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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 10:15 AM
  #26
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.
This is the key.
I think the owners will ultimately accept the 5% rule on contracts but drop the limitations on length. That change alone will put an end to most of these 10 year contracts like the one Kovalchuk signed.

Cliffy1814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:17 AM
  #27
zytz
lumberjack
 
zytz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,827
vCash: 500
It's a double-edged sword. Mostly long contracts are abused by rich teams to fit stars into the cap at a low-ish hit. It also allows for teams that may be more middle of the road to compete for top UFAs, even though they really might not be able to afford it. Can Minnesota really afford Suter and Parise? Personally I don't think it's healthy for them to have those contracts, but due to long term contracts it becomes feasible on paper.

Edit: personally I like the idea of term limits... as no restriction on lengths almost makes the current system a soft cap. However you look at it it's circumvention of the whole point of the cap, and I'd like to see that stopped or significantly slowed because its causing teams to get themselves into trouble.

zytz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:22 AM
  #28
strongbad
Registered User
 
strongbad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
vCash: 500
If that money wasn't all guaranteed, the owners wouldn't have an issue. Some of these players don't live up to their contract expectations, and there's nothing that can be done as a result.

strongbad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:23 AM
  #29
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zytz View Post
It's a double-edged sword. Mostly long contracts are abused by rich teams to fit stars into the cap at a low-ish hit. It also allows for teams that may be more middle of the road to compete for top UFAs, even though they really might not be able to afford it. Can Minnesota really afford Suter and Parise? Personally I don't think it's healthy for them to have those contracts, but due to long term contracts it becomes feasible on paper.

Edit: personally I like the idea of term limits... as no restriction on lengths almost makes the current system a soft cap. However you look at it it's circumvention of the whole point of the cap, and I'd like to see that stopped or significantly slowed because its causing teams to get themselves into trouble.
All true, but I like the 5% rule as a way for the owners to essentially accomplish the same objective. That would nullify the dramatically lower salaires in years 8,9,10 of a contract that artificially deflate the average cap hit.

Cliffy1814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:28 AM
  #30
ScherbakAttack
Registered User
 
ScherbakAttack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
I absolutely HATE long contracts. Anything longer than 6 years is just ridiculous IMO.

I see no problem removing long contracts.

ScherbakAttack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:42 AM
  #31
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Possibly a reference to Darryl Sutter effectively "inventing" the back diving deal with the Kipprusoff contract?
Yup. He even had a slightly more extreme initial version of the contract rejected by the league.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:52 AM
  #32
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,760
vCash: 500
1. 8 yr maximum contract length

2. yearly salary cannot vary from any other salary year by more than 10 - 15%

Virtually ALL of the goofy (long term/retirement) contract issues will go away. (all in a cap world of course)

I don't know how some "creative" GMs could get around those 2 points to screw up the system again, and make other GMs try to beat you on the next big UFA.

But again, there's only 10 - 15 massively front-loaded contracts anyway... but I think they should obviously go away. They set a bad precedent.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:53 AM
  #33
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Stewie Hockey™
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Salt Mines
Country: Bermuda
Posts: 8,945
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Yup. He even had a slightly more extreme initial version of the contract rejected by the league.
Then we'll have to give credit where credit is due - Michael Holditch is the financial guru behind that idea. While a good hockey mind, Sutter can't count past 10 without taking off his shoes boots.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:05 AM
  #34
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,394
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?

He's not ignoring anything. The CBA had some flaws that allowed exploitation, which heavily favored the richer teams.

Bettman want's to close off those loopholes, and probably has the backing of the smaller teams, or those who won't use those cap-circumventing methods (I'd gander Burke may be in that category).


The recently expired CBA introduced a new term (and position) to the NHL team management group--- capologist.

Their job is to find numerical means to fit together 22-ish roster spots, given the existing restrictions.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:11 AM
  #35
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post
* The wage cap was proposed from the owners back in 2004/2005.
And?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post
* 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.
That's kinda the point. It's intended to be put into place to stop teams from circumventing the cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieLima View Post
* Signing up players on long-term contracts is something that the owners “like”.
Not really, it's just a tool that is at use to give an advantage. If you don't use it you're at a disadvantage. While they don't like it, they're gonna use it if it means keeping/acquiring star players.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:14 AM
  #36
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post

That's kinda the point. It's intended to be put into place to stop teams from circumventing the cap.
Perhaps his point was that the cap has created some undesirable consequences itself which could easily be fixed by removing the cap. Sure, there may be other poisons, but the more complex a system gets, the more things that can go wrong.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:14 AM
  #37
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
1. 8 yr maximum contract length

2. yearly salary cannot vary from any other salary year by more than 10 - 15%

Virtually ALL of the goofy (long term/retirement) contract issues will go away. (all in a cap world of course)
Realistically I think that's probably where we'll end up (Although I could see it being around seven years max.

