View Single Post
12-09-2012, 12:22 AM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 33,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I think the 7 year contracts to own players is to give smaller teams a bit of an inside track to keeping their own players. Having a slightly bigger chance to keep the face of the franchise is a good thing. If Nashville can offer Weber a 7 year deal and Philly only a 5 year offer sheet, the dynamic might change a bit.

I also think the 7 year contract for these players was a concession to NHLPA. It wasn't there from the beginning. So look at it as something the negotiation jedi Fehr won if it makes you feel better about it.

I don't need to feel better about it. I want to know why it's being contemplated.

Weren't you one of the people making the claim that franchise values, economics and whatever else was on that laundry list depended on the five yr figure. You conveniently overlook that all teams, big or small, can sign their own player to seven years.

So it's critical for those reasons, or it's not. Which is it? Why?

You don't have a defense for the seven yr exemption on term limit if you made those other claims.

Fugu is offline