The NHL needs non-guaranteed contracts!
View Single Post
09-13-2004, 03:52 AM
Team Ben Anti-Tank 0
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Team Tank 1
Originally Posted by
Like football, the ability to cut say a Jagr would alleviate alot of the upward spiral pressure on salaries. If good players don't play good, they get cut! Seems logical to me!
I'm with the players on this. IMHO guaranteed contracts are GOOD
Firstly. If teams can cut players without penalty at will it means that they can afford to offer more for player contracts driving up prices. Turgeon here's $7m, you aren't working out, well see ya. Where is downward pressure on salaries?
Secondly, teams that offer overlong, overexpensive deserve to be punished for stupidity. Its not the players fault the team was stupid, punish the team not the player.
Thirdly, use performance bonuses to balance out cost v performance issues.
Finally, if teams want a non-guaranteed contracts they can do it now. All they have to do is make every contract offer a 2-way or club option.
Non-guaranteed contracts reward the over-paying clubs and poor managers. The more teams that get burned on Turgeon and LeClair type deals the better for fiscal responsibility.
Lets say player X is 31 and wants to retire at the end of contract with his prefered club. He's an elite player but realises he's aging is worth $5m/y for year 1, $4m for year 2, $3m for years 3 and $2m for year 4 and $1m for year 5: total value $15m but only wants $12.5m. The clubs needs to spreadout the payments and they come to a deal of $2.5m/y for 5 years. Is it fair the club can cut him after 3 years when he deferred salary to years 4 & 5?
If player X has signs 5 year contract for $15m at a flat rate of $3m/y. In year 1 he breaks his leg, in year 2 he gets a concussion, year 3 a injured back is not as strong or as fast or as phyicals. He's not lazy, greedy or underperforming, he's injured giving his all for the club. Is it fair the club walks away from years 4 and 5? I don't think so.
Net result is that agents are going to demand upfront payments and signing bonuses to ensure their players are covered, and fair enough too. Is that going to be helpful to poorer clubs who can't match the signing bonuses, I don't think so.
Guaranteed contracts are not a problem, overpriced salaries are.
Last edited by me2: 09-13-2004 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by me2