View Single Post
Old
11-24-2012, 02:56 PM
  #31
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,134
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Okay, well, if that's why the league is pushing this, they aren't likely to move off of it under any circumstances.
I think the insurance thing is just an excuse personally. When insurance was seven years long, teams were still throwing out contracts that went beyond that. Teams weren't in a rush to throw out 10+ year contracts except for the fact they helped the cap number. If you close the cap loopholes (variance, backdiving contracts, limit signing bonuses) you don't need a term limit on top of all that. If the Leipolds of the world want to give out flat 10-85 deals to Parise and Suter, buona fortuna.

This is as much the NHL being gunshy about leaving loopholes as anything else after teams found a way to take advantage of the previous system, they're double and triple protecting themselves. Plus owners like Leonsis and of course Wang feel burned by the multi-multi year deals now and have buyers' remorse.

NJDevs26 is online now   Reply With Quote