Originally Posted by Nikilidstrom

I can understand the "let them choose"' arguement, but if I was a GM signing a key player to a huge contract, I'll be damned if I am not going to put a mandatory visor clause in his contract. For a team to have a season tank because their star forward. to whom they pay oodles of money, just lost 90% of the vision in one eye and has to have surgery, and they don't have enough money under the cap to sign an adequite replacement is just bad for business, especially when that injury could easily have been avoided by using a $50 piece of equipment. At the very least, it protects a teams investment, and at most, it keeps the league from loosing too many good players to injury, making it a less marketable product, which would make less money available for player contracts, etc.....