View Single Post
Old
11-10-2012, 01:08 AM
  #241
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Why would the NHL even both listening to this?

If you give players an outclause in their contract, what's to stop them from doing it anytime they feel they deserve a raise. This is similar to holding out in the NFL.

Look at claude giroux's contract. He signed for 3 years at 3.75m per year. He then went on to score 76 points right after signing the contract and 93 points in the first year of the contract. What if he wants more money and just exercises the outclause in his contract? His salary would end up being more than 3x what is it currently.

If you give players this right, why shouldnt the owners get the right to cut players at any time with no repercussions? Look at Scott Gomez. Don't you think the Rangers and Capitals wanted to be able to exercise an outclause there? The NHLPA would more than likely never even engage the NHL in conversations about non-guaranteed contracts.
my point of view is this; i prefer Giroux getting his big bucks if he is worth it. I have no problems with that at all. I also have no problems with GMs being scared to sign players to contracts over 3 years. For once they might actually think of consequences. I think with the concession the owners would get their term max (maybe negotiated to 6 or 7 years), equal salary every year of the deal or very close (as FUBU pointed out its the only way to have an outclause), and they win their gap measures ( 2 year ELC, 28/8 UFA, and Team arbitration rights mathing those of the players in RFA.) Frankly a GM that cant figure out that the player has the option to get out of the contract after 3 years... is a moron if he then signs the guy to a 7 year deal and his name isnt crosby. The GM would have to understand that 50% of the guys in the NHL ranks will file if they arent getting paid enough... but if they are getting paid too much and it was the GMs fault the player wont speak a word. So maybe GMs should only give big contracts to people with a strong record? Interesting thought isnt it.

Again i am in favor of a guy like Giroux playing lights out hockey and taking the option if he has it and wants to. I WANT players of his calibre making what they should. The issue to me is the role players and fillers who dont deserve money and havent proven anything.
NTC and such can still exist but it certainly is nice that the player has to exercise his option to get out of a place which would then evaporate his contract and clauses. Food for thought one would think. A million dollar, 500k, fine might assist in keeping players mouths shut, and their agents when unhappy. NHL gave out a big fine for one execs interview...players should be held accountable for the damage they cause in creating circuses in the league with their trade request sideshows.

oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote