lucifer91 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=370862 The final two years of Talbot's deal are reportedly worth $1 million per year. This would violate cap rules as the final two years of the contract can not be worth less than half of either of the first two years of the deal. The first two years of Talbot's contract are worth $2.5 million and $2.25 million respectively. They say most likely no punishment. In my opinion that isn't one of the contracts they should be worrying about here with some of the signings so far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I'm pretty sure TSN has this completely wrong. There isn't any rule about the final 2 years having to be worth half one of the first 2 years salary. The contract is illegal because a contract can not have a yearly salary decrease by more than 50% of the lowest of the first 2 years. So for Talbot his first 2 years are 2.5 and 2.25. 2.25 is the lower of the two years. His lowest drop should be 1.125(2.25/2). His 13-14 salary is 2.25. His 14-15 Salary is 1. That's a 1.25 million drop when he is only allowed a 1.125 million drop. So the contract is in violation amazingly slightly. It should be voided but I doubt punishment for something so minor as well. Edited July 4, 2011 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roomtemp Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I'm pretty sure TSN has this completely wrong. There isn't any rule about the final 2 years having to be worth half one of the first 2 years salary. The contract is illegal because a contract can not have a yearly salary decrease by more than 50% of the lowest of the first 2 years. So for Talbot his first 2 years are 2.5 and 2.25. 2.25 is the lower of the two years. His lowest drop should be 1.125(2.25/2). His 13-14 salary is 2.25. His 14-15 Salary is 1. That's a 1.25 million drop when he is only allowed a 1.125 million drop. So the contract is in violation amazingly slightly. It should be voided but I doubt punishment for something so minor as well. We demand a first rounder as compensation. Between this and the amazingly stupid 35 plus for the Pronger extension that the Philthy GM doesn't know much about the CBA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SatansDevils Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 With the holiday weekend coming to an end most likely the NHL will look at all the big longterm deals that were made over this holiday weekend on Tuesday to see if some of these deals circumvents the CBA. The NHL and Bettman need to look at the Flyers with Talbot, Rangers with Richards and Sabres with Leino and some others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.