View Single Post
Old
08-15-2010, 04:30 PM
  #103
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,217
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
But tell me how this matters? You are getting him at a discount now. It helped you almost win a Cup due to circumventing the cap. Again -- just because you're going to be punished in the future does not mean it is not CURRENTLY *TODAY* cap circumvention.
It's not cap circumvention. It would be cap circumvention if there were a way for us to get out of the contract with out being "punished" (not that I would use that term). Simply amortizing a player's large initial salary over the length of the contract isn't cap circumvention, unless you plan to end the contract prematurely.

It isn't cap circumvention because every dollar he gets paid (and perhaps even some that he doesn't) will count against the Flyers' cap. There will be no situation where he retires, and he has earned millions more than he ever counted for against the cap.

That is what makes the Kovy deal and others like it cap circumvention. That is what would've made the Pronger deal circumvention if it was an under 35 contract (which Holmgren thought it was): the ability to pay a player more than he will ever count against your cap. If you pay a player 35 million over x years, then his total cap hit over those years had better be 35 million. I don't care how it is spread out, so long as the totals match up.

Structuring a contract to suit your needs with in the rules of the cap is not circumvention, it's just cap management.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I agree that just because someone is on a lower-than-market-value contract doesn't mean it's cap circumvention. Players take discounts all the time to play for their teams. But when the contract is artificially lowered in the case of extending it years down the road for minimum dollar value? That constitutes cap circumvention no matter how you slice it. You really cannot say it's not cap circumvention.
Only if the club has the option of ending the contract prior to it's completion with out penalty. In our case we don't. All we have is a player with a front loaded contract. We are on the hook for the entire dollar total of the contract, so it's not circumvention.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote