View Single Post
10-16-2012, 07:58 PM
Usually Incorrect
rt's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 47,620
vCash: 500
So it sounds like the NHL is using the same HRR definitions existing in the previous CBA. This surprises me. I expected the whole 50% thing to be a complete red herring meant only to convince the masses that the NHL was trying to make everything all "even steven" (despite the devil in the details). In this case, this doesn't seem like a terrible offer. Gain an entire year's salary, give up 7% (overall, by the end of the term), and lose a little bit on ELC, UFA, and term limit. I bet ELC and UFA end up staying the same in the new CBA as they were in the old one, anyway. Term limit probably goes to six years, which is totally fine. Sounds like the NHL offer has some salary retention for trade purposes, too, which is great for have-not owners, all GMs and all players. That, to me, probably really helps soften the term limit blow.

Can someone explain to me how a final deal where the HRR(previous CBA definition) split stays 50/50, the ELC and UFA terms are the same as the previous CBA, the contract term limit is 6yrs, and there is an allowance for salary retention for the purposes of trade is not completely fair for the players? Or at least good enough to get the damn season started and a six year CBA signed with some mutual re-up clauses?

rt is online now   Reply With Quote