glen a richter wrote:
Here's a radical idea: You sign a player to a contract that is clearly designed to circumvent the cap, you forfeit your first round picks for the duration of that contract to whichever team finishes in last place each of those seasons, or you sign a player to that kind of contract, you pay a higher percentage in the revenue sharing. Don't cost us a (Frank) season of (Frank) hockey because you jackasses couldn't control your checkbooks.
THAT'S the problem. What does "clearly circumvent the cap" mean? We only have one line to look at and that's Kovalchuk's. Everything less than that is okay? I don't think so. There has to be concrete rules that can't be "interpreted."
Copy & Paste: "I'm not necessarily opposed to the longer term deals per se. What I don't like is what New Jersey got slapped for and that's the "purposeful avoidance of the salary cap." They need to close that loophole with re-drafting the rules to actually provide some clear guidance to GM's as to what's okay and what's not. My thought would be a rule stating that you can sign a player for any number of years that you want, but a certain % differential is not allowed. (E.g. You want to sign Kovy to a 14 year deal? Go right ahead. But you can't have more than a 50% difference in his salary year to year. Something like that. You could play with the specific %). It would discourage long-term deals without forbidding them and also reign in the salary cap circumvention concerns.
So to put a specific example on it: Weber's deal: (from TSN) "In total, Weber will make $14 million in each of the first four years; $12 million in years five and six; $6 million in each of the next four seasons; $3 million in year 11; and $1 million in each of the remaining years."
With my suggestion, if the Flyers wanted to pay Weber $14 million his first year, they'd be forbidden from paying him less than $7 million for the length of the contract. That would lob off EIGHT years of his contract and bump his cap hit up to a staggering $13.3 million per season.
In other words: the offer wouldn't have been made. Or at least not as long or with as great a differential amount in salary, which I think may violate the Kovalchuk rule anyway.
This would allow, e.g. a 10 year, $100 million contract, $10 million per. I see nothing wrong with THAT kind of contract, just the ones like Weber's. This is why I don't think there should be a year limit or "amount" limit, because if you want to keep a good player around for a very long time you should be able to: just not be able to play the system in the process.