|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jul 18, 2021 23:00:42 GMT -5
The NHL has the same system in place I believe because teams were signing guys to 10+ year contracts that everyone knew wouldnt last trying to circumnavigate the cap so the NHL counts it and is why guys like Sutter and Parise just got waived and the Wild are still gunna be stuck with giant cap hits for years
Its specifically in place so teams dont circumnavigate the cap by spreading out the cap hit into years that a player will obviously never play. which is exactly what teams would do here as well if allowed. You'd see guys who we know already retired and sign them to 6 year contracts to get the cheapest one year price possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 19, 2021 6:09:09 GMT -5
I'd argue it's no longer in the NHL, and hasn't been since the 2012 CBA agreement when they changed the max length of contracts. I could be mistaken but I think that 35+ rule about retiring no longer exists as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2021 6:14:18 GMT -5
It doesn't matter whether it's an NHL rule or not. We're not going to allow GM's to sign ridiculous contracts on 36 year old players because they know they will retire, or have already retired, in our case, and then just let you off the hook because you signed him at $8m. If anything is liberal thinking, it's that expectation that you shouldn't be responsible for your actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 19, 2021 7:23:31 GMT -5
It doesn't matterwhether it's an NHL rule or not. We're not going to allow GM's to sign ridiculous contracts on 36 year old players because they know they will retire, or have already retired, in our case, and then just let you off the hook because you signed him at $8m. If anything is liberal thinking, it's that expectation that you shouldn't be responsible for your actions. Really? How does someone foresee someone like niskanen retire at 33? No one saw that coming. Is that something should be responsible for? We have max contract lengths for pretty much everything else. Why not have a max length for players 35+? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2021 7:34:49 GMT -5
Yes, really. While I agree that we're not always going to be able to predict a player retiring. Kevan Miller might be an even better example. So if you sign a player to a 6 year deal when he's 33 and he retires at 35, you should be on the hook for the remaining 4 years, but if you sign him at 35 and he retires at 37, you shouldn't? The rule was put into place to curb managers from signing players like Weber or Suter to $8+ million dollar 6 year deals because they know they won't have to honor the entire contract. Realism, you say? Who was the last player in their mid to upper 30's that a GM that type of term to. Look at the buyouts this year alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 19, 2021 7:49:04 GMT -5
max contact lengths for guys in their 30s would fix it.
31 - 6 years
32 - 5 years
33 - 4 years
34 - 3 years
35 and older 2 years
Anyone who retires when they are a free agent in the G can only be signed to a 1 year deal.
That way people aren’t trying to circumvent and then would get the contract off the books if they do retire since we can’t predict when someone will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2021 8:02:37 GMT -5
Does that fix it? What about if a player retires at 27? I didn't see that on the chart. So if a player retires in real life and you don't want to be responsible for his contract, then you can't use his card either. See, the problem is we know a player retired and we still have his card for an entire year in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 19, 2021 8:12:10 GMT -5
Under 31 - 6 years.
And yes it does fix it. There’s no circumvention which this is all about. The reason is for not signing OLDER players to long contract, not younger. The contract are already signed (in the G) when a player retires. If the guy retires when he’s a free agent in the G, then only a 1 year deal should be allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 19, 2021 8:18:43 GMT -5
The max contract recommendation is fine but that's not the true end game and doesn't accomplish what you're really asking for. You don't want to be responsible for the remainder of the contract if a player retires. If you sign a 31 year old to 6 years and he retires at 32, you're still on the hook for 5 years. You didn't solve anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brenden-Oregon on Jul 19, 2021 8:21:21 GMT -5
What’s the difference between this and a guy leaving the NHL to play in the KHL? It’s unpredictable. Why do you get relief for one but not the other? With the max contract lengths in replace of course
|
|
