THN.com Blog: Lucic's extension includes lockout insurance

Milan Lucic's new three-year contract will kick in after the current season. (Photo by Brian Babineau/NHLI via Getty Images)

Ken Campbell
2009-10-07 15:15:00

When the Boston Bruins signed Milan Lucic to a three-year, $12.25 million contract extension, not many people raised eyebrows over how the deal included a $1 million signing bonus in 2012-13, which is the last year of the deal.

More people probably raised eyebrows at the fact that a player who scores, on average, one goal every six games somehow merited an almost 500 percent raise. (Sure the guy brings intangibles, but geez, $4 million worth of intangibles?)

It’s amazing this contract passed the desk of notorious skin-flint and ownership hawk Jeremy Jacobs. Because, what the Bruins did, in effect, was help Lucic have a little more resolve if there is another lockout.

That’s because the $1 million bonus is due to be paid July 1, 2012. For those of you not keeping score, that could very well be a couple of months before another labor disruption. The current collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2011-12 season, but the players have the option of extending it for another year, which means it could very well come to an end after that season.

So if the owners lock the players out the way they did in 2004, Lucic will at least have $1 million in his pocket to get him through the lean times. You have to think the NHL isn’t crazy about teams giving their players lockout protection.

But as usual, it’s powerless to do anything to stop those who run their teams from skirting the league’s rules and/or intentions. Now that the precedent is set, look for a lot more of these kinds of contracts to surface. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a boatload of elite young players whose contracts expire after this season and the betting here is that a bunch of them get lockout protection.

The fact a contract of this nature has been given out is proof a potential lockout is at least on people’s radar these days. After all, there are rumblings the league is making a turf war out of just about everything with the players these days and it’s no secret it wants big changes to things such as no-trade clauses, length of contracts, outrageous second contracts and circumventing the CBA.

When the Toronto Maple Leafs signed Phil Kessel, they gave him signing bonuses of $2.5 million this season, $3 million next season and $2.5 million in 2011-12. That was largely because when the deal was struck, the Nashville Predators were still in the picture and even though the overall salary in Nashville would have been about the same, the signing bonuses provided a pressure point because the Predators would have been forced to cut large checks three times before getting a penny in revenues. It may not seem like much, but things like that are a big deal for teams such as Nashville.

Related Links

And if the Predators are having to put money into a war chest to prepare for another lockout, that’s even more money going out the door. There are rumblings the league has begun to urge teams to contribute to a war chest to cover paying their employees and running their minor league operations in the event of a lockout.

Teams contributed $10 million over a four-year period prior to the last lockout and teams that could afford it simply kept their money in the bond. That money would be used if it were needed a couple of years down the road.

As much as fans don’t want to hear about it, people are beginning to prepare for a labor disruption in a couple of years.

Not trying to cry doomsday here, but the signs are there.

Ken Campbell, author of the book Habs Heroes, is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog will appear Wednesdays and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (9)

Sort: Oldest | Newest Filter: All | Videos

tomcotner Posted
(2009-10-08 16:29:50)

I CONTEND THAT SINCE MOST WERE ON THE ASSUMPTION at the end of last season, that it would be the last for the DESERT DOGS, they could have declared bankruptcy, been sold, and relocated to a city where the fan base is and has been crying out for an opportunity for some time. It's also my perception that said team in the right location would have SOLD OUT all of their home game tickets for the entire current season IN A BLINK OF AN EYE !!! I will be very interested to see what happens for instance with THE MONTREAL CANADIENS, and the fact that their top defenseman will be on the IR list for 4 months or more. The bottom line is that they crutially need a replacement, and if they think FOR A NEW YORK MINUTE, that they can cruise through the season without a replacement and finish well, then I got a bridge to sell to them. BUT THE QUESTION; HOW DO THEY REPLACE MARKOV AND STAY UNDER THE DAMN SALARY CAP ??? Think of all their fans who paid a handsome price to be entertained for 6 months, and now may be short changed, again, because of the DAMN SALARY CAP !!! I'll just close by repeating how I opened this tirade by saying: GET RID OF THE DAMN SALARY CAP AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, TAKE BETTMAN WITH YOU !!!

tomcotner Posted
(2009-10-08 16:18:16)

AND IF A TEAM OR TEAMS EVENTUALLY COME TO A CONCLUSION WHERE THEY ASSESS THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER COMPETE AGRESSIVELY, THEN THAT WOULD BE A GREAT TIME TO sell the team locally or relocate them to a city which is hungry for their own opportunity to have a team and take a shot. If we look at the AHL, for instance on a year to year basis, there always is a terriffic movement of teams from season to season and some are cancelled or disbanded alltogether. That's simply part of the process. Look at the CALGARY FLAMES or the DALLAS STARS for instance and where their AHL affiliates have been for say the past 5 seasons. I believe that both teams have had their AHL team in a different city for each of the past 5 years, or close. In that manner, the serious hockey fans and the NHL woiuld not have had to waste everyone's time and expenses with the PHOENIX COYOTE fiasco that has just consumed the entire summer with all the proceedings. BUT BETTMAN WILL WANT EVERY FAN TO BELIEVE THAT FOR SOME BRAIN FREEZED REASON, THE SPORT SIMPLY CANNOT THRIVE WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF A TEAM IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT !!!

tomcotner Posted
(2009-10-08 16:07:43)

WHY THE LEAGUE INSISTS THAT IT NEEDS TO protect its teams from themselves, is a disorder at the highest level. If a team or teams want to shell out $75 mill. for a season of salaries, then take in $65 mill. in all considerable revenue, then they can simply write off the overall deficit of $10 mill. on their year end report, just like any typical company in any type of typical business venture. And I don't want to hear anything about a small market team bitching about this type of procedure occuring on a regular basis in the large market cities, and the fact that a small team cannot compete at the same level. THEY CAN, BUT THEY WOULD JUST HAVE A HIGHER LOSS; WHAT'S THE PROBLEM ???

tomcotner Posted
(2009-10-08 16:00:19)

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WILL AGREE WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE, but in hindsight, I really don't care. Along with the convinced thought that the NHL should rid itself of that NUTTY LITTLE TROLL, who parades around as a commissioner, GARY BETTMAN, I too am getting real sick and tired of hearing about THE SALARY CAP, and all the war stories that go along with that topic. LOOK FOLKS, the NHL teams are multi-million $$$$ entities, and are owned by people and or companies that can obviously afford them.

penaltybox Posted
(2009-10-08 09:24:58)

Forgot to add~~ GREAT contract signing on Lucic, it is overpaid a bit as stated below, but Lucic is worth every penny of that money for what he bring not only to the Bruins, but what he gives the FANS! I'm sorry that my team doesn't have this type of player.

penaltybox Posted
(2009-10-08 09:21:00)

I agree with the first (3) posts, these types of contracts will become common place in the NHL. I don't blame the players for these contracts, because it's the owners who agree too them. The players have the right to ask for anything, but it's the ultimate decision of the teams to give in. Teams are affraid that if they don't pay, then another team will.

flyerfan52 Posted
(2009-10-07 22:43:34)

That was a shrewd move by either Boston or Lucic's agent. I expect to see a lot of contracts imitating that clause. Detroit is usually the team that comes up with these innovations. Things are pointing more to another strike/lockout all the time. Relocating the teams that exist only on revenue sharing to at least a break-even market would alleviate the money the players expect to lose from escrow while increasing revenue and therefore raising the cap.

jfinney08 Posted
(2009-10-07 20:14:43)

Its not contracts like Lucic's that will cause a lockout, its the NHL not letting anyone speak of moving teams that bleed money to hockey hotbeds that will make it profitable. The salary cap might go down for next season and how much of that lost revenue was brought on by teams like Phoenix and Atlanta? Players signing contracts soon should get ready for it because you have Bettman fighting tooth and nail to keep hockey in places that can't make a dime and on top of that you have ridiculous contracts going out to players that don't deserve it. Look at Toronto: Finger, Komisarek, and Kessel are all grossly overpaid. Lucic's contract is a slight overpayment, but not a bad one. With the way he's progressed it will be a value by the time its up. Also, 3 years on it means he'll be an RFA at the end of it again (good news for Boston). Teams have to overpay for young talent now because otherwise they won't sign because they know that some talent-starved team like Toronto, the Isles, the Coyotes, etc. will pay big, unearned, bucks for them. Older players meanwhile get years put on just to reduce cap hit because they'll probably retire soon. The CBA needs a lot of work. I think there should be a soft cap, or perhaps a cap on how much a single player can make.

janb55 Posted
(2009-10-07 17:21:24)

Let's see.... how many other players will negotiate signing bonuses that pay out on July 1,2012? And why will people be surprised when new rules are made(in this case, the CBA) that there will be some who will figure out a way to circumvent it? Do signing bonuses count against the salary cap?? If not, should they?? And there are rumors that the league is asking teams to stash some cash to pay expenses in the event of another lockout?? Sure sounds like there will be another work stoppage/lockout coming up--I hope not. Did anybody learn from the last one??