Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 12:29 AM
Still here O'Reilly?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
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.
I don't think it has much to do with franchise value. I can't imagine the presence or absence of a bad long contract having any significant impact on the sale value of a franchise.
I think the reason for the league pushing for shorter contracts is because it makes sense in a cap world and it reduces cost and risk for teams. There is simply no upside to long contracts (even more so if back diving is neutered) to anyone but star players. And they will always do well no matter what.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Freudian