View Single Post
12-08-2012, 02:31 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

The NHLPA variance proposal is a lot more than 25%. Their rule is the lowest year in salary must be at least 25% of the highest year. So, a contract can look like this. 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 2.5m, 2.5m, 2.5m

PensFanSince1989 is offline