Mats Sundin is in the news again. Kind of.
A Chicago Tribune reporter has weighed in on Sundin. And unlike most sports reporters, he's not interested in blowing smoke about Mats being "classy" and "respected" just because he never turned down interview requests.
Instead, Steve Rosenbloom does a rip job on Sundin, questioning his "heart" and his "spine" and sniping that he's "never been on a champion".
Ugh. Putting aside the glaring fact that the Swedish Olympic team would disagree with that last bit, I long for the day when we can stop using "championships won" as the sole indicator of player success. I've been as harsh on Sundin as anybody, but even I'm not going to argue that a lack of a ring somehow makes Sundin less of a leader than George Parros.
So yes, I think Leaf fans have every right to be mad at Mats Sundin. But that said, the guy can still play and any GM of a contending team would be crazy not to make him an offer.
But here's the catch, and it's one most of the media covering the story are missing: Why would any NHL GM want to make Mats Sundin a multi-year offer?
It's taken Sundin seven months (and counting) to decide whether he wants to play this year. Why would you want to make a commitment to him for next year too?
And before you accuse me of more anti-Sundin nitpicking, remember this: Sundin is over 35 years old. According to the CBA, that means that if he signs a multi-year deal and then retires during it, his new team is still on the hook for his entire cap figure. They don't have to pay him, but they still take the cap hit. Every dollar of it.
Yes, if the Canucks land Mats with their infamous 2-year, $20-million offer and he decides to hang them up next summer, the Canucks take a $10M cap hit in 2009-10.
And yet we're suddenly hearing about teams offering Sundin multiple years. That's madness. It's one thing to take a very reasonable gamble on Sundin for one year. It's another to risk your salary cap for the future to make it happen.
I know, I know. If Sundin signs a multi-year deal, it will be because he wants to play for more than one year. He'll only put pen to paper on a long-term deal if he has every intention of honoring it.
But we all know that Mats likes to change his mind. And six months is a long time in Mats Sundin's world.
Would you want your favorite team to risk it?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The CBA fineprint that Sundin suitors are missing
Follow @DownGoesBrown
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think even if Sundin signs with the Canucks, it will be a one-year deal.
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as I do that we're going to go through all of this again next year. And I can't wait!
You know what I'm hoping for? That Sundin signs with the Rangers, or Canucks, or the Wings, wins the Cup, and then comes "home" to Toronto and retires a Leaf. That would be sweet.
I have a huge rip job ready for the day he signs elsewhere. Massive. I am getting tickets for the game that Sundin returns and I am inviting DGB so we can drive the crowd to drown out your cheering Eyebeleaf :P
ReplyDeleteAnd you know why? Because part of being an unapologetic homer is hating everyone else especially guys that have more trouble making up their mind than a sophomore at the prom with a senior.
If he wins a cup elsewhere, fine, as long as it's not ottawa or Montreal but if he a. brings it to Toronto like Bourque did in Boston or b. tries to re-sign here and retire then I will pelt him with rotten fruits and vegetables.
You know as well as I do that we're going to go through all of this again next year.
ReplyDeleteCan we at least get him to start on that now, then? Maybe he'd be ready to make a decision at the same time everybody else does.
@ PPP: Brother, friend, my stance this entire time has been that I understand the angst towards Sundin, and the frustration felt at his crippling indecision. But I can't be mad at the guy after all he did for me, for us. I just can't.
ReplyDeleteBecause part of being an unapologetic homer is hating everyone else...
Mats isn't "everyone else." Mats is Toronto. Mats is the Maple Leafs. Mats is the Captain. Mats is the guy I have spent the last 10 years of my life defending. The guy I got into many arguments in high school over, because some douchebag said he wasn't worthy of the "C."
Read the writeup on Sundin's hockey reference page that WE ALL sponsor, the effort that YOU took the lead on:
First player to score 500 as a Leaf. All-time Leaf leader in goals and second in assists. 22nd most goals scored in the NHL and most overtime goals in NHL history. Nine-time all-star. Captain of the Swedish Gold Medal Olympic team. Greatest Leaf Ever.
How could I be mad?
There's not on ounce of you that can forgive him for the fiasco of the last few months, and simply wish him well?
i knew it was too good to be true. first the cox bloc guys (my other favourite leaf blog) reveal themselves to be guns n' roses fans (horrifying), and now you're a sundin basher. my world's crumbling a little bit.
ReplyDeletearound february last year, mats should have said "this team's a bit of a disaster. i don't know what i want to do next year, but i'm not going to uproot my life and let MLSE whore me out just to try to make up for their countless management gaffes over the last 5 years." that was the truth, we all knew it, and i don't blame him for feeling that way. but he's a gentle fucking swede who's never said anything negative in his entire fucking life, so he tried to go the classy route hoping that things would work themselves out. they didn't, and now he's a traitor, a hypocrite, classless, etc etc. i honestly can't believe people are giving him such a hard time. let the guy decide what's best for his life and move on. he's still an incredible hockey player, and one of the all-time great leafs. we should be thankful we got to enjoy him here for as long as we did.
if i happen to be at the ACC if/when mats returns and someone starts booing him, i'll punch them out.
daoust, two points:
ReplyDelete1 - I think you're right about Sundin's stance at the deadline, and I wish he'd been honest then too. But he wasn't. He came up with some feel-good story (or his PR guy did) and ended up having to go back on it. There's nothing wrong with holding him accountable for that.
