Anne-Marie Sorvin-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire
Will the new CBA punish long-tail deals?
Rumors swirled all summer about Roberto Luongo being dealt to Toronto. Personally I waffled back and forth; Luongo's an elite goaltender and if available cheap because of his deal the Leafs should take him vs. "what about that contract"?
I don't think there's very much to Steve Simmons' nonsense that Burke was tipped off to the lockout by Gary Bettman, his Colby Armstrong buyout and the fact that everyone here knew there'd be some sort of lockout are enough to suggest that he had no insider knowledge of an event that didn't need to be hinted at by someone like Bettman.
However you can't deny Burke was quiet in free agency this summer which in a year without marquee UFAs was probably a wise decision, and then Bobby Mac said this tonight:
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.— Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) October 17, 2012
Suddenly the Roberto Luongo deal looks like a disaster. People said all summer that he only plans on playing five years but if that rule makes it into the CBA someone's stuck with Luongo's $5.3M cap hit until 2022.
I thought it was unlikely that any retroactive punishment would make it into a CBA, but if this is really in the NHL's proposal (and if you doubt Bobby Mac I don't know who you'd believe) then this is huge.
At this point the biggest argument against this being possible is that it would help the Toronto Maple Leafs and we all know how that usually turns out.
Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit— Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) October 17, 2012
The status quo reigns supreme I suppose.