NHL Lockout XXVIII: Don't worry about the lockout. Let me worry about blank.
View Single Post
12-13-2012, 11:23 AM
Patty likes beef
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
Put simply: Contract length.
They've scored victories on all other major points. They'll likely score a victory on CBA length too, which I agree with them on. but limiting contract terms to 5 years is simply to put limits on their own fellow owners, and it ends up hurting the players. I think they need to find another way to resolve that issue without screwing the players. It's their mistake. It's their problem. They've asked the players to help them on all other issues. They should fix this one on their own.
If they fix this on their own, they would be colluding and could be sued by the players.
I don't see how the current situation is the owners mistake. If anything it's been players/agents/GMs that have all created this mess with long term contracts. Anyone not believing that Parise/Suter weren't as much behind their contracts as Wild were is being naive.
If NHL leaves this door open, you'll continue to see massive long term deals and that's not good for the league. It increases risk for teams (injury, retirement) even more than before. It increases insurance cost. It lessens flexibility (harder to trade long expensive contracts and there will be fewer UFAs each year, pushing salaries for them up).
I can see why players and agents wants it. I have no idea why any fan would think this change would be bad.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Freudian