And even if it is seven years, the front-loaded contracts should die off. You don't see many front-loaded seven year deals. You're talking 10+ years. Most front loaded deals come when a player is 24-27 years old. They aren't gonna be looking to surrender any money in their early 30s.

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:16 AM
  #38
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Perhaps his point was that the cap has created some undesirable consequences itself which could easily be fixed by removing the cap.
The parity that has been generated over the last seven seasons would call that point foolish.

And I fail to see how the solution to front-loaded contracts is removing the cap so that owners can do whatever they want with their money....

Wingsfan2965* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:22 AM
  #39
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,731
vCash: 500
The positive of these deals is that you don't have dismantle a team that has had the "fortune" to succeed. Example is Chicago where even though they had to lose a lot of players, they couldn't have kept Hossa and possibly would have had to sacrifice one of their Big two defensemen if it wasn't for the long term deals.

I mean I hate long-term deals any much as anybody but I don't want teams to get punished because they are good.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:39 AM
  #40
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 31,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
The parity that has been generated over the last seven seasons would call that point foolish.

And I fail to see how the solution to front-loaded contracts is removing the cap so that owners can do whatever they want with their money....

What's more foolish is citing something that doesn't exist-- parity.

You will have a hard time finding data to support "parity". It makes for a great sound byte, but the math to support it is absent. [edit: as a direct function of this cap; some will note the parity that existed prior to the cap]

It took a cap system to lead to lifetime contracts being the norm for players, and in some cases massively long contracts for guys years away from UFA status. We have decades of examples for what owners do with their money absent a cap.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:42 AM
  #41
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes, that the owners can't restrict themselves. Sorry, but for me that's bizarre.
There's probably a high-fallootin' term for this in game theory, but it comes down to competitive pressure.

If you get all the owners together in a group, and put them across the table from the players, it's very easy for the owners to explain why long-term contracts are hurting their organizations.

But if you take those same owners and put them across the table from each other bidding over the services of a franchise player, all of a sudden the dynamics change. Whether or not it hurts the organization, the owner is often faced with either signing a long-term deal or missing an opportunity to obtain a marquee player.

And of course if the owners jointly agreed to simply not offer such contracts, that would be illegal collusion. Since self-restraint and collective restraint are off the table, the remaining option is to write restrictions into the CBA.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:02 PM
  #42
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What's more foolish is citing something that doesn't exist-- parity.

You will have a hard time finding data to support "parity". It makes for a great sound byte, but the math to support it is absent. [edit: as a direct function of this cap; some will note the parity that existed prior to the cap]

It took a cap system to lead to lifetime contracts being the norm for players, and in some cases massively long contracts for guys years away from UFA status. We have decades of examples for what owners do with their money absent a cap.
How many players have "lifetime contracts?" Maybe 15 - 25?... if you count 5 - 7 yr deals it may go up to 30 - 40 players. Out of 700 NHLPA members? That's hardly the norm.

Set a realistic term length (7 or 8 yrs), then we can start gathering data for the next several decades with a cap.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:16 PM
  #43
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
They should definitely limit contract terms, and when they do, call it:

"The Rick DiPietro Provision"

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:17 PM
  #44
Bad Will Hunting
It's my fault
 
Bad Will Hunting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Southie
Posts: 26,248
vCash: 69
I think a 7 year contract length is reasonable. But Bettman has to realize that for every concession he wants, he is going to concede something to the PA

Bad Will Hunting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:31 PM
  #45
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,517
vCash: 500
I don't have a problem with long term deals. I have a problem with long term deals that takes a player WELL beyond what I consider his shelf life.

There are players that can play well and deep into their late 30's. These guys are few few and far between.

I would propose a solution that no extra-long term contract signed before the age of 30 can take a player beyond his 35th Birthday. If the player has a Birthday during the season, the last year of the contract has to be during the season he turns 34.

Then, cap contracts at 3 years for any player 35 years old or turning 35 during the first season after signing a contract

I believe that this would benefit the player as well since he would be able to sign another contract and if he is one of the lucky few that maintain an upper tier level of productivity, he could then cash in on a solid 3 year deal.

Long term contracts are not a problem.

The language of Annual Average Value IS the problem because it then gave GM's the green light to sign 12-15 year deals with throw away seasons at the end to artifically lower the AAV.

Bettman is asking for both 5 year term limits and just a 5% salary swing from year to year for salary adjustments.

He will get a hybrid solution of the two. It's pretty obvious