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!