Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 03:00 AM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Originally Posted by
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.
The problem is not long-term contracts, but cap circumvention (which, IMO, should be punished under the terms of the new CBA).
The PA's proposal addresses this: 8-year maximum contracts with the first and last years having no more than a 25% variance in real salary.
Teams who are risk adverse are under no obligation to sign even that, as Brian Burke has proved with his refusal to hand out any contract over 5 years. Those that aren't or are willing to take a gamble on a particular player do so knowing the risk.
Last edited by htpwn: 12-09-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by htpwn