View Single Post
12-09-2012, 03:10 AM
Smartest in the Room
KINGS17's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 20,049
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
A lot of the Bettmanites are confusing these issues. Long-term contracts and Cap Circumvention are two different things.

If you reduce the salary variance, then long-term contracts do not violate the spirit of the cap at all.

All you are doing is saying, if you take less per year, I'll give you security.

That is not against the spirit of the cap.
Fair enough, but the NHLPA doesn't like the 5% variance either and I believe has proposed something along the lines of 25%.

As a fan I'm fine with 100-year contracts if the variance is small enough to prevent cap circumvention, but maybe the owners can only get insurance on 5-year max deals. I can see why they would want the insurance and would want 5 years to be the maximum term for a contract.

KINGS17 is offline