View Single Post
12-06-2012, 10:28 AM
joshjull's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 46,049
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The fact the Owners need to negotiate a contract length stipulation is ****ing stupid.

It's like an obese person mandating that supermarkets only permit them to buy 1 "unhealthy" thing a week. If you DON'T want to eat more than that then DON'T eat more than that. If you don't WANT to sign players to terms longer than FIVE years then don't OFFER longer than that.
Thats a terrible analogy.

The issue is a handful of big markets drive the escalating contracts and salaries for the bigger name players. Mid to smaller sized markets have to pay those types of deals if they want to keep or acquire those types of players. Essentially they have no control over this. You can say then don't give out those contracts but then that team loses its better players and makes it tougher to be competitive.

My team, the Sabres, had a fiscally prudent ownership coming out of the lockout. They set budget parameters and stuck to them. One was refusing to give out contracts longer than 3 or 4 years. It led to the dismantling of our team in short order culminating with Briere/Drury leaving in the summer of 2007. After that they had to scramble and react to the realities on the ground or they would have lost another wave of players. It led to matching Vanek's offer sheet and giving longer term deals to Roy and Pominville than they would have wanted to hand out.

Its easy to say a team should just be fiscally prudent and not give in to the economic pressures of the league. But the reality is it will have a sizable impact on your ability to ice and keep a successful team.

joshjull is online now