View Single Post
Old
07-20-2012, 11:42 AM
  #978
Ridley Simon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
I think players are only going to keep player longer and longer as time goes on, so making it to 40 will become less and less of a barrier (and at that point it's rarely about the money).

That said, I think it shouldn't be very difficult to change the rules to put penalties in place on those kinds of deals that get triggered if the player retires. If that's the issue with those kinds of deals it can likely be addressed. I can't see parity as the issue with those types of deals because true parity isn't possible while the financial landscape of is so varied.
How? it'll be as arbitrary as Shanaban's punishment decisions. That simply wont work and will reek of favouritism anytime a Flyer, Rangers, Penguins team gets the benefits of that.

That will never happen, so it needs to be addressed up front, not "when the guy retires at 38 in their first year of 1m salary, and at year 11 of the contract".

Hell, any contract over 5 years in length should count towards the cap even if a player retires. If the player HAS to retire for medical reasons, then the team can lobby the league for a bogey. And "old age" is not a medical reason

Ridley Simon is offline   Reply With Quote