2 - And this is the far more important of the two points: Guns N' Roses fucking rock.
Is Sundin's potential retirement a McGuffin or a red herring? I can never get those two straight. Either way, I've never seen anything in Mats Sundin to indicate he wouldn't honour his contractual obligations.
ReplyDeleteSay what you want about his dithering and the fact that he's not going to sign on with a club for the "full journey" the way he spouted off about last year, but what evidence do you have that Mats might stiff a club by retiring?
To suggest the dude might sign a multi-year deal and then bail on a team is not only out of character for Mats it's, ahem, a bit of a reach.
I've never seen anything in Mats Sundin to indicate he wouldn't honour his contractual obligations.
ReplyDeleteWell, any player has a right to retire at any time. There's no rule that says you must play out a contract if you decide to hang them up instead. So while you're right that he's never violated a contract, he wouldn't be doing that here either.
I'm simply pointing out that his track record at predicting his own future actions has been pretty lousy lately. I think it's perfectly possible that he could sign a multi-year deal, fully intending to play, and then change his mind.
And, as we're repeatedly reminded, he has every right to do that. If he really didn't owe the Leafs or their fans anything after 14 years, why would we expect him to feel any sense of loyalty or obligation to the Canucks or Blackhawks after four months?
holding him accountable? he's not the fucking prime minister, he's a hockey player. and if i had to publicly explain every step of the decision-making process when making an important life decision, i think there's a good chance i'd end up contradicting myself at some point as well.
ReplyDeleteif he had chosen the honest route and publicly trashed his employers and team (which he would have been justified in doing), he would have been called a vindictive traitor anyway. he couldn't win. the only way to save face would have been to waive his no-trade clause and allow himself to be an MLSE 'rebuilding' tool. he was too good to this franchise and this city to be forced to do that. we were excited and entertained (and yes, ultimately disappointed) by him for 13 years - and for free for the most part, unless you're a season ticket holder - and this is how we treat him? between the sundin-bashers and the fucking mouth-breather sitting beside me at the game on monday who told me with a straight face 'i hate kaberle. he's been horrible for 5 YEARS' i'm starting to hate leaf fans.
i can mildly tolerate parts of appetite for destruction. but a slash-less gunners? preposterous. if you want some gritty rock skip that douche axl and listen to the stooges or something.
besides this obvious disagreement, i'm still a huge fan of the blog. keep up the good work, just lay off mats.
Wow. I really need to buy Daoust a beer.
ReplyDeleteSundin forever.
he's not the fucking prime minister, he's a hockey player
ReplyDeleteTrue. And we're not talking about him getting thrown in jail or deported. We're talking about a few boobirds, and some loss of respect among some hockey fans. I think the punishment fits the crime.
Mats made his decision(s) and he'll live with whatever that brings. He's a big boy, he'll be OK. And maybe the next guy in his situation won't feel the need to get quite so cute with the PR soundbites.
I'm simply pointing out that his track record at predicting his own future actions has been pretty lousy lately. I think it's perfectly possible that he could sign a multi-year deal, fully intending to play, and then change his mind.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I call bullshit.
It's one thing to waffle on a trade, it's an entirely different thing to sign a legal contract, back out of it and stick a club with a massive salary cap hit.
Not only would an out of the blue retirement be pretty much unprecedented (many players have been asked to retire, don't know of many who did so and left a team in the lurch) it would be entirely out of character for a player who never held-out, never demanded a re-negotiation in the midst of a contract and was perhaps guilty of being too loyal to his franchise.
It's fair to boo Sundin all you want. It's fair to curse him for denying the Leafs much-needed assets at the trade deadline. It's open season to poke fun at him for the massive contradiction of wanting to play for a team from October to June and then shopping for a team in December-January. But it's a bit rich to create an entire post around one possible outcome that's completely inconsistent with Sundin's near 20 year NHL career.
I love the blog, but this entry is truly Coxian.
Totally agree MF37.
ReplyDelete"True. And we're not talking about him getting thrown in jail or deported. We're talking about a few boobirds, and some loss of respect among some hockey fans. I think the punishment fits the crime. Mats made his decision(s) and he'll live with whatever that brings. He's a big boy, he'll be OK. And maybe the next guy in his situation won't feel the need to get quite so cute with the PR soundbites."
ReplyDeletei agree, sort of. i guess it just bothers me that toronto's the kind of place where someone like Mats could potentially end up getting the same treatment as murphy, mccabe, raycroft, etc, over some cute PR soundbites, but a guy like domi is idolized. i thought we were better than that. if this is how we treat players like mats, i'm not sure we deserve them.
It's one thing to waffle on a trade, it's an entirely different thing to sign a legal contract, back out of it and stick a club with a massive salary cap hit.
ReplyDeleteBut that's the key right there. He wouldn't be backing out of a contract -- any player under contract can retire at any time, forfeit his salary, and have no further obligation to the team.
Players do this all the time. It's common enough that there's an entire section of the CBA that covers this one specific scenario.
But it's a bit rich to create an entire post around one possible outcome that's completely inconsistent with Sundin's near 20 year NHL career.
I really don't think it is inconsistent, especually with his actions this year. He honors contracts, yes, but he also looks after his own interests. And we know that he's had to spend some serious time convincing himself that he still wants to play in the NHL. If he comes back and then decides he made a mistake, why would it be out of character for him to decide to walk away for good next summer?
The defence of Mats Sundin that's been heard so often the past six months is based on two facts: he had a contractual right to do what he did, and he didn't owe the Leafs any special favors or loyalty beyond what was in his contract.
If that was true in February, it would be true again next year. If he signs the two-year deal with Vancouver, he'll still be within his contractual rights to retire if he decides to do that. And if he put his own preferences ahead of the Leafs' future (as was his right), why would he be expected to care about the Canucks cap situation?
I think this will all be moot since I still expect Sundin will sign a one-year deal (he said that was his preference back in September). I just can't imagine why GMs are even offering him multi-years. It seems like an enormous risk to take.
That said, I appreciate the comments. Open debate is always welcomed here.
...this entry is truly Coxian.
You are banned.
I worried the Cox analogy took things too far...
ReplyDeletePlayers do this all the time. It's common enough that there's an entire section of the CBA that covers this one specific scenario.
Really? Name them.
It may happen to guys the game has passed by (Hull, Brett) or guys that management wants off the NHL books (Mogilny, Alex) but a guy who can still be a ppg player walking away and leaving the club with cap hit? I haven't seen it.
that clause is pretty strange. why would they allow a player to retire and forfeit salary, but still keep the cap hit on the books? who is that designed to protect? or what are they trying to prevent?
ReplyDeletemf37,
ReplyDeleteI went looking for that information today and came up empty. I was hoping there was a source that listed career contract signings and terms (like baseball-reference does), but couldn't find one. If anyone knows of any, let me know.
One example off the top of my head is Neidermayer's quasi-retirement two years ago. Not a great example since he ultimately did come back, but he was under contract while he took half the season off.
Beyond that, surely you'd agree that there are all sorts of players who retire when they're still productive (which is what I was referring to)? That cap hit rule has only been in effect for a few years so that group will be smaller, although I suspect there are still several names in it.
that clause is pretty strange. why would they allow a player to retire and forfeit salary, but still keep the cap hit on the books? who is that designed to protect? or what are they trying to prevent?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that it's partly an attempt to close a loophole in the way cap hits are distributed.
Hypothetical: Sundin tells teams he wants to play one more year, and he wants $10M. The Canucks agree, but ask him to instead sign a deal that pays him $10M in the first year, then $5M, then $3M, then $2M, for a total of $20M over four years.
At the end of the first year, Sundin retires as planned. He makes his $10M, but the Canucks only take a $5M cap hit because the cap charge is the average yearly salary.
This special rule closes that loophole by leaving the Canucks on the hook for everything. The loophole would still work for players under 35, but I guess the thinking is that not many of them have planned their retirement in advance.
ok, that makes sense. it stops teams from signing guys to long-term contracts that they have no intention of playing out just to reduce their potential cap hit. the flipside though is it forces veterans to sign 1-year contracts which isn't fair to them or the teams signing them.
ReplyDeleteSurely you'd agree that there are all sorts of players who retire when they're still productive...
ReplyDeleteI came at this one a little backwards - I was actually looking for players who hung the skates up unexpectedly so I could say, "Sundin's no ABC" but I couldn't find any examples.
So, thinking back on my childhood and the "eat your brusell sprouts there are kids starving in China" argument, I pulled out the old "name one" retort.
To answer your question - I'm sure there are guys, other than Niedermayer, who unexpectedly retired, but I can't name any.
I think the majority of hockey players retire out of necessity due to gradual erosion of their skill and ability. For most, growing old and obsolete as the game passes them by is a very emotional turning point in their lives.
ReplyDeleteWhen a player like Wendel Clark gladly assumes a 5-minute-a-game/healthy scratch role while making league minimum on a team he once led and captained, in a city he has the key to - just to keep playing the game he loves, it's hard for me to sympathize with a player like Mats Sundin who sits on the fence humming and hawing for 6 months while still perfectly capable of competing at a high level.
I suppose the 'stuff of heroes' is a subjective topic.