Talbot's deal in question with Flyers.

Apparently the deal signed by Talbot is in question because of the values of the final two years.

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.

Can someone explain to me how Richard's deal is allowed if this is the case? Richards is being paid $12m in years 1 and 2 but $1m in years 7, 8 and 9.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=370862

Is it because the deal takes him past 35, so all sorts of other crap happens?

Hmmm possibly. If so then it is a rule that seriously needs addressing surely.

With the CBA due up soon, does anyone think that the rules on this will change? Obviously some contracts are more than likely going to be broken (Kovy, Richards etc), so something ought to be done, but with Bettman in charge can anyone see anything changing? Burkie has got on his high horse about salary cap circumvention and front loaded contracts, but when you bear in mind all his transgressions (the Sedins tapping up saga, the Frogren incident that lost us a pick and the burying of Finger in the minors to cirmcuvent the CBA) he is hardly the best mouthpiece for change. As someone on the TSN board pointed out, the other 29 teams are happy with the way things are, its only the Leafs who have problems with offer sheets and front loaded contracts. Its a shame that as the richest team in the league, we won't go for Stamkos because its against Burkes 'principals'!

I do agree it seems silly that Burke wont use the tools available to him but I do think there will be some changes made in the next CBA. They have to because the front loaded contracts are ridiculous.