View Single Post
Old
10-23-2012, 08:45 PM
  #103
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I don't have a problem with it. If the player got the money the team should get the cap hit. The only change I would make, one I've been proposing for a while, is that the cap hit in the retired years be equal to contract cap hit - cash forfieted by retiring.

eg Luongo last 3 years he is paid $1.6m $1m $1m in cash so his cap hit would be 5.3m - $1.6m = $3.7m. 5.3m - $1m = $4.3m.

$3.7m, $4.3m, $4.3m seems fair considering he's been paid that amount already. He's had it earning interest for 10 years even.

The system also works for guys on flat contacts (ie $6m $6m $6m etc), if they retire their avg $6m - $6m cash forfieted = $0 adj cap hit.
You're rewarding teams for front loading those contracts. That's the opposite of what the NHL wants to happen. The point of the clause is to penalize teams later that are benefitting from cap savings now.

Edit - I reread this and understand it better now. While you're not rewarding those teams, I think the NHL wants to make sure those teams pay a steep penalty for cap circumvention, which is what those deals really are.


Last edited by Scurr: 10-23-2012 at 08:50 PM.
Scurr is offline