View Single Post
10-16-2012, 01:09 PM
Coo coo ca cha!
brs03's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Drake1588 View Post
Might as well refer to it as the Redden rule.

I have to say... that one makes sense. It's quite simply a way to allow rich teams to bury mistakes, which poor teams can't afford to do. I favor that loophole closure.

Now five-year contracts max, and four-year rookie deals? That's a starting point and not an end point, I'll bet, if the NHL really wants 82 games.
The loophole aspect of it has always been overblown. The offseason cap is sacrosanct, so in effect all it does is give teams an extra 5% (or whatever) to work with if they can afford to. Not that I'm against that sort of change, I really don't care either way and if the players would rather have the security of NHL jobs than the potential for extra money that might be opened up, more power to them.

The ELC thing is an interesting question. Honestly, it should be an easy "concession" for the PA to accept because it effects nobody currently under contract... I mean I realize they have an interest in their future members' rights as well, but to me that seems like an easy bone for them to throw in in order to get a better deal somewhere else.

brs03 is offline