View Single Post
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Registered User
broadwayblue's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,409
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
This is ridiculous. The long-term cap circumventing deals are effectively stealing from the average player through escrow. Those long-term deals really only benefit the best. And I don't believe in a trickle down effect either. Which players are we even talking about, that will suddenly get shorter deals? How many mid- to low-profile UFAs got 4+ years before? I don't think that really an issue.

And CBA length? Didn't the NHLPA learn from these two lockouts? The players would've gladly kept the old CBA in place, so a longer CBA will most likely benefit them. They can't really believe that they will suddenly get a bigger share next time, can they?

The owners should increase the make whole like was suggested here and maybe offer 6/8 as contract limits. And then let's drop the puck please. If these issues are the reason for a lost season, that has to be the dumbest decision in sports ever.
There is no need for a contract term limit. Simply implement a strict policy preventing the salary from deviating by more than 10% or 20% per year (compared to ~50% at present) and the issue of cap circumvention is essentially resolved. Furthermore, require that any years beyond a certain age count against a team's cap, like the over 35 contracts now. If a team still wants to offer a lifetime contract to a player why should anyone have a problem with that? The only reason the owners want to implement all these limits is to protect them from themselves...but that's their problem.

broadwayblue is offline