View Single Post
12-13-2012, 12:52 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
If you eliminate backdiving, what in principle is the problem with 7 year deals. If a GM signs Scott Gomez to an exorbitant 7 year deal then they suffer competitively which is the way most businesses work. The well run ones do better than the poorly run ones. With a hard cap of 50% of revenues the players' share is alwasy fixed. It doesn't seem unfair that teams with a good GM should have an advantage over teams with a poor GM.
I have no problems with 6 or 7 or 8. It doesnt matter to me. I was responding to a person who said that if long term deals are no good, then gms should just abstain from doing them. And that idea, IMO, is a naive look at how competition doesnt work. Its always about finding an edge.

Im ok with 5 years, because as i wrote in a post higher up, it increases player movement. UFAs, more trades. Its really that simple for me. 5 years is long time to have a general core on your team before it gets completely dismantled.

Over the course of the last CBA, it became apparent how there were fewer and fewer UFAs at each end of season, and a decreased amount of trades every trade deadline. That cannot continue if the NHL wishes to continue to grow and gain new fans. 5 years, 6 years, 7 doesnt matter, they all force gms and owners to abide by rules, and it seems, thats the best way for EVERYONE involved.

EdAVSfan is offline