HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 09:10 AM
  #1
CharlieLima
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?

There is one thing that has really messed up my mind during this NHL-conflict, and that’s when I read that Bettman & Co. wants a limit for contract lengths.

First of all, we need to get some things clear:

* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.

* Long-term contracts that last for about 12-15 years are a direct consequence of the cap, since it allows you to “circumvent the rules” and keep well-paid players below the cap.

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

My question is how come Bettman says he want a limit for contract lengths we he represents the owners? Or am I wrong with something?

CharlieLima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:14 AM
  #2
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,994
vCash: 574
If you think Bettman decides on his own what to propose against the will of the owners, then yes you are wrong about something.

Long term contracts has a negative affect on parity. Only rich teams are able to offer long term deals with huge money upfront and little to nothing in retirement years. It goes against he spirit of what the cap was supposed to acheive and thats why the league is trying to put an end to it. The majority of owners don;t like it

cheswick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:18 AM
  #3
Noldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
Also, only contracts up to 7 years (possibly first 7 years of longer contracts) are insureable under the League's insurance policy. The teams thus need to insure the longer contracts on their own, increasing the overall costs of teams.

Noldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:20 AM
  #4
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,919
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.
IMO the vast majority of the owners don't "like" long-term contracts ( ie: 15 year ) and the owners that do "like" them only do so because they saw it as a way to circumvent the salary cap.

The cap was put in for a reason and the majority of the teams play by the rules. It's the teams like Vancouver that introduced the loophole and screwed it for everyone else, so as a result Bettman wants to put in rules to stop teams from using this loophole.

cbcwpg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:20 AM
  #5
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post
There is one thing that has really messed up my mind during this NHL-conflict, and that’s when I read that Bettman & Co. wants a limit for contract lengths.

First of all, we need to get some things clear:

* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.

* Long-term contracts that last for about 12-15 years are a direct consequence of the cap, since it allows you to “circumvent the rules” and keep well-paid players below the cap.

* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.

My question is how come Bettman says he want a limit for contract lengths we he represents the owners? Or am I wrong with something?
As has been pointed out by a number of posters here and there, the owners simply can't control themselves (though don't ask me to explain the logic in that). Limiting the length of contracts keeps owners from getting tied into paying players over an extended period of time in which the player may well not be available for service to the team (due to injury or whatever). Certainly makes sense for the owners to have such limits in place (though not something that the players will want).

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:21 AM
  #6
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
so your logic is that without a cap there wouldn't be longer deals and that the owners like signing long-term deals?

I don't think I agree with either proposition.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:22 AM
  #7
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
This is the one change I want as a fan. I dont want to be stuck with the same players, cap problems, for 10+ yrs.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:23 AM
  #8
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Pretty much, there's already a bit of an economic underclass, but these stupid contracts are pushing us towards formalizing the disparity. Every team should have a chance to sign any free agent in an ideal world, if they feel he's right for their team.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:28 AM
  #9
Langdon Alger*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
This is a small vs. big market issue. The small markets want contract length limits because the type of long contract we've seen involves amounts of money they can't afford paid up front, with lower salaries towards the end to lower the cap hit.

A simple solution would be to make a player's salary and cap hit the same. Doing so would leave the option of long contracts available to teams and players who want them, while removing the advantage the current system gives big-market teams.

Langdon Alger* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:29 AM
  #10
Octavius
Next #18?
 
Octavius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 351
vCash: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
As has been pointed out by a number of posters here and there, the owners simply can't control themselves (though don't ask me to explain the logic in that).
Owners aren't only partners in a joint venture called NHL, but also rivals as they all (hopefully) want to win. And richer teams have the options of long-term contracts, as they can afford to pay the majority of the contract in the first few years


I think that the desire to limit the contract length comes mostly from the middle and low revenue teams to insure that they don't lose players, because of contracts they cannot match or jeopardize the business if accepted (like the Weber situation).

Octavius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:34 AM
  #11
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noldo View Post
Also, only contracts up to 7 years (possibly first 7 years of longer contracts) are insureable under the League's insurance policy. The teams thus need to insure the longer contracts on their own, increasing the overall costs of teams.
This is a big reason. Not protecting the owners from themselves, etc. This is the big thing. If teams are losing money this will help individual owners be competitive with the rest of the league without incurring extra costs they can't eat up like the bigger teams can.

tbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:43 AM
  #12
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavius View Post
Owners aren't only partners in a joint venture called NHL, but also rivals as they all (hopefully) want to win.
Yeah, that's the argument that's usually presented. I still say that it's a situation of putting the potential to spend in the hands of fools. But hey, they're billionaire fools. Must be nice to be part of a system where revenue sharing bails them out to some degree. Ultimately, when it's all said and done, I still can't see much justification for having much sympathy for the owners; I know that it is essentially they that bring us the League, but they also create much of their own problems.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:48 AM
  #13
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
... so wouldn't you want a system that minimizes those self-inflicted problems?

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:49 AM
  #14
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,982
vCash: 500
Let's not kid ourselves. While owners and GM's have been complicit in these long deals, it's not like agents were sitting at the bargaining table for their big time clients and were clueless as to how to go about circumventing the cap.

Besides, what are they fighting for again? It's barely a fraction of players who sign these kinds of deals.

MtlPenFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:52 AM
  #15
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,929
vCash: 500
Some teams plan/budget so they do not sign the long length contracts. It's the teams that a) are capable of playing the high $$ values and b) have the desire to do so and c) no CBA restrictions that are.

One limitation I've heard proposed on contracts, is no more than 5% of value change between years, which would pretty much eliminate the massive front loaded deals.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:58 AM
  #16
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 392
vCash: 500
The reason the league is pushing for it is:

- It creates an unfair competitive landscape. Big signing bonuses become bought players instead of hockey moves.

- It affects the product on the ice when the salary structure makes certain players overpaid, locked-in forever. (The montreal Canadiens fans don't get to move on from Gomez any time soon, for example)

To be clear the NHL doesn't give away more or less money to the players with the cap on contract length. That amount is fixed by HRR%. This is the NHL saying that the way things are now is kind of dumb, unfair and easily repaired with no great injury to either side.

Twilight Sparkle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:59 AM
  #17
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
... so wouldn't you want a system that minimizes those self-inflicted problems?
Absolutely! But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre. And if it's only the rich teams which are offering such contracts, then it's only the rich teams that would be being harmed by such contracts... so who the **** should care? Perhaps it is those other teams, as the richer teams have been limiting access to certain players by agreeing to contracts that the poorer teams can't. And perhaps if such contracts weren't available then other teams might be able to sign those players.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:02 AM
  #18
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Absolutely! But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre. And if it's only the rich teams which are offering such contracts, then it's only the rich teams that would be being harmed by such contracts... so who the **** should care? Perhaps it is those other teams, as the richer teams have been limiting access to certain players by agreeing to contracts that the poorer teams can't. And perhaps if such contracts weren't available then other teams might be able to sign those players.
Many people have explained why it's important to restrict contract length. you choose to keep ignoring it. Why?

supahdupah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:05 AM
  #19
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
Many people have explained why it's important to restrict contract length. you choose to keep ignoring it. Why?
What??????????

I absolutely, to repeat that word, agree that contract lengths should be restricted. What are you reading??

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:06 AM
  #20
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,477
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
IMO the vast majority of the owners don't "like" long-term contracts ( ie: 15 year ) and the owners that do "like" them only do so because they saw it as a way to circumvent the salary cap.

The cap was put in for a reason and the majority of the teams play by the rules. It's the teams like Vancouver that introduced the loophole and screwed it for everyone else, so as a result Bettman wants to put in rules to stop teams from using this loophole.
Don't blame Vancouver.... The Luongo contract came pretty late in the timeline of these types of contract...


The man to give all the credit to: Darryl Sutter.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:07 AM
  #21
supahdupah
Registered Boozer
 
supahdupah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What??????????

I absolutely, to repeat that word, agree that contract lengths should be restricted. What are you reading??
Quote:
But the fact that such restrictions are even needed just seems bizarre.
This is what I am referring to.

supahdupah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:09 AM
  #22
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 0
What I don't understand is why players *don't* want a 5 year limit on contracts.

For the guys getting the long term contracts, this basically opens them up to two significant UFA periods during their career. Maybe three, if they can get the UFA age lowered to 26.

18-21 = ELC
21-26 = RFA
26-31 = UFA #1 (cha-ching!)
31-36 = UFA #2 (cha-ching!)
36-41 = UFA #3 (35+)

The only guys it "hurts" are ones like Gomez and Redden (who's NHL salary would theoretically count in the new CBA), and to a lesser extent Souray. I'm sure fans of the teams who signed those deals would be happier if their contracts expired after 5 years.

I guess it would also be bad for someone like DiPietro, but not sure if his contract was even insurable or not, but he's probably still getting paid.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:10 AM
  #23
Langdon Alger*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Don't blame Vancouver.... The Luongo contract came pretty late in the timeline of these types of contract...


The man to give all the credit to: Darryl Sutter.
What 10-year contract did Sutter ever agree to? The longest contract signed under Sutter was six years.

Langdon Alger* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:11 AM
  #24
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by supahdupah View Post
This is what I am referring to.
Yes, that the owners can't restrict themselves. Sorry, but for me that's bizarre. But if it helps to protect the League then by all means have a rule in place that demands them to restrict themselves (of the forever present loopholes might be found, as billionaires are the greatest experts at finding).

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:11 AM
  #25
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langdon Alger View Post
What 10-year contract did Sutter ever agree to? The longest contract signed under Sutter was six years.
Possibly a reference to Darryl Sutter effectively "inventing" the back diving deal with the Kipprusoff contract?

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.