Restructuring a deal under the new cap would mean the player would make less money.  Is that legal?  When you sign a contract aren't you legally, never mind the sub-rules imposed by the NHL itself, obligated to meet the expectations of that contract?  Both the player and the organization? 

If the player stops playing before the terms of the contract are up (i.e. retires) then he is or is not paid, depending on how the contract is worded, but the team is still charged an amount towards the cap.  The league did this to prevent teams from creating all sorts of stupid ass backloaded contracts which simply circumvent the salary cap.  Were this not in place, teams like Philadelphia (no brains) or Toronto (bottomless pockets) could simply backload all the contracts they want and be a gazillion miles over the cap.  How would that be fair to the other teams in the league that can't afford to do that?  It's not and realistically you'd do immense damage to the league.  I think you could expect the league to contract to about ten teams or less if you let them go freewheeling for salaries that are backloaded, maybe more. 

Absurd price for a 5 point of articulation figures based on 70's toys, albeit unproduced ones.

They were talking about how for streamed movies the Kinect can count the number of people watching - and if it exceeds the number permitted by license (4 I think), the One will prompt you to pay for additional viewers.  And games won't play at all if the Kinect doesn't see you.