Has this CBA put an end to back-loaded cap circumvention contracts in the future?
View Single Post
01-06-2013, 10:26 PM
Business of Hockey
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Originally Posted by
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.
In your hypothetical example the player wouldn't retire.
At most he would take a leave of absence and not get paid, most likely with team approval. Retirement is essentially saying "i'll never play in the NHL again".
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mouser