View Single Post
Old
07-20-2012, 09:45 AM
  #49
satyr9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
If, and I think it's unlikely, the new CBA doesn't restrict max term, then I think BB probably has to change it up, but if you don't like Burke's management of the Leafs you should still be happy he hasn't done these long deals. If you don't trust his judgement, why would you trust him to sign guys that would handcuff the next GM? So if you like BB, it's probably partially because he avoided these kinds of deals and if you dislike him, why would you be confident he would've been better if he'd used these kinds of potentially severly restricting deals for future GMs?

And while I don't expect it anymore (by my count there are 15 teams already affected with NSH potentially being a 16th), I would certainly love to see a provision that ensures the discrepancy between salary paid and cap hit be applied post retirement for these clubs. I don't understand how or why the NHL could set caps based on revenues and then let 15-20m escape all that calculation for each big name player signing. The problem is far too many teams would end up with either short-term mega hits or very long-term smaller ones (for instance if Luongo played to the end of those 6.7 annual salaries with 5.3 hits, and then retired, there'd over 14m in cap hit (57m paid, 42.6m capped). So let him retire and they can avoid 4 years of 5.33, but make them eat that 14.3m in whatever way that can be agreed upon (same time period makes it a tad over 3.5 for 4 years).

BTW, this is also why I don't expect TOR to trade for RL before a new CBA. He might end up here, but I don't see BB committing without knowing whether he's picking up a very very big extra cap hit.


Last edited by satyr9: 07-20-2012 at 09:52 AM.
satyr9 is offline   Reply With Quote