Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-08-2012, 10:14 PM
Join Date: Nov 2004
Originally Posted by
I'm starting to think that the league wants a limit on contract length as protection too. Very long contracts can turn into liabilities and there is nothing you can do about it.
Look at Tampa. They have a new owner and a new GM that had nothing to do with the Lecavalier contract but they are the ones that have to live with it.
Let's assume Ovechkin doesn't bounce back and regresses. You have a player with a contact that expires in 2021 with a $9.5M cap hit and there isn't anything you can do about it.
The DiPietro contract is another. I'm sure in the future a contract like that would cost the team quite a bit since it's hard to see any reasonably priced insurance cover all the years.
While it is the foolishness of owners and GMs that is the problem to start with, these foolish decisions handcuff a team for over a decade that may have several new owners and GMs having to manage a situation. While we can plea for common sense players and agents will push for these long contracts and some GMs will cave, causing problems. I think one of the reasons contract length is so important for the league is because they want to protect their teams from a bad decision haunting a team for a very long time. In a cap world that is a reasonable stance. Before 2004 it was just a money mistake. That's not the case anymore since it's a cap mistake too.
Yes, look at Tampa. The previous owners wanted to trade Lecavalier, who basically had his backs packed and was set to go to Montreal-- until Gary nixed it. (Recall that all deals had to have Bettman's approval since the co-owners weren't on the same page.) Bettman felt that Tampa's franchise value would be hurt, not hindered, by trading Lecavalier.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu