Any official word on contract restructuring?

[LazRNN]

I previously read a brief report of undetermined credibility that it would not be allowed, but I haven't seen it mentioned one way or the other the various writeups about the agreement.

Click to read more...

 

[kdb209]

I previously read a brief report of undetermined credibility that it would not be allowed, but I haven't seen it mentioned one way or the other the various writeups about the agreement.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/07/13/1130172-cp.html

-Teams will not be allowed to re-structure existing player contracts in an attempt to fit a big salary under the cap.

 

[FlyerFan]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/07/13/1130172-cp.html

What if they're already under the cap, can they restructure then?

 

[kdb209]

What if they're already under the cap, can they restructure then?

Nope. That would defeat the whole intent. Before re-signing RFAs, no team (except possibly Detroit - $38M for 18 players signed for 2005-06 according to the NHLPA Dec 9 offer, Exhibit 9) would be over the cap. If teams could restructure then, and then sign their RFAs & UFAs, the no restructure limitation would be meaningless.

 

[Winger98]

Nope. That would defeat the whole intent. Before re-signing RFAs, no team (except possibly Detroit - $38M for 18 players signed for 2005-06 according to the NHLPA Dec 9 offer, Exhibit 9) would be over the cap. If teams could restructure then, and then sign their RFAs & UFAs, the no restructure limitation would be meaningless.

Detroit might not even fit under that description as I think that $38m includes an $8 million option year for Cujo that was triggered by performance goals that weren't met.