CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
50% of the rest of Phaneuf's contract is 12.75 M$. It is a LOT OF (REAL) money. It wouldn't be 500 M$ but 512.75 M$ then...
I was talking about your specific comment "This would have been something he bargained for during his contract talks"
If they need to get to the floor, retaining on Phaneuf would help them (assuming that they find a team on his 10-team list that wants him). I'd do that to get a good pick/prospect. But it depends on their cap situation, how much $$ the owner wants to spend, and how much they value picks and prospects.
WRT the other: Whan a player bargains for a NMC, he's bargaining for the right to have a fair amount of control for which teams he might be traded to. He's giving up $$ (or term or something) for more control. It's very generic and broad. It's a bargain for the known (e.g., "I hate Darryl Sutter and don't want to play for the Kings") but also the unknown bc who knows which teams will be teams that he wants or doesn't want to play for in 7 (or even 2) years. A lot can change in 7 years. That's the idea: it's supposed to cover situations that he knows about now and those he doesn't. It's one reason that the right to have more control is valuable to both the team and the player (the team also wants to have more control over the currently known and the stuff not known yet, e.g. how well the guy is playing, other ppl on the team, rebuilding/retooling/competitive, the trade market, etc.) and why he has to give up something valuable to get an NMC.
It's not like he's bargaining for a specific situation, e.g. "I hate Darryl Sutter and never want to play for the Kings." The right to not be selected by an expansion team would definitely be within the scope of what Phaneuf bargained for. It's not like there have never been expansion teams or that it was completely off the wall that an expansion team would be added some time during his long contract.
Last edited: