View Single Post
11-19-2012, 06:13 PM
Riptide's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,349
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
And for those wondering why the NHL thinks they need both a 5 yr limit AND 5% variance when they think just one of them is necessary to curtail front loaded/back diving contracts...

Kipper's contract exemplifies why... just a 6 yr term ($5,833,333 cap hit):
2008-09 $8,500,000
2009-10 $7,000,000
2010-11 $7,000,000
2011-12 $6,000,000
2012-13 $5,000,000
2013-14 $1,500,000
There's numerous examples of contracts like that that violate the sprite of the cap. However would you be opposed to someone who's 34 or 35 receiving the below contract?

Year 1: 8m
Year 2: 6m
Year 3: 4m
Year 4: 2m

Total 20m, 4 years, 5m cap hit. There's completely valid reasons why a contract like that above should be allowed. Both the team and the player would want to be able to have a contract like this, as it protects both sides as the player ages. Player gets paid heavily up front, team's risk is reduced as the player ages.

To prevent these the deals that everyone is *****ing about from happening (Parise, Suter, Weber, Kovy, Hossa, etc), you do not even really need to limit the variance (although it wouldn't be a bad thing to do so on contracts over - say 4-5 years).

Just change the rules so that every contract always counts against the cap - so the +35 rule expanded to cover every contract (and the cap hit counts towards the original signing team if the player doesn't play out the entire contract). Right now every one of those long term deals other than Prongers has an automatic out clause as they were signed before the player turned 35, and there's no penalty if the player doesn't fulfill the contract.

"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote