Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Duncan Keith to Retire; Hawks Get Hit Hard With Cap Recapture Penalties


Phil

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

Retroactively punishing contracts that were legal at the time is dumb. If the NHL had a problem with them, they should've rejected them when registered with the league. 

I'd push back on that a bit. The owners, who whined about "cost certainty" and are the reason this cap exists, knew they were acting in bad faith against the cap when they agreed to these deals. So the NHL reprimanded them and they deserve it. You can't whine about costs and then sign players into retirement deals to the same overall $ amount, just spread over 12 years rather than 7-8.

  • Keeps it 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

Retroactively punishing contracts that were legal at the time is dumb. If the NHL had a problem with them, they should've rejected them when registered with the league. 

nah - they got away with that cheap cap hit for 11 seasons. They should be hit much worse than 1 years at 1.9m cap hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'd push back on that a bit. The owners, who whined about "cost certainty" and are the reason this cap exists, knew they were acting in bad faith against the cap when they agreed to these deals. So the NHL reprimanded them and they deserve it. You can't whine about costs and then sign players into retirement deals to the same overall $ amount, just spread over 12 years rather than 7-8.

 

This doesn't hurt the owners though, it hurts a team and GM that has nothing to do with that contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pete said:

If it hurts the team and the GM, it hurts the owner LOL.

 

Chicago isn't selling any less tickets or merch or concessions because of Keith's cap hit. They were going to have the team they were with or without it.

 

Unless the owner has to pay Keith's salary with the cap penalty? I don't see how it hurts the owner, this isn't negatively impacting the Hawks at all in their current situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'd push back on that a bit. The owners, who whined about "cost certainty" and are the reason this cap exists, knew they were acting in bad faith against the cap when they agreed to these deals. So the NHL reprimanded them and they deserve it. You can't whine about costs and then sign players into retirement deals to the same overall $ amount, just spread over 12 years rather than 7-8.

 

This. The league told them, repeatedly, to stop doing this, and they refused, so the league did what it needed to to safeguard against bad faith behavior being exploited by big market teams only. I'm glad they're holding to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cash or Czech said:

 

Chicago isn't selling any less tickets or merch or concessions because of Keith's cap hit. They were going to have the team they were with or without it.

 

Unless the owner has to pay Keith's salary with the cap penalty? I don't see how it hurts the owner, this isn't negatively impacting the Hawks at all in their current situation. 

If you have $5M less in cap, you have a less competitive team. If we had $5M more in cap, Kadri would be our 2C. So that's significant. And yes that does hurt sales.

 

Regardless, you're talking about one team with one player. This rule, when it was made, was about more than one team and one player. So you can't judge it by one outcome, that's just silly.

  • TroCheckmark 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...