View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 07:38 PM
  #910
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
The owners last proposal includes a make whole, so no, it's not rollback.

They're raising the FA to 28, but also reducing the length of ELC's by 1 year. Meaning they own your rights for longer, but you get your first raise sooner.

Please explain why you think capping contracts will "blow up in their face if they're not careful." At least this way you will never see 13 year 100M contracts anymore. Isn't this the owners way of trying to rectify the current situation of players demanding retirement contracts and teams trying to circumvent the cap.
I haven't read the latest on the 'make whole' offer so my understanding may be outdated - the last I heard it was a 'make whole' using players' money to pay them. Sort of like your boss deducting $20 a week from your pay and then maybe giving you a "raise" of $1000 at the end of the year. Did you really get a raise?

I think limiting contract lengths to 5 years (for example), owners may end up paying players more in the long run. Using Richards' contract as an example, after 5 years the odds are that he would be signed for a higher amount than he's currently scheduled to make; and again with his 3rd contract during the period (simply due to anticipated increased revenues via inflation). Richards' 12-year deal ensures his team that they're going to have him under contract and he'll likely be a very good deal in the next few years.

I can understand the league wanting to eliminate the "retirement" contracts, but I'm not sure why the owners want to do that -- using Pronger's contract as an example, his cap hit would have been a lot higher had those last couple of years not been allowed, and the Flyers may not have been able to sign him and fit him under the cap.

CharlieGirl is online now