Are you sure about that? I haven't seen it say for sure one way or the other. But it seems to me that if you're going to make it that restrictive to qualify for bonuses, its because there is some benefit to the team. Why would I waste cap space on an old guy or an injury case otherwise?
I think there's more to this.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Signing an eligible player to performance bonusses isn't all that simple. The CBA has a provision for a team to exceed the cap by as much 7.5% for performance bonusses. That means they could go as high as 41,925,000 towards their cap this year if Stevens were to meet his requirements for the bonusses. However, whatever amount the Devils exceeded the cap by this year, would be charged to next year's cap. So if they take full advantage of this provision for this year, they'll only have 36,075,000 in cap space for next year. If Stevens doesn't meet his requirements for the bonusses, then they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the provision at all.
That allows you to get a guy on the payroll for one year when you might not be able to do so otherwise, but there's certainly a price to pay for it. Unless, the Devils know they are dumping a lot of salary next year, using this provision could come back to bite them.
Toronto is doing this with Allison, but it looks like they are allowing for his bonus money to count against this year's cap. They are keeping their cap figure around 36 million, so they don't have to worry about it going forward.