View Single Post
09-24-2012, 11:39 AM
Global Moderator
ULF_55's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,782
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
If the GMs were operating in good faith, then the have NOTHING to worry about, because the expectation SHOULD be that the player plays out the entire contract.
Yes, if the player can and is willing to still play that should be the expectation.

Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
The ONLY reason for them to get up in arms over it, is if they don't expect the player to play the full contract, in which case they had designed the contract under the idea/plan that the player WOULD retire prior to playing out the whole contract, which is a violation of the previous CBA, let alone the new one.
There is no such thing as a violation in the current CBA.

Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
I would LOVE it if the NHL forced teams to carry the cap hit of retired players. We're not talking about actual money here, so the owners are still honouring the monetary committment to retired players (which would be zero dollars).
All the player has to do is show up for training camp and the team would have to pay him.

It is going to be fun watching these contracts play out if there is no relief.

Heck, Coyotes (if still in league) could trade for AO and Kovie and have 13 million against their cap without paying a cent.


Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote