View Single Post
12-12-2012, 06:50 PM
Registered User
Flyerfan808's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
The owners DID shoot themselves in the foot with those long contracts. On the other hand, 5 years is on the extreme side. 7 is a happy medium. Gives GMs some slack to sign the biggest players without killing their cap too badly, but also stops something silly like the Luongo deal.
I don't think the players are entirely blameless for those long contracts since they were the ones DEMANDING them, but we've been over that one before.

I think the NHL is pushing for 5 (+2 if resigned, so 7 MAX) because they can only insure a contract for 7 years. Furthermore, I like the idea of 5 + 2 (if resigned) as opposed to the 7 year max for everyone, because it gives the "original team" the power to negotiate a longer term and potentially a better cap hit than the "poaching team."

Flyerfan808 is offline