View Single Post
01-06-2013, 05:18 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 692
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Daz28 View Post
Different issue, yes. Issue in the same spirit of cap circumvention, certainly. Everyone knows teams were burying salaries in the A just as much as they know they were front-loading deals. Not sure why you want to demonize one more than the other?

Another issue I want to address is when is a retirement legit, and when should a team be responsible for the players decision to retire? Suppose a team signs a player under current rules to a 7 year, $70M deal, and he decides he wants to retire the following year to take care of his sick child? Is it only fair the team takes the $60m cap hit for the next 6 years??? See, fans look at things in black and white, and the truth is matters are VERY, VERY complicated. That's why they pay lawyers millions of dollars to sort it out.
First off, I am not demonizing one and not the other, this thread topic is dealing with back diving contracts, not sending guys to the AHL to avoid cap hit.

You're missing the way I am suggesting the cap be 'repaid'
No one is suggesting a team is on the hook for the REST of the contract if a player retires early, they are only responsible for paying the delta between money paid to player while on the team versus cap hit incurred while on the team. (because cheap, dummy years were added on to the end to lower the average)

Evileye is offline   Reply With Quote