View Single Post
11-30-2012, 09:41 AM
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
mouser's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 13,417
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
No, because in the scenario they would be gaining an additional year under the current contract. The lost league year would not count toward existing contracts. They'd have to explicitly write it into the CBA like they did the 25% rollback of existing contracts under the last CBA.
Essentially, as of this moment all contracts are legally meaningless. It'll be up to the new CBA to recognize current contract validness (which I completely expect to happen. It always does).
Team's with albatross contracts would be stuck paying them the full contract term (which the overpaid players would probably be all for), but they'd recoup contract years on young players and the potential UFA's. Middling players with one year left on their deals might prefer to be paid out their contract next year instead of losing their contract/job next year. Overpaid guys, I'm sure will be all for it. Younger guys with one year left and due a raise might chafe a bit.
I'd expect each team would have it's own reasons for and against such a move. It'd depend on how many teams/players thought it was worth it.

Pretty confident Smith stays. He's in the perfect situation here. And with only last season under his belt, GMDM still holds some cards. Might be more favourable to get a longer/cheaper deal than if he had lit it up again this year and then went into UFA with more suitors. I expect other teams will be wary right now of throwing big money at him after the Bryzgalov experiment.
It's not that the contracts are meaningless. It's that they're currently unenforceable while the labor dispute is ongoing. The moment a new CBA is signed (or the union gains recognition of successfully decertifying and ending the labor dispute) they become enforceable again.

A new CBA doesn't need to do anything special to acknowledge the contracts. In fact I'm pretty certain the last CBA said nothing about the 2004-2005 year burning off the contracts--it was the default behavior of the contract, no need to codify it in the CBA. Only need to codify the exceptions where things were changed, like the 24% rollback.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote