View Single Post
12-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Registered User
mschmidt64's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 849
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong.

What is the need for contract length limits? If you agree to a 5% variance from year to year, and reports are that the NHLPA is somewhat likely to agree to this, then "lifetime" deals become much less of an issue.

Why should the players be forced to sacrifice job security because the owners and GMs can't control themselves? You tighten up these loopholes and management will just find some new way to exploit the system and **** themselves. And predictably, they'll come back and try to force the players into conceding some other benefit.
The need is to prevent mega-term contracts that get longer and longer and longer over time as players seek the guaranteed security of contract length as part of their contract demands. If there was no cap on length, teams would eventually outbid each other to give more and more marginal players longer and longer deals to lure them to sign. The very thing which the owners are apparently supposed to "control themselves from doing" is built into the bidding process.

What happens when a player signs a long term deal and then declines rapidly or gets injured? The team is still on the hook to pay that player. The flexibility in teams to get out from those contracts in a reasonable amount of time promotes turnover for the best talent to get on the ice, which is good for the game.

The NFL and NBA both have term limits because it's good for the sport in general. The vast majority of NHL players will never even be affected by having 5 (or 6 or 7) year long max contracts.

The people losing out are the Brad Richards and Rick DiPietros who want retirement contracts.

And the rest of the NHLPA is apparently ready to follow them off a cliff so that they can have it.

It's insane. The players are actually hurting themselves here.

mschmidt64 is offline