View Single Post
12-16-2011, 12:31 PM
Registered User
BringBackStevens's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,044
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jeh82
Not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it really addresses the league's concern about circumventing the cap. For the sake of argument, they's say Kimmo was UFA this offseason.

He's 36 now, right? Let's say he intends to come back and give it two more years. Let's say he's comfortable with 5 million in compensation.

Contact option A: two years, $10 million (5-5) = $5 million cap hit.
Option B: Four years, $14 million 5-5-2.5-1.5 = 3.5 million cap hit.

Kimmo retires after season 2 either way, having banked $10 million, but the team reaps the advantage of the lower cap hit with the latter option.

What am I missing.
It might not be perfect in the exact form I proposed it, but I think it would be better along those lines.

In your same scenario, if Timonen was 34 and signed the contract to play until he was 38, the cap hit would be wiped no matter how long it was, since it would have not been a 35+ contract.

So why is there punishment for a 36 year old player signing for 4 years but only to play for 2, but it's OK for a 34 year old player to sign for 6 years only to play for 4?

I would probably ammend my idea to apply to all contracts. Can only take you to somewhere around 40 and after that its 1 year deals. Perhaps you could also sign only for a maximum of 8-10 years as well.

Still could be a degree of "circumvention" but it would be reigned in to a reasonable level. And removes the need to punish a team for a player that has to retire due to injury

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote