View Single Post
Old
12-06-2012, 02:45 PM
  #816
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
How do limited contracts benefit the players? Thats an insane thing to say.

Its about security for them.
If they think it's about security, they need to re-think the issue.

Seriously, tell me how much of a percentage of the players get over 5 year deals anyway.

Is it more than 5%? 10%? I highly doubt it.

So for the vast majority of players, they never get more than 5 year deals anyway. So by capping contract lengths at 5 years, 90% of those players are not affected.

Therefore, the argument that it's about "security" only affects the players getting contracts longer than 5 years.

And for a player that is getting a longer-than-5-year-deal.... well... it ain't gonna be for the league minimum, ya follow? A player who has gotten one of these ten or twelve year deals is getting $5 million, $7 million, or $9 million a season.

So don't tell me about security. They don't need it. They want more cash in their pockets like any greedy person.

The people who need "security" are the players who make the league minimum. The ones who are only gonna have 4-5 year careers and who will sacrifice their bodies and then have to get real jobs afterwards.

So how does this benefit them?

Well, like I just said.... if you give Rick DiPietro a 10 year, $70 million deal, under a cap system, that is $70 million that cannot be given to any other player who plays during that 10 year period.

So if you limit Rick DiPietro's contract to 5 years, well, Rick still walks away with $35 million. So I scoff at his silly "security" needs.

But now after 5 years, you can divide that remaining $35 million among new players. Some of it will trickle down to the role players and the smaller guys who DO NEED security.

At the very least, even if a GM rushes right out and makes another bad contract, at the very least, it has been two 5 year contracts worth $35 million each, instead of one 10 year contract worth $70 million. At the very worst, you have turned one bad contract into two.

But now, the money that you would have paid that second bad contract has been freed up. So it will trickle down to the smaller players.

That's how it helps the players.

The only people who have a vested interest in these long term deals are the megastars.

It's only "insanity" not to realize they are the ones who primarily benefit here, and that the small time players who NEED the money would benefit much more from shorter contracts for everyone. It puts the big fish more on their level.

mschmidt64 is offline