Fourier
Registered User
Maybe I missed something and this has been discussed in detail on the BoH. If so mods please delete this thread. But as a topic for the BoH it seem to me that the Flames resigning Stone opens up a huge loophole going forward. Team A is in short term cap crunch so they buyout Player X with a large contract and then resign player X effectively delaying the cap hit.
Not every player would be happy with this but there are ways to make it palatable. Give Player X 40% of his previous salary for the same term that was left. That makes up for the delay in payments. It may even have an additional tax advantage for players in lower tax states.
To me my scenario sounds like clear circumvention. But where does the NHL draw the line? With no explicit rule in place the NHL has had difficulty answering such a question in the past.
Not every player would be happy with this but there are ways to make it palatable. Give Player X 40% of his previous salary for the same term that was left. That makes up for the delay in payments. It may even have an additional tax advantage for players in lower tax states.
To me my scenario sounds like clear circumvention. But where does the NHL draw the line? With no explicit rule in place the NHL has had difficulty answering such a question in the past.