View Single Post
11-25-2012, 11:15 AM
Usually Incorrect
rt's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,721
vCash: 500
That's two out of thirty.

It's, so, so, so much worse in the players side. The vast majority of union membership is going to lose a huge chunk of their lifetime earnings that they will never recoup.

How many players are in the union? 700? How many will ever sign a six year deal or longer? Two or three percent? How many would be seriously financially impacted by the five percent variance rule for individual contracts? The same two or three percent? How many players actually make it before an arbitrator each year? Five maybe six guys out of seven hundred? IIRC, the league has backed off tye ELC bit. None of those hills are worth dying on. Not even close. 98% of these players will lose NO WHERE near what they will lose from a cancelled season by accepting these contracting limitations.

The one contracting issue I see as a legitimate point of contention is the ufa eligibility. I image the owners move back on that as soon as the players accept that delinked salaries will never, ever, ever be a possibility. Not even hybrid delinkage and not even in the first two years, and not even in the first year. Salaried will be linked and prorated this season. Demanding otherwise is completely absurd. Accept linked and prorated salaries in year one, and linked salaries in the remaining years of the CBA and I think the NHL very quickly accepts increased "make whole" payment, increased revenue sharing, backs off UFA changes, and may even move to six or seven year max contract term limits.

On the NHL's side, I really think their main goals were immediate 50/50 and the 5% variance. The ELC and UFA stuff would've probably been a big win, but I think they can deal with it as is. The "make whole" business really takes the luster off of the immediate 50/50, but hey, the NHL initially proposed it. I personally dont think ELCs, UFA eligibility, or the arbitration process are all that broken. Back diving, cap circumventing contracts are embarrassing and we all know the NHL has hated them all along. Five percent variance rule is necessary, IMO. I think the "make whole" on the table is already beyond generous. The revenue sharing could probably increase, though. I'd personally like to see some changes that allow teams to retain some salary when trading players. I think that benefits both sides.

How about this for term limits on contracts?

26 years old or younger = 10yr limit
27 years old = 9yr limit
28 years old = 8yr limit
29 years old = 7yr limit
30 years old = 6yr limit
31 years and up = 5yr limit

With five percent variance limitations, I really doubt you will see any 33 year olds getting five year deals. No way. There is no incentive for the players to retire once their effectiveness is limited. Guys would rather suck, and continue getting huge checks. But eliminates Kovalchuk, Parise, and Suter type deals that pay them pennies when they are old men so that they'll just hang em up and the cap hit stays low the whole time.

This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is online now   Reply With Quote