View Single Post
08-15-2010, 04:57 PM
Garbage Goal
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,040
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I am the Mush -- your entire argument is that it's not circumvention because you get punished in the end? That just doesn't fly. And the whole "plan" was for the contract to end "prematurely" (hence the minimum salary at the end of it). I don't see how you can say, at all, that just because he's 35 it isn't cap circumvention. That's such a poor argument, man. Show me where in the CBA that it says that if a team can't end the contract without penalty that it isn't circumvention. This argument is just flat out wrong.
It doesn't have to be in the CBA.

The rules about cap circumvention are intentionally vague. That's already been established by this Kovalchuk ********. It's pretty much up to the league to decide what's circumvention and what's not. Of course, there's rules and limits for contracts, but a contract can perfectly follow the rules of the CBA and still be denied by the NHL for a myriad of reasons (cap circumvention, not believing a player will fulfill the contract, etc.).

It's pretty obvious that, according to the league, the line in the sand is somewhere between the Kovalchuk and Hossa contracts. If you're intent on following the CBA to deem what's cap circumvention and what's not then you should be fine with the Pronger contract considering that it was allowed pass by the league.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote