View Single Post
Old
12-06-2012, 04:56 PM
  #854
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
To be honest, I dont really know what you're arguing anymore.
I'm arguing that less money tied up in big name players means more money available for lesser players.

Often times, bad contracts are given out -- like Rick DiPietro's deal. In that case, the owners would love to re-allocate that money to other players. Most likely, PLURAL players, not just give out his contract to another superstar.

By cutting the length of time he can be paid, that means over that time, there is more money that will be paid to other players.

Since there are only a handful of players who get those kinds of deals, eliminating those deals will mean more money for the vast majority of other players.

Contract length caps... bad for Rick DiPietros and Brad Richardses.

Great for everyone else.

Quote:
I do agree that contract term lengths only effect the top 10% of players in the league. But where is it going to help the other players exactly? If anything it will drive contracts down for them.
No, it will not do that.

First, it hasn't done that in any other sport. NFL and NBA backup players more often than not get multi-year deals still. In fact, the vast majority of contracts signed in both leagues are not 1 year deals, they are multi-year deals.

Most teams in a competitive, healthy, profitable league spend up to the salary cap in an effort to win.

Therefore, when that money from a bad contract clears, they spend it elsewhere.

So the sooner you clear off a bad contract like DiPietros, the sooner it will get spent on other players.

So tell me why the NHLPA should be sticking up for the long term "security" of Rick DiPietro, when you could limit his contract at half the time, and then that money would be spent on other players besides Rick DiPietro (because you would surely agree, DiPietro wouldn't be resigned right now to the same money per year, right? So that money per year would be spent on other players).

Quote:
The longer deals of the past circumvented the cap to a degree and actually created MORE cap space on an annual basis for bottom 6 guys to get signed.
Maybe in a given year.

If you pay a guy $100 million over ten years, it's averaging 10 million a year. If you pay him a little now and a lot later, that frees up more now to spend on other guys, but prevents you from signing guys later. Simple math.

mschmidt64 is offline