View Single Post
11-14-2012, 07:39 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Wondering what your opinion is on where the league is aiming the additional restraints with the contracting rights issues? If you consider the average career length (and thus length of service) for the mean/median typical NHL'er, the restraints wouldn't really change much for them versus the last CBA-- or am I off on that calculation. I don't recall the mean and median NHL career lengths.

It seems to be aimed at the cream of the crop, getting rid of the timeframe that allows a bridging to the UFA years.
As a group, the contracting rights that the league seeks is aimed at paying the very top tier of players and only after they have put forth their performances. An attempt to ratchet back the salary distribution to the pre-cap days. In that sense, it hurts the vast majority of players. You would likely get a bunch of max contracts, but the second tier would take a hit. Using the Sharks, JT gets a max, but Marleau takes a small hit and Pavelski a big hit. Wings, Dats and Z get big bumps while Franzen takes a hit. Obviously this is regards future players of similar skills to those named.

My take on career length is that a lot of posters look at the average. The median is far more informative. They get the 5 year average because there is a large group of players who never get to 80 games. If a player is top 3 or top 2, he is looking at 15 years or better. If a players is second line or second pairing, he is looking at 11 to 14 years. It is when you go below top 6/top 4 that it gets ugly. Very few players survive even 5 years as bottom 6 or bottom pairing. There is a very select group of high end third liners that match the second group for career length (another distortion). Goalies are another story, much less than 10 years for #1 goalies.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote