View Single Post
10-30-2004, 03:22 PM
Registered User
dedalus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by True Blue
Plus let's not forget that the ONLY real way to have a truly hard cap (a la the NFL) is to have non-guaranteed contracts .... If you have a true hard cap, then you have to give teams a way to get out from under bad contracts, like the NFL does.
No that's not true. THN did an article de-bunking this excuse of the NHLPA's.

A different way to handle that issue of a hard cap would be that if a team breaches its cap, the players on the team would give back the difference in the cap and the overage. Thus no player need be cut to drop the revenue. It's very fair, actually. The team maintains its payroll-to-cost ratio, and the players need not fear unemployment due to the signing of a UFA or the re-signing of an RFA. What it does mean is that players would have to share in the risks of payroll, since they would ALL be paying the cost of going over the cap to sign that UFA. (IMO if they were smart they would jump on this. Since they would be sharing in the risks they could very well demand a larger say in how the team does its business - which UFAs to sign, etc.)

Originally Posted by NYR469
when the time comes that luongo is a free agent and needs to be re-signed by the panthers, who do you think they are going to take the $$ away from luongo or a guy like dagenais?? the panthers will give luongo his $$ and if that would put them over the limit then guys like dagenais would be sent packing
In some cases certainly, but using the NFL as a study you see that the guys who tend to get cut are older players whose productivity has dropped but who are still getting big bucks under their previous contract. We see this every year. Dozens of older, former stars are offered the choice of renogotiating or being cut. A guy like Dagenais has far less to fear than a guy like, say, Kasper or LeClair.

dedalus is offline