Quote:
Originally Posted by Par
When the league came out and said that teams did not have to expose 15% or whatever % of their cap, I knew that players with with no-move clauses even if they or the contracts themselves expire at the end of 2016-17, would need to be protected.
By eliminating the rule that teams don't need to expose a % of their cap, the league makes sure that people can't come back and say that players that are set to become UFA's at the end of 2016-17 should count against that % of the cap because players with no-move clauses expiring at the end of 2016-17 need to be protected.
NHL is going to be first league in Sin City and they will probably go up against the NFL, so they want Vegas to have the best team possible, so they will make other teams bend over.
|
I don't buy this reasoning. It's just as easy for them to say that expiring NMCs don't count *in both* cases - against a % of cap that must be protected and they don't need to be protected.