View Single Post
09-22-2012, 12:17 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,687
vCash: 500
Guys.. this whole argument over what's legal or not is ridiculous... first, the NHL franchise agreements state that if you sue the NHL, they have the right to forfeit your franchise. Second, the NHL isn't out to maliciously attack deals in the past.

What the NHL is out to do, is level the playing field, and potentially help get a deal done with the PA by giving them something they want, reduced escrow. That's going to mean some sort of rule, which either prevents, or removes the incentive, for teams to do these cap circumventing deals. Considering the last solution was to reduce the incentive by changing cap hit calculations, I'd say that's more likely than a maximum contract term, or restrictions on what can be negotiated.

Of course, none of us know what the final solution will be, and many of us have our preferences... but we know that it will be something, and that something will have the realistic potential to adversely affect contracts which players retire on.

Do we know what the impact will be? of course not, but dismissing it entirely is absolutely ridiculous. No, they're not going to tear up Luongo's contract, but they may change the way it's handled under a new cap calculation, both the PA and NHL may agree that it's best to operate under 1 set of rules.

seanlinden is offline