Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
I think the NHLPA needs to worry about the precedent here more than the benefit of having a little extra cap space across the league. (5.75M is peanuts in a 2.142B league wide cap).
It would be like having a 71.6M cap/ team instead of 71.4 (of course it wouldn't be evenly distributed like that).
If I'm a player, I'd rather have my contract protected from any kind of slippery slope of termination. Taking drugs across the border today could become "getting too drunk at the team Christmas party" or "missing a workout".
I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a boat anchor contract and are not performing, the language concerning the contract breach is pretty nebulous:
“fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the club’s rules governing training and conduct.”
|
Yeah I agree, that should be their #1 concern (and probably is). Especially when weighed against the hypothetical 0.09% of the league-wide cap being opened up for player X instead of being dead space due to a buy out.