View Single Post
12-29-2012, 12:55 AM
Seahawks 43
me2's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,649
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
No team is going to intentionally "abuse" buyouts in the way you're suggesting. What's the benefit to the Canucks if they sign terrible contracts and then have to buy those players out? Nothing. It just costs them money. There's no benefit there.
Like no team would offer a 15 or 17 year contracts

No player would sign a deal he didn't intend to play out.

Like no team would front load contracts

Like no team would offer massive signing bonuses

Straight up I can see

Van using this on Luongo in the last years of the deal if legal under 5+ year cap hit rules

34 yo guys getting 5 year deals then burning them off

Guys with health issues front loaded deals, burn them off when they are cooked.

I could live with each team getting 1 Mulligan over the course of a CBA. One is precious, and teams would save that. However, if we know anything owners and gms will abuse systems and agents/players will do anything chasing cash. I don't want to see this lockout cap again in 8 years just to close down a loophole like this when it gets abused.

Last edited by me2: 12-29-2012 at 01:04 AM.
me2 is offline