Avatar

CEO

Membre depuis
25 août 2020
Équipe favorite
Canucks de Vancouver
Messages dans les forums
1344
Messages par jour
2.0
Forum: Armchair-GM20 juin à 16 h 38
Forum: Armchair-GM13 juin à 19 h 54
Forum: Armchair-GM13 juin à 19 h 53
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>dannibalcorpse</b></div><div>As someone else said, the Kovalchuk thing was just too blatant for the league to *not* let it go. A 27 year old signing a 17 year deal that just so happened to have 96.5% of the salary paid in the first 11 years, with miniscule cap hits for the last 6 (one at $750K and then 5 at $550K!)? Just too egregious.

This is less so - how is this much different than a team signing a pending free agent to an 8 year deal and moving him out to a team that would give them an asset for that extra year/lower AAV the extra year would bring? It's the signing team using one of the advantages given to them by the CBA in trading one of their players for the maximum possible return. Like I said upthread, I think if the NHL tried to knock this down there would be an immediate challenge back from the teams involved - meaning the league would either have to take this to court (incredibly unlikely) or they'd have to re-open the CBA to address this - and re-opening would require consent from the NHLPA, and any good union boss would make SURE to extract a concession from the league for doing them the favor.

For those last two points alone, I feel pretty confident the league would suck it up and let it ride, and potentially address it in the next round of CBA talks. I can't see it becoming that incredibly common - you've only got a handful of cap floor teams, and there's a limit to how many retained contracts they can have at one time, so at most you're probably looking at what, 5-6 instances of this happening?</div></div>

This is basically what I was thinking
Forum: Armchair-GM13 juin à 10 h 12
×