View Single Post
Old
07-20-2012, 08:38 AM
  #14
HockeyGuruPitka
Registered User
 
HockeyGuruPitka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
The amount of money doesnt bother me.

1. its cap circumvention to purposely front load a contract knowing the player wont play out the last few years. This in my eyes is cheating.

In my eyes, if the players and owners want these contracts then there needs to be a cap penalty imposed for evey year a player doesnt play of their contract. Their also needs to be a pay penalty for the player.

2. It eliminates competition and raises complacency and entitlement. Players lose their will to win. If a player knows hes going to retire on a contract, where is the urgency to win and prove himself and earn his next contract? Its like going to war, if a man knows hes got a family at home to feed and protect he will fight valiantly for his cause. If hes got nothing to fight for why would he fight?

3. It stagnates the league. If the league wants small market teams to succeed, then they need to eliminate these contracts. These teams who need to draft, and develop a star just to loose them to a destination market is unacceptable. These players are then locked up and taken off the market for the remainder of their career. "Destination" teams are in a possition to lock up and take away all of the star talents.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts.

Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put, however the contracts and contract lengths need to be cut down to a maximum of 6 years.

HockeyGuruPitka is offline   Reply With Quote