View Single Post
Old 07-11-2013, 10:46 AM   #41
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed View Post
The difference between a contract like Iginla's & Alfredsson's this year to a contract like Kovalchuk's is this - In the case of Iginla's and Alfredsson's, the future cap penalty to the team is guaranteed. In the case of Kovalchuck's (and others), the future cap penalty wasn't guaranteed.

That's why this is not cap circumvention, and Kovalchuk's was. Either way, the hole was closed retroactively, so even if Kovalchuk's contract was allowed to stand, the current cap recapture penalties would cover the difference.
But Kovalchuk's contract broke no rule. That's back to the original comment being made before I commented at all on Iginla.

Now you can say that Iginla's entire cap hit will count, which is correct, but near certain not while he's under that contract. Like Kovachuk, who had a 10 year contract disguised as a 17 year contract, Iginla has a 2 year contract disguised as a 1 year contract.

I'm not saying it's a big enough issue to void, but I think it's hard to say the Bruins weren't circumventing the cap when 10 games into this season they will be on pace to be several million over the cap for this year.
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote