View Single Post
Old
07-20-2012, 09:22 AM
  #21
Greg Schuler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka View Post
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. Well, you actually don't know what a player will do at the end of their career. They may or may not play out the contract, but the worth to the player is the money available to them now, not when they are 40.

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.Try convincing the NHLPA of that pay penalty idea. See how far that goes.

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? You entirely projecting here. You simply have no idea if that is true or not. Is Zetterberg complacent or entitled? For every example you can provide, I can provide a counter-example. How many players over-perform a one-year deal truly? This is what bothers me the most - people assume players get fat, dumb and happy the minute they sign for long-term big money, and that is not always the case. In some cases, Dustin Penner, it was - but that was on a shorter deal, so are you proposing to ban all contracts longer than one year?

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.No they aren't - trades can and do happens. Dan Boyle signed a long term deal and has been traded. Same for Brian Campbell. Players will always seek good teams and organizations. Detroit, in and of itself, is not a preferrable destination, but Mike Illitch made it one for players (until this year, it seems). In fact, it doesn't stagnate the league, since it does require teams look for that balancing contract, either an ELC or shorter veteran deal. Drafting and development are as important now than ever. Free agency is a right, by the way, collectively bargained and upheld, for the players.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts. In what way? Most of the contracts are cheap by the cash wise and if a player retires, the cap hit goes away. More than likely, teams would stash a player on LITR or simply boot them to the minors or something. What impact, aside from cash outflow, would the backend of the contract have? Cap space is easily recovered if the team wants.

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.The NHLPA would argue restraint of trade and see how long that would last in the next CBA negotiations. Fehr, in fact, is as opposed to any salary cap as any PA head out there, so he's probably looking for that kind of fight. The NBA has contract limits, and look what their free agency is like - players move every few years and only the true stars actually stay with the team with max contract after max contract.
I don't see anything wrong with contract term or value - it's a negotiation, nothing more. Players want to get paid and owners have to pay them.

Greg Schuler is offline   Reply With Quote