View Single Post
08-15-2010, 04:21 PM
Registered User
BringBackStevens's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,532
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Show me players who have huge front loaded deals where they are getting paid the minimum or slightly above it by the end of it who are not near their retirement years (and the deal never reaches there). These really don't exist. The only hugely front loaded deals have been to older players where the contract extends towards their retirement years. You generally don't see HUGELY front loaded deals in the NHL.
I agree that there aren't as many EXACTLY like it or near exact, however what you are arguing is essentially a degree of circumvention that is allowable. So where is the line drawn between circumvention and simply a front loaded contract? Right now it appears that the line is drawn at the Kovalchuk contract.

On a different note, how ridiculous is it that the NHL will approve these contracts and let them sit for 1, 2 years and then talk about deeming them circumvention? What changed during that time? The contracts are the same. I really hope the NHL doesn't try to rule one or two of these contracts illegal and leave some of the others because there really is little that separates them. The only contract really that sticks out as being less likely to circumvent the cap is Pronger's because of the 35+ rule. Imagine if they were to de-register Pronger's SPC and leave Hossas. There are way too many problems to be messing with contracts that were already registered quite some time ago, and even more so those that have been in effect

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote