2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIII: "The 11th Hour" Edition
View Single Post
12-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Can't Beat Him
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
And MLB doesn't have term limits, nor a salary cap. And yet nearly all of the teams post operating profits (27 of 30). Term limited contracts are not a prerequisite to a successful league or profitable teams.
It's fiscal irresponsibility on the part of management that drives these massive deals. They think, "We have to spend big bucks to compete!" when in fact they don't. Smart utilization of resources is what makes a consistent winner. But these guys in front offices across the league get into bidding wars and piss themselves. Then they try to correct their idiocy by making rules that state they can only act stupid to a certain degree. At the expense of the players, of course.
It's just pain.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by nyr2k2