I will concede this point to you as soon as you provide an example of a short term contract that circumvents the cap.
I mean, if you don't see how a deal like DiPietro's is different than Luongo's I'm not sure how to explain it. People were talking about the Luongo type of contract that front loads a contract. There are short term deals that are front loaded too, Komisarek's for instance, but again that wasn't really the topic at hand.
And one of the reasons people are putting "circumvents" or derivations of that word in quotations is that some, including me, don't really feel that deals of that nature circumvent the cap
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. (And, with all due respect, I suspect that someone who is as argumentative as you understands the structure of an argument!)
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.
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.)
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.