Etiam Vultus said:
Sorry, but the topic was not about circumventing the salary cap. The topic under discussion was the premise that the Leafs are handicapping themselves through self-imposed principles.
Yes, the self-imposed principles against signing the sort of deals that Burke has described as "circumventing" the salary cap". Here's the post that kicked it off.
Deebo said:
I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Pretty straight forward. Not long term deals, cap circumventing deals.
Deebo said:
The rebuttal is that there are valid business reasons for avoiding long term contracts, namely the risk. I then proceeded to provide examples, DiPietro and Yashin, while conceding that not all long term contracts are as disastrous.
Again, those are not examples of the sorts of deals being discussed. And Yashin, I mean, Yashin's deal was not signed during the current CBA so it is straight up nonsense to use it as an example of anything. I mean, Bobby Hull signed a long term deal with the Jets too so didn't they start the whole trend?
Deebo said:
The insertion into the argument that front-end loaded contract are somehow different is both irrelevant and invalid. (Just a small piece of advice, but when you have to stoop to offer the Komisarek contact as evidence of best practice in anything, you have already lost the argument.)
Now you're just being silly. There's a very significant difference between a deal like Luongo's and a deal like DiPietro's. Burke has specifically talked about deals that add years on the end of the contract at a low salary to reduce the overall cap hit as circumventing the cap. That is the principle being discussed and objected to. DiPietro's deal doesn't do that.
And just a small piece of advice? Learn how to read. I didn't say Mike Komisarek's deal was the best practice of anything. I said it was simply an example of a shorter-term deal being front-loaded.
The best counter-argument to your inanity is that there are the exact same reasons to avoid short-term deals as there are long term deals. Namely, that some of them don't work out as evidenced by basically every contract Burke has signed during his tenure here. But every contract comes with risk. Choosing to avoid the risk of a long term contract is pre-emptively taking the Maple Leafs out of the discussion on signing the better free agents. That's not a good thing.
Etiam Vultus said:
As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup. So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
I can't speak to cw's supposed post but what you're saying here is just absolutely flat out wrong. People have already mentioned the examples from the Kings but Marian Hossa is another example.
