View Single Post
12-06-2012, 12:23 PM
Registered User
broadwayblue's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,602
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.
Exactly. Strict variance allowances and over 35 rules on contracts eliminate the need for contract limits. Is a team really going to want to give a 28 year old star a 13 year, 100M contract when they are going to have nearly an 8M cap hit for the entire duration of the term?

broadwayblue is offline