View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 11:06 PM
  #226
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,769
vCash: 500
I think the solution just dropped in my lap as i was delivering papers in the freezing rain last night.

first... owners should honor contracts that were agreed to in the past. So a solution needs to keep this in mind.

secondly players cant feel ripped off. So their complaint is that they signed deals in good faith and now those contracts might be 'made whole.'

so the solution... tell any player that feels ripped off that they can walk away as an UFA {no strings attatched} What this will do is take away their 'feelings of being abused. if they think the rules are changing after the fact... give them a redo. This will also reduce the total dollars the owners have committed. Maybe a reduction fo 57% to 50% isnt managable with the current dollars that are promised... but if alot of the russians walk away from their overpaid contracts then suddenly the transaction becomes much much easier. The make whole provision isnt necessary anymore.

on the off chance that not enough players opt for UFA... then the owners just have to reach into their own pocket to make up the difference until things balance out. I would say that owners above the cap are allowed to stay above the cap in order to finance the missing money owed to the players. It would be a voluntary thing. The teams would have to bring their cap down as their current contracts expire. But they wouldnt have to come down unnatrually... and whatever moeny is above the cap would go towards the 'make whole' thing.

the downside is a few russians would opt out of the NHL but its a very very very very very small price to pay. And in a year or two when they face reality, theyd be back with their tails between their legs anyhow.

my other suggestion might screw things up..

i dont mind 15 year contracts BUT i hate that they are guaranteed. I think the NHL should be allowed to limit guarantees to the first 5 years of a contract. Now you ask why would a player agree to a 15 year deal if only the first 5 years are guaranteed? I say no no trade clauses allowed for deals under 5 years. So basically if a player agress to longer contracts he should get a no trade protection... but not have the deal guaranteed. The first 5 years are always guaranteed but arent protected by a no trade without the extra years tacked on.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote