View Single Post
11-19-2012, 05:40 PM
Registered User
DL44's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,485
vCash: 133
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
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.

Here's the thing tho... What's the reason to commit 4 yrs to a 34-35 yr old?? That's just poor business and risk management.
There is only ONE reason to do it... cap circumvention.

There are a handful of exceptions to the rule... but thats what they are - exceptions.

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.
I think thats also part of the NHL proposal. They've proposed 3 or 4 ways ways to kill the incentive for these contracts. Their hope i think being a couple of em will end up sticking.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote