By "grandfathering" I am suggesting teams would have the ability to trade players on contracts signed before the new CBA without penalty risk. And look at what will happen if not. Toronto trades for Lou. Then they give him a payout to retire after 3 years; here's a $5 mill coaching contract... Then we wear the cap hit.
But in reality, I am sure the players will not accept such a clause. They all hold some secret belief they can cash in like Suter and Parise at some point in their careers. And that theory actually works against them. If Parise (is forced by such a CBA) into a more reasonable contract there is likely more money for 2knd tier and depth players. Competitive teams will still spend to the cap, and it should help parity as you can afford stars and good role players. But I still see this as leaving it as a serious hindrance on players ability to negotiate. I doubt this clause makes the final cut for many reasons, but this the most important.
That would make no sense, since the CBA wouldn't allow anyone to sign a contract over 5 years as the NHL has proposed it anyway. Why bother having the clause if you've already grandfathered the old contracts and don't allow for any new ones to be created?
Edited by Canuck Surfer, 17 October 2012 - 04:37 PM.