View Single Post
11-13-2012, 12:11 AM
Street Hawk
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,313
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Bob McKenzie, in his latest article on, states that, with the salary cap + a 50-50 split of HRR, the league doesn't need max contract lengths of 5 years. He says the players, however, should accept a max 5 percent variance in contracts to prevent cap circumvention.

He makes an additional point that the league should have made their offer of covering the Make Whole back in October when there was still a chance of an 82 game season. Their concession of covering $149M in the first year would have made up the difference if we're talking revenues based on this full season projection.

He explains it very well here:

I wonder where we'd be if the NHL didn't decide to just play in the park until November and seriously got down to it with their first offer, or October at the very least.
Many different ways to skin a cat.

If the main goal after the 50/50 and make whole are settled is to ensure no further cap circumvention contracts. Ie. Kovachuk, Hossa, Luongo, Zetterberg, Weber, Parise, Suter, Crosby, etc. down the line.

If the salary paid to the player can only vary by 5% each season from the cap hit, that works just fine. Or even, make it so that cap hit and salary are the same. So, wouldn't really matter if you signed for 3 years or 13 years, the team is still going to bear basically all of the cap hit when the player plays.

With the front loaded deals, take Luongo, who in the final 3 years makes a combined $3.6 million in salary with a $5.33 cap hit so $16 million in total cap hit for 3 years, if he retires before playing those 3 years, there's $9.4 million of real money that is never accounted for against the salary cap.

Just pick a method that is fair and move on.

Street Hawk is offline