View Single Post
Old
10-19-2012, 12:17 PM
  #19
indigobuffalo
Portage and Main
 
indigobuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
But as the Star reported exclusively last month — a report that was dismissed by pro-union media — the majority of owners and the Bettman administration are intent on punishing teams that insisted on doing quasi-legal backsiding contracts like Luongo’s. It was no surprise, then, the owners’ proposal of earlier this week included a provision that for contracts longer than five years, every year of the contract would count against the cap even if the player didn’t play.

Morever, if a player with such a contract was traded and then retired before the contract expired, the remaining annual cap hit would revert to the team that signed the player in the first place.

So for Luongo, if the Leafs acquired him and he retired after the 2017-18 season, the Canucks would then have to swallow the $5.33 million cap hit for the final four years.

Now, nobody knows if that provision will be included in the final CBA, or whether there will even be a CBA in the near future or this season.

But if that clause were to be included, it would make a Luongo deal more attractive to the Leafs, and possibly make Burke more willing to meet Gillis’s demands.

For now, it’s all hypothetical. There is no deal or deal-in-principle, and it seems likely both teams will want to know the terms of the new CBA before a trade is possible.
I'm so happy, reading that excerpt. I hope that's true. I got roasted by people for months when I kept insisting that the NHL would hammer GMs who signed those bogus deals, and everyone kept saying the new CBA would grandfather in those BS contracts.

VINDICATION!!

indigobuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote