Quote:Originally posted by Mook+Jan 9 2017, 03:44 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mook @ Jan 9 2017, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->


The way I look at it, say I plan on retiring in S36 and am signed until then, but the SMJHL draft class in S35 has a lot of friends and looks to be a good one. One season with a regressing player won't make a difference to me so I want to retire to join them. With literally no repercussions to myself, I can retire and move on to the next player, while the team and GM have to recover from my decision to abandon them[/b]

My point was more in relation to the cap itself. What advantage (with NO penalty) does a GM have cap wise by extending a player for 15 years to have him retire in 6, vs. signing him for 6 years and having him retire in 6.

For example, if there's no amortizing of contract monies to alter the cap hits at the beginning of a contract, based on the long terms of the contract (which would create an advantage- this is how NFL signing bonuses work), why punish people? Going back to the NFL example, that's why dead money exists. So you can't sign a guy for 5 years and get a cap break when you plan on only playing him for 5.

If the guys on the team, the cap hit is the cap hit, independent of the ensuing years. Therefore, if the contract is terminated by the player, the rest of the hits should go away, independent of the years already done.

<!--QuoteBegin-MWHazard@Jan 9 2017, 03:47 PM
Given the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, and the one-time adjustment included in the proposal, I don't think the "sign super long-term while you're still low TPE" move has a lot of value anymore. If a later version of the proposal eliminated the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE, the move gains value again especially if done after the one-time adjustment. The retirement punishment would be necessary in that case, which is why I'm very very supportive of the max contract length for players under 1000 TPE.[/quote]
Good point. In the case above, because it creates an advantage, then an equal "punishment" should be out there. I think that's the important thing to weigh here, advantage vs. penalty. If a club can save 1/3rd the contract value, then the cap penalty should reflect that. Perhaps in some way it could be the balance of what you'd be saving against the min vs. what the player was signed for.

This is why I liked the annual contract adjustment based on tiers. It simplifies these sort of things.