Thread: I'm dying
View Single Post
10-18-2012, 12:56 PM
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,548
vCash: 868
Originally Posted by bluesman11 View Post
Is this part true?

My thought....this rule helps the strength of the league in the long run and because this is designed to stop the extra long contacts that are mostly frontloaded to bring down the salary cap hit, the players are not going to agree to this. I hope I'm wrong because I like it, but I just don't think the players will agree to this because those contracts help bring up the value of all players. Again I hope I'm wrong because I miss hockey and I want the league to realize where they fit in popularity wise amongst all popular sports.
What I'm saying is that you need one or the other. If you limit contracts the 5 years, there isn't really a significant need to put a rule about salary variance, and certainly not one as strict as 5%. If you have the 5% rule and the rule about the caphit still counting on players who retire... then why bother with the maximum contract length?

The only way to read into that is that it is something they are expecting to move significantly on. Wouldn't be surprised if it is 8 years or so for maximum deal and a break allowing a signing bonus to not count in the 5% rule.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote