Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Any existing deal in excess of 5 years would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire!


VoiceOfReason_

Recommended Posts

Well either it isn't quite as is reported OR we are about to see a huge fracture in the league owners. With the voting rules, Bettman could certainly get the minimum 8 teams required to sign off... who amongst the basement/cap floor teams wouldn't want to totally screw with the cap ceiling teams. Half the league would be unable to compete for free agents as they would have too many dollars tied up in players who are retired.

It would dramatically curtail spending and certainly make it easy to get down to a 50/50 split as the top spending owners would not be able to spend cash for the next decade.

Of course it would also put an asterisk beside any potential Stanley Cups as it would completely skew the playing field and how teams become competitive. The NHL could have refused to sign off on these deals, but they didn't. They even went so far as to outline how to structure a deal that fit within the rules (the Kovalchuk rule). The idea of punishing half the teams in the league for following those guidelines is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cap floor teams wouldn't want to screw with the cap ceiling teams b/c the cap ceiling teams fund the revenue sharing. By tieing up the cap ceiling teams' cap space with this retroactive punishment, they won't do as well, which in some markets may lead to lower revenues, meaning theres less money to bail out the cap floor teams. The cap floor teams' owners had better realize this. Plus it's not just the cap ceiling teams who have signed cap circumventing contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that if the contract is dealt to another team,that the original team gets stuck with the cap hit, if and when that player retires? Bettman is just being a complete idiot at this point and must have really lost his mind. The thing that baffles me the most is why are the owners behind this?

There has to be more to this..... Maybe it's baiting the players along with other concessions in order to get the deal done and will be taken off the table once the players say no to this proposal. This still doesn't really explain things, but I cant think of any other reason to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that if the contract is dealt to another team,that the original team gets stuck with the cap hit, if and when that player retires? Bettman is just being a complete idiot at this point and must have really lost his mind. The thing that baffles me the most is why are the owners behind this?

There has to be more to this..... Maybe it's baiting the players along with other concessions in order to get the deal done and will be taken off the table once the players say no to this proposal. This still doesn't really explain things, but I cant think of any other reason to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...