View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 02:36 AM
  #187
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
That so-called "average career length" statistic is greatly flawed. The majority of player money is going towards players where this is not the case.

27 is also the prime for a hockey player, so technically, they reach UFA status when they hit their prime. Not in their old weak years.

You all act like players don't get paid in their RFA years. That is simply not the case. And since owners are buying potential, which is rarely realized, they often end up paying even more than they should.

Reducing ELC length would increase salaries at the beginning of careers, not decrease.

Also, the league is not imposing a lower individual salary cap. They are merely adding restrictions on the contracts to disable circumvention of the cap, and to make sure their contracts are insurable.
All player's on RFA contracts do not get paid what they are worth. For example I think Stamkos could have been paid more.

While some are overpaid. It goes both ways. The unspoken kibosh on offer sheets is clear that RFA's are being held in check with no recourse.

ELC length reduction is a very minor give from the owners. It's impact on the existing membership is negligible. It will benefit the owners in that the Russian top level players may be more inclined to come over rather than stay in Russia so I view this as a backhanded offer.

I don't personally have an issue with the 5% variance in each year of a contract.

With regards to the arbitration initiated by the team, I'd okay that too with an exception that if the reason that a player's performance has declined is due to a hockey related injury then I'd say that would be beyond the control of the player and not be something the owner should be negotiating down. The player has given his body for the team and should not be penalized for that.

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote