The long contract to lower the cap hit "problem".

[hab29RETIRED]

A friend of mine brought this yesterday.

What the hell about teams who sign players for "too many years" just to lower their cap hit ?

Take Marian Hossa as an example.

Hossa, Marian he's 30yo now and at the end of his contract, he will be something like 42 yo. His cap hit is 5,233M$.

His salary goes like that according to nhlnumbers : 7.900 / 7.900 / 7.900 / 7.900 / 7.900 / 7.900 / 7.900 / 4.000 / 1.000 / 1.000 / 0.750 / 0.750

Are you kidding me that he will still play at 39-40-41-42 years old when he will earn 1M$ and less ??!?!?!?!

The guy will just retire and the Hawks will be having him on their team for 8 years at a cap of 5,33M$ when his real cap would have been 7,1M$ without these 4 last seasons.

Is that a problem the league should look at ???

I've got no issues with these type of contracts. The only issue I have is why doesn't Gainey ever think outside the box and use how the CBA is written to our advantage.

It would have been sweet if he had signed Markov to a longer deal using the same approach. Can you imagine having Markov signed for 8 or 9 or 10 years at a cap hit of $5.5 or possibly even lower (since it would be front loaded), rather then having to renegotiate with him in another year??

I think it is a win-win for the player and the organization. If the player gets hurt, the contract was signed prior to the player being 35, so salary doesn't count. If the player retires, the salary cap hit is off the books. If the team doesn't want the player, the buyout cost is low. In Hossa's case, lets say he doesn't want to retire when he has 4 years remaining and isn't worth the cap hit anymore. The Hawks buy him out for 3/4 of his remaining value and the cap hit is only the remaining salary over twice the years remaining.

[JoeLassister]

:clap: :clap: