Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...
View Single Post
12-06-2012, 10:55 AM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
Most players weren't signing longer contracts anyway before GM's started figuring backdoor ways around the cap and used longer deals as the wedge to get through the backdoor.
Take away variance/backdiving deals and limit signing bonuses and you don't have the need for contract limits.
Contract limits are just a way of running up the score and saving the owners insurance money.
Yes, because not having those limits costs the owners, and takes away from parity. Philly can afford to take a chance on Weber's contract (even if it's paying ridiculous amounts in year 13) because they're rich. They can afford to take the chance that years 6 to 14 are not insured because they're rich. Nashville is taking that chance, but they can't really afford to have it back fire on them. It's not just the insurance costs (Crosby's 5 years is 400k a year), but the fact that it's only the first 5 years that are insured. The rest the team would have to cover.
"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."
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Riptide