Montreal to be watching very closely for signs that the Canes might have violated Article 26.3.

As long as everyone denies any sort of 'pre-arranged' contract extension and no one leaves any 'paper trail', Canes should be ok.
It was a rumor floated by Georges Laraque and has to stay that way. Any proof and the Canes are in Arizona type trouble and could lose a first.
 
It was a rumor floated by Georges Laraque and has to stay that way. Any proof and the Canes are in Arizona type trouble and could lose a first.
The Yotes lost a 2020 2nd rounder and a 2021 1st rounder. IMO, any team that violates 26.3 should be thankful if that’s all they got, it should be more costly and not by a little.
 
F you!!!
Where about?
If you go far west in N CO, you can hit Utah and Dinosaur National Monument. Went there 16 years ago with wife and 2 year old. Cool place.
Not that far west (or north for that matter) ... Estes Park area
 
I'm pretty sure it is against the CBA to negotiate an extension while inking him to a 1 year deal.

Does it happen? Probably. Is it supposed to happen? No.
I think you're correct but IF they asked him what it take to get him to sign (For example purposes only!) 4 x 4yr Canes go No problem but that won't get you out of Montreal we expect they'd match (IIRC that's be a second rnd only) So they Respond how about 6.1 million for 1.
Nothing illegal in these discussions and yet both side communicated their intents..

But as usual not having anything in email or print is a key to "keep" it clean. The thing is both sides can reneg and no one can stop them.
 
It was a rumor floated by Georges Laraque and has to stay that way. Any proof and the Canes are in Arizona type trouble and could lose a first.
Honestly ... seems like the kind of thing that's a problem if there's specific contract terms discussed, and less of a problem if general parameters were discussed. Carolina can be a bit reckless at times, but they've never been Arizona level stupid before ... so I'd guess this is all fine.
 
Honestly ... seems like the kind of thing that's a problem if there's specific contract terms discussed, and less of a problem if general parameters were discussed. Carolina can be a bit reckless at times, but they've never been Arizona level stupid before ... so I'd guess this is all fine.
Chances are they're fine, and they may not have even discussed anything illegal anyway.

I'm not sure how teams get caught, but we've seen teams get caught in all leagues... so there's a non-zero chance they could get caught.
 
Chances are they're fine, and they may not have even discussed anything illegal anyway.

I'm not sure how teams get caught, but we've seen teams get caught in all leagues... so there's a non-zero chance they could get caught.
Fairly sure teams get caught when the agents involved turn them in. Again, the Canes have done plenty of things I would call rash during the current owner's tenure, but nothing even close to that dumb. There's absolutely no reason to assume they'd do so in this case.
 
...and, coincidentally, I am en route to Denver, where my daughter is moving to from Burlington, Vermont. Just wrapped up day one of the three-day drive.
I've done that drive ... during an even hotter summer. I don't envy you that, especially in a U Haul.
 
I've done that drive ... during an even hotter summer. I don't envy you that, especially in a U Haul.
Dear old I70. I’ve also made the trek. There is no road I loathe as much as 70 from the tunnels to Glenwood Springs. Vail pass is a nightmare as is glenwood canyon. But, I love the area around Vail and Steamboat. I’ve a good friend that lives in Grand Lake. He’s a retired forest ranger for that area and is in a first name basis with all the moose and elk.
 
Honestly ... seems like the kind of thing that's a problem if there's specific contract terms discussed, and less of a problem if general parameters were discussed. Carolina can be a bit reckless at times, but they've never been Arizona level stupid before ... so I'd guess this is all fine.
You can’t even discuss “general parameters “.
 
Dear old I70. I’ve also made the trek. There is no road I loathe as much as 70 from the tunnels to Glenwood Springs. Vail pass is a nightmare as is glenwood canyon. But, I love the area around Vail and Steamboat. I’ve a good friend that lives in Grand Lake. He’s a retired forest ranger for that area and is in a first name basis with all the moose and elk.
tell him to give Bullwinkle a shot for us.
 
You can’t even discuss “general parameters “.
Then how can you sign anyone?? You have to discuss parameters.. Remember he's a free agent. (Restricted) but he wasn't signed
Wat would it take to get your client to sign is by definition a fair question..
Now I'll agree handshake deals aren't allowed. Course who was the shark that signed for 1 million last or the before season that just signed for 5?
 
Back
Top