View Single Post
12-09-2012, 03:08 PM
Seahawks 43
me2's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,605
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
I'd like to know what the real reason is behind the contract length limits, 5 years for new signings, 7 years for re-signing a player. Is it to reduce the player's ability to cash in while they are in their prime? Is it about insuring players contracts? IIRC it's hard to get insurance beyond 7 years on a players contract. On the latter point, I could see the argument.

On the former point, I don't think that the NHL's tactic will work as intended. I just think that the players in their prime will just get larger deals on shorter term, because they were giving volume discounts. ie instead of 13 year $98M for Suter we would have seen a 5 year $55M deal. If Suter can get more than $43M over the next 8, he's still better off.
there is small degree of that, but at the at end off the day the cap hit is king. Parise and Suter eating $22-24m of a 65m cap is suicide.

The article listed earlier is wrong, it states Parise gets 53m in 5 as part of a long years deals,without the 6+ years he'd want to be compensated with 60m in 5. He might want but he wouldn't get it. He wouldn't even get the 53m because no team is paying him that if it can't defraud the cap.

If ever moneypuck took over the NHL it the mid-tier guys are dirt cheap and guys like Parise are pulling down 12m cap hits.

Last edited by me2: 12-09-2012 at 05:14 PM.
me2 is offline