View Single Post
Old
10-17-2012, 12:24 PM
  #18
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.
There should be a way to get out of those contracts. Sports is an area that is prone to fluctuations in performance moreso than other industries where contracts rule.

The NFL does it the smartest way. The contracts are not guaranteed, but the signing bonuses are.

That way an NFL team can shed a bad decision, pay a penalty through acceleration of the signing bonus, but get out from under the total burden of an underperforming player.

So if you are to ask, "Why should the Rangers be able to escape a bad contract?"

Because it's bad for the sport in general for teams to be stuck with no roster flexibility paying a player who no longer can compete at the level the NHL demands.

Unfortunately, the NHLPA already feels entitled enough -- they will never agree to non-guaranteed contracts without a war that would definitely result in one or more seasons lost. Even though it would be the best thing for the sport, it will never be able to ram through the NFL's way.

But I would like to see some provision, maybe, where a team can cut/buyout a player, STILL have to pay a player part or all of the contract, but can still get out from under the contract and save cap room by having the released player's salary not count against the cap.

This logically makes sense -- you can still only employ players that you can fit under the cap, so it prevents teams from going out and buying championships. But at the same time, if the Rangers want to ditch Redden and free up cap space to give Stepan an extension, they can buy him out and not have the money count against the cap.

That would be a good solution IMO.

Then if Redden signs somewhere else, the Rangers can subtract his new contract value from what they owe him, so he's not officially getting paid twice.


Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-17-2012 at 12:29 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote