View Single Post
Old
11-16-2012, 05:30 PM
  #468
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I disagree, I think those contracts were about helping the team, not helping the player. The same benefit the Flyers were looking for in cap savings applies to the Preds budget.

I don't believe the NHL or the teams have a huge problem with those deals. Gary is pissed that teams found a loophole and he wants to protect teams from making really long-term mistakes.
Of course they are to help the team - the only purpose is to circumvent the salary cap and allow more star players at a discount cap hit. As that nonsense only benefits (and have only been offered by) a small number of teams however, I think it's likely that quite a few teams want those contracts gone. Why would small market teams want to have their stars stolen by poison pill contracts?

And I think having a high cap hit (which, with the latest proposal, they are stuck with regardless of who owns the player when they retire) and a large number of uninsurable years, I'm going to say plenty of teams would be much happier with the limited year contract. Agree to disagree.

Ducks DVM is online now