View Single Post
01-06-2013, 04:06 PM
Street Hawk
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Gustave View Post
Was just going to post this.

So much to learn with a new CBA. I'm curious to see the penalties, if any, for previous frontloading "retirement" contracts.
Wait and see on that. I do recall that the different panels on TSN and Sportsnet had talked about penalizing teams that back-dove contracts.

Is it fair to penalize teams for this? IMO, yes, since all parties involved in the deal, the player, the agent, GM, and team have all come out and said that those deals are valid and negotiated in good faith.

So, barring an injury forced retirement, the player should be expected to fulfill the terms of the deal or get bought out.

As a Canucks fan, I look at the Luongo contract and the final 4 years are at a salary of $3.4, $1.6, $1, $1 million. So if Luongo opts to bypass those years of his 12 year $64 million contract, he leaves $7 million salary and $21.3 million of cap hit on the table. Which means over the first 8 years, he was paid $57 million and took a $42.7 million cap hit. A difference of $14.3 million.

Will the NHL make the Canucks and/or the team that Luongo gets traded to, take a cap hit for the 4 years he didn't play out his contract? Canucks would have paid him $16.7 million and taken a $10.6 cap hit. Other team would have paid him about $40 million in salary and taken $32 million in salary cap hit.

So, would the 2 teams split up the $14.3 million in cap hit so that the Canucks eat $6.1 million (avg. of $1.5 million) over the 4 years, while the other team eats $2 million on average over the same 4 years? Seems fair as both teams benefited from the back diving contract.

See the details of the CBA to find out if there are any penalties like this in the deal.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote