View Single Post
11-19-2012, 07:01 PM
Registered User
Ernie's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,824
vCash: 500
This is why I'm somewhat supportive of the term limits to contracts, whereas I've been critical of many of the other NHL's demands. It does create an unfair playing field. The Philadelhia Flyers could afford to absorb $50m on a contract gone bad - it would hurt, sure, but the franchise would be fine. But $50m might put the Nashville Predators into bankruptcy.

So it's an unfair advantage for rich teams. It adds too much risk.

I do think the NHL could give more than a 15% variance though, and the other changes to contracts they want are totally unnecessary.

I also think that protecting long term contracts should be low in the NHLPA's list.. only a select few are ever going to get those offers, and those type of players are all going to be extraordinarily rich anyhow. They should be focussed on the majority of NHLPA members whose careers aren't even 5 years long.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote