How is that different than Savard? Just asking.
Savard isn't an over-35 contract, so if he retires, his cap hit comes off the books. Technically, they're actually more penalized under the Cap by keeping him on LTIR than they would if he officially retired. No circumvention.
The other difference, though, is that the Bruins have never stated an absolute "Savard is never going to play again." They've always couched it with, "may". Technically, they've left open the possibility that Savard could recover and play again. Holmgren flat out said that Pronger's never going to play again in absolute terms. It may seem like a minor difference, but it's actually a significant one.
Personally, I think they're both rather similar, but so long as officially, the player and the team maintain that the player is trying to return, then by the rules, it's valid. Once the team states that the player is never going to play again, that's the point where it is breaking the rules. At least, that's the case in my view. I am not a lawyer, though.
Savard's contract isn't a 35+ deal. If the Bruins wanted to compliance buy him out they could, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did next off-season as this is the last of his 'money' seasons. I'm pretty sure (read: speculation) the reason the Bruins didn't buy him out this time around was the fact that they'd have to actually pay him to do so, while insurance is likely paying the majority of his contract this year. With him due only $2.65 million the following 3 years (compared to $5 million this year) he's still very much a candidate to be compliance bought out. The Bruins still have both remaining.
You can't buy out an injured player, not even with a compliance buyout. This is why Heatley is still a member of the Minnesota Wild.