Originally Posted by mikebflorida
That sure is a nice deal for the players.
I am a guy who thinks that if you sign a contract, it should be honored but if the guy isn't giving 100% and is not living up to it, well......
I think contracts should be stat or incentive based anyway but I'm kind of kooky that way. Either way, it's the Rangers fault for signing him to such a ludicrous contract, they should have to suck it up.
I mostly agree with this. However, the inevitable difficulty with bonuses or incentive based contracts is the team micro-managing, trying to save money. Say your team's not in a playoff race, guy has 49 goals. Provision in his contract says he gets another $2 mil if he hits the 50 goal mark. Do you dress him in the last game of the season? Now, mine's a ridiculous example, but it shows how a team could use that as a stick; players want bankable money, since you can't have a purely commission based system in a sports league.
I don't care what they do with Redden. As posters on here know, I also don't think we should have a salary cap. There are better ways to control parity in the league (i.e., gate sharing), but the league doesn't have the stomach to make the rich Original Six teams shoulder the burden. The Rangers and Leafs are proof that salary caps don't work; one Stanley Cup between the two of them in over 45 years. This ain't baseball.