View Single Post
08-15-2010, 01:15 PM
Bryzgalov's Blueline
CS's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,007
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Pronger's cap hit over the entirety of the contract is less than it would be if he signed a shorter contract that actually paid him what he's worth. The Salary Cap is partly designed to ensure that teams cannot get too good just by throwing money at players; Pronger tacking on throwaway years at the league minimum salary allows us to get a lower cap hit for a player of his quality in order to spend more on other players. Which attempts to circumvent the salary cap's goal of making sure teams cannot overspend to stack their rosters.

How do you seem to miss that little fact?

Having a less-able Pronger at his 4.92 cap hit at the last 2 years or so of his contract is worth having 3-5 years of beastmode Pronger playing for less than his cap hit ought to be.

Just because the money all gets paid out doesn't mean that the contract isn't designed to get around certain rules.
Again, that's not circumvention. Otherwise every frontloaded and backloaded deal falls into the realm of circumvention.

The NHL is exploring these specific contracts based on the theory of retirement. They're not re-analyzing the part of the CBA that allows such contracts to exist.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote