Can GM's do this?
Posted 12:39 AM ET | Comments 2
Someone please tell me if this can be done. There has to be a way to manipulate the cap. So many times there are contracts given with escalating salaries through out the term of the contract, my question is, can there be declining contracts? The reason I ask is because if there is, what is stopping a GM from signing a player, or players to very long Dipietro like deals, and just give them declining salaries? The example I have thought of was with the Sabres. Say for the sake of argument, Briere and Drury both want $7 million per year, and 7 years ($49 million). OK fine, they want money, and they want to potentially finish their career with Buffalo. Obviously the Sabres can't swing $14 million against the cap for the next 7 years on 2 players, but what if they were to sign them each to 14 year deals with the whole deal still being worth $49 million? So by using my idea of declining salaries, say to them we will give you your $49 million, but the last 7 years will be for the league minimum. That would enable each player to get the money they want, and not have to wait 14 years to get it, and it will also allow the Sabres to only have to count 3.5 million each against the cap, then when they retire, there's nothing against the cap. Can teams do that? Would a player be opposed to that? I mean after all they are still getting the money, this is just being done for the sole purpose of working the cap. It’s sort of like how the NFL gives players outrageous signing bonuses, is that done in the NHL? I imagine that this can't be done because teams would be doing it like crazy, and signing guys to 100 year deals and stuff, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'd be interested to see what sort of take everyone had on this. Oh and Darcy, if you are reading this, and this is legal, DO IT!
The players would have to agree to it, and the Sabres would be taking the cap hits until they do retire. Also, all contracts have to be approved by the NHL, and I have a feeling that ones like these would get shot down. The Flyers fudged a year, maybe two. You're talking about fudging seven years.
The idea is not bad, but the players would have to agree to it. I don't think the league would oppose it, but would remind the Sabres about the different clauses of the CBA concerning the cap. As the 35 clause, that would come into effect in Drury's fifth year. If He gets injured and can no longer play and retires, the Sabres are saddled with the remainder of the salary in cap space, unless the league gives them a Mogilny waiver, which I doubt it would. You also have to take into account of the non renegociating clause in the CBA, once you sign, your stuck with the salary you accepted and this for the remainder of the contract. Let's say they both have 50 goal seasons and get 100 points, they would want to be rewarded for that, no do. I call that clause, the yashin clause, remember when he had a good season and wanted to renegociate, and the Senators told him to stay home.I'm not a big Bettman fan, but that is one of the good things he has done, on getting that clause in the CBA. I could give many other examples, but it would take too long. To put short and sweet, it won't happen. An another thing, the Sabres have been among the elite teams in the last two years, but it does not mean they will remain there, that is another consideration, why it won't happen. Don't think they want to play on team that is in a decline. The lenght of their contracts could also make them immovable, even if their cap hit would be acceptable. Not too many teams would want to strap themselves down with lenghty contracts for players 35 . Drury and Briere could make the 49 million in a shorter period of time elsewhere.