HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1281167)

CharlieLima 11-09-2012 10:10 AM

Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?
 
There is one thing that has really messed up my mind during this NHL-conflict, and that’s when I read that Bettman & Co. wants a limit for contract lengths.

First of all, we need to get some things clear:

* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.

* Long-term contracts that last for about 12-15 years are a direct consequence of the cap, since it allows you to “circumvent the rules” and keep well-paid players below the cap.

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

My question is how come Bettman says he want a limit for contract lengths we he represents the owners? Or am I wrong with something?

cheswick 11-09-2012 10:14 AM

If you think Bettman decides on his own what to propose against the will of the owners, then yes you are wrong about something.

Long term contracts has a negative affect on parity. Only rich teams are able to offer long term deals with huge money upfront and little to nothing in retirement years. It goes against he spirit of what the cap was supposed to acheive and thats why the league is trying to put an end to it. The majority of owners don;t like it

Noldo 11-09-2012 10:18 AM

Also, only contracts up to 7 years (possibly first 7 years of longer contracts) are insureable under the League's insurance policy. The teams thus need to insure the longer contracts on their own, increasing the overall costs of teams.

cbcwpg 11-09-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieLima (Post 55641499)

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

IMO the vast majority of the owners don't "like" long-term contracts ( ie: 15 year ) and the owners that do "like" them only do so because they saw it as a way to circumvent the salary cap.

The cap was put in for a reason and the majority of the teams play by the rules. It's the teams like Vancouver that introduced the loophole and screwed it for everyone else, so as a result Bettman wants to put in rules to stop teams from using this loophole.

MoreOrr 11-09-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieLima (Post 55641499)
There is one thing that has really messed up my mind during this NHL-conflict, and that’s when I read that Bettman & Co. wants a limit for contract lengths.

First of all, we need to get some things clear:

* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.

* Long-term contracts that last for about 12-15 years are a direct consequence of the cap, since it allows you to “circumvent the rules” and keep well-paid players below the cap.

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

My question is how come Bettman says he want a limit for contract lengths we he represents the owners? Or am I wrong with something?

As has been pointed out by a number of posters here and there, the owners simply can't control themselves (though don't ask me to explain the logic in that). Limiting the length of contracts keeps owners from getting tied into paying players over an extended period of time in which the player may well not be available for service to the team (due to injury or whatever). Certainly makes sense for the owners to have such limits in place (though not something that the players will want).

CerebralGenesis 11-09-2012 10:21 AM

so your logic is that without a cap there wouldn't be longer deals and that the owners like signing long-term deals?

I don't think I agree with either proposition.

DuklaNation 11-09-2012 10:22 AM

This is the one change I want as a fan. I dont want to be stuck with the same players, cap problems, for 10+ yrs.

Dojji* 11-09-2012 10:23 AM

Pretty much, there's already a bit of an economic underclass, but these stupid contracts are pushing us towards formalizing the disparity. Every team should have a chance to sign any free agent in an ideal world, if they feel he's right for their team.

Langdon Alger* 11-09-2012 10:28 AM

This is a small vs. big market issue. The small markets want contract length limits because the type of long contract we've seen involves amounts of money they can't afford paid up front, with lower salaries towards the end to lower the cap hit.

A simple solution would be to make a player's salary and cap hit the same. Doing so would leave the option of long contracts available to teams and players who want them, while removing the advantage the current system gives big-market teams.

Octavius 11-09-2012 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 55641697)
As has been pointed out by a number of posters here and there, the owners simply can't control themselves (though don't ask me to explain the logic in that).

Owners aren't only partners in a joint venture called NHL, but also rivals as they all (hopefully) want to win. And richer teams have the options of long-term contracts, as they can afford to pay the majority of the contract in the first few years


I think that the desire to limit the contract length comes mostly from the middle and low revenue teams to insure that they don't lose players, because of contracts they cannot match or jeopardize the business if accepted (like the Weber situation).

tbcwpg 11-09-2012 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noldo (Post 55641657)
Also, only contracts up to 7 years (possibly first 7 years of longer contracts) are insureable under the League's insurance policy. The teams thus need to insure the longer contracts on their own, increasing the overall costs of teams.

This is a big reason. Not protecting the owners from themselves, etc. This is the big thing. If teams are losing money this will help individual owners be competitive with the rest of the league without incurring extra costs they can't eat up like the bigger teams can.

MoreOrr 11-09-2012 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octavius (Post 55641849)
Owners aren't only partners in a joint venture called NHL, but also rivals as they all (hopefully) want to win.

Yeah, that's the argument that's usually presented. I still say that it's a situation of putting the potential to spend in the hands of fools. But hey, they're billionaire fools. Must be nice to be part of a system where revenue sharing bails them out to some degree. Ultimately, when it's all said and done, I still can't see much justification for having much sympathy for the owners; I know that it is essentially they that bring us the League, but they also create much of their own problems.

Dojji* 11-09-2012 10:48 AM

... so wouldn't you want a system that minimizes those self-inflicted problems?

MtlPenFan 11-09-2012 10:49 AM

Let's not kid ourselves. While owners and GM's have been complicit in these long deals, it's not like agents were sitting at the bargaining table for their big time clients and were clueless as to how to go about circumventing the cap.

Besides, what are they fighting for again? It's barely a fraction of players who sign these kinds of deals.

LadyStanley 11-09-2012 10:52 AM

Some teams plan/budget so they do not sign the long length contracts. It's the teams that a) are capable of playing the high $$ values and b) have the desire to do so and c) no CBA restrictions that are.

One limitation I've heard proposed on contracts, is no more than 5% of value change between years, which would pretty much eliminate the massive front loaded deals.

Twilight Sparkle 11-09-2012 10:58 AM

The reason the league is pushing for it is:

- It creates an unfair competitive landscape. Big signing bonuses become bought players instead of hockey moves.

- It affects the product on the ice when the salary structure makes certain players overpaid, locked-in forever. (The montreal Canadiens fans don't get to move on from Gomez any time soon, for example)

To be clear the NHL doesn't give away more or less money to the players with the cap on contract length. That amount is fixed by HRR%. This is the NHL saying that the way things are now is kind of dumb, unfair and easily repaired with no great injury to either side.

MoreOrr 11-09-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dojji (Post 55642149)
... so wouldn't you want a system that minimizes those self-inflicted problems?

Absolutely! But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre. And if it's only the rich teams which are offering such contracts, then it's only the rich teams that would be being harmed by such contracts... so who the **** should care? Perhaps it is those other teams, as the richer teams have been limiting access to certain players by agreeing to contracts that the poorer teams can't. And perhaps if such contracts weren't available then other teams might be able to sign those players.

supahdupah 11-09-2012 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 55642275)
Absolutely! But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre. And if it's only the rich teams which are offering such contracts, then it's only the rich teams that would be being harmed by such contracts... so who the **** should care? Perhaps it is those other teams, as the richer teams have been limiting access to certain players by agreeing to contracts that the poorer teams can't. And perhaps if such contracts weren't available then other teams might be able to sign those players.

Many people have explained why it's important to restrict contract length. you choose to keep ignoring it. Why?

MoreOrr 11-09-2012 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supahdupah (Post 55642319)
Many people have explained why it's important to restrict contract length. you choose to keep ignoring it. Why?

What??????????

I absolutely, to repeat that word, agree that contract lengths should be restricted. What are you reading??

DL44 11-09-2012 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg (Post 55641681)
IMO the vast majority of the owners don't "like" long-term contracts ( ie: 15 year ) and the owners that do "like" them only do so because they saw it as a way to circumvent the salary cap.

The cap was put in for a reason and the majority of the teams play by the rules. It's the teams like Vancouver that introduced the loophole and screwed it for everyone else, so as a result Bettman wants to put in rules to stop teams from using this loophole.

Don't blame Vancouver.... The Luongo contract came pretty late in the timeline of these types of contract...


The man to give all the credit to: Darryl Sutter.

supahdupah 11-09-2012 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 55642373)
What??????????

I absolutely, to repeat that word, agree that contract lengths should be restricted. What are you reading??

Quote:

But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre.
This is what I am referring to.

Stewie Griffin 11-09-2012 11:09 AM

What I don't understand is why players *don't* want a 5 year limit on contracts.

For the guys getting the long term contracts, this basically opens them up to two significant UFA periods during their career. Maybe three, if they can get the UFA age lowered to 26.

18-21 = ELC
21-26 = RFA
26-31 = UFA #1 (cha-ching!)
31-36 = UFA #2 (cha-ching!)
36-41 = UFA #3 (35+)

The only guys it "hurts" are ones like Gomez and Redden (who's NHL salary would theoretically count in the new CBA), and to a lesser extent Souray. I'm sure fans of the teams who signed those deals would be happier if their contracts expired after 5 years.

I guess it would also be bad for someone like DiPietro, but not sure if his contract was even insurable or not, but he's probably still getting paid.

Langdon Alger* 11-09-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 55642397)
Don't blame Vancouver.... The Luongo contract came pretty late in the timeline of these types of contract...


The man to give all the credit to: Darryl Sutter.

What 10-year contract did Sutter ever agree to? The longest contract signed under Sutter was six years.

MoreOrr 11-09-2012 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supahdupah (Post 55642423)
This is what I am referring to.

Yes, that the owners can't restrict themselves. Sorry, but for me that's bizarre. But if it helps to protect the League then by all means have a rule in place that demands them to restrict themselves (of the forever present loopholes might be found, as billionaires are the greatest experts at finding).

Stewie Griffin 11-09-2012 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langdon Alger (Post 55642461)
What 10-year contract did Sutter ever agree to? The longest contract signed under Sutter was six years.

Possibly a reference to Darryl Sutter effectively "inventing" the back diving deal with the Kipprusoff contract?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.