Thread: News Article: Pronger's contract investigated
View Single Post
08-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,300
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
First off there are certain guidelines as to how a contract can be structured with decreasing increments... But that is a discussion for another time.

If a contract is structured within the guidelines and take effect before the player turns 35 years of age -- going by the League Year... again another topic for another day -- the team is only obligated for the Cap hits up until his retirement... The salary is averaged and the Cap hit is that average... If the player turns 35 (in accordance to the League Year) prior to the new contract taking effect, the team signing him will have to account for the Cap throughout the life of the contract.

How the $1.25M or $1.5M annual savings you stated effects the team is that in the Cap Era of the NHL, Cap space is a very precious commodity... and every dollar saved allows Cap dollars to be used on additional roster spots and assets.

I understand the way the cap hit is calculated-- by dividing the total dollars by the number of years--what i dont understand then is the benefit of frontloading a deal given that the cap hit is averaged, apart from buyout reasons possibly (and even then it seems like a marginal advantage if any).

I also understand the over 35 rule and the value of cap space, what I dont understand is why you'd put a player under contract until they were 42 to "save" if they may very well retire and still count as $5M against the cap ... seems to negate the savings. The Hossa and Richards deals, for example, I understand completely, this one I don't really get.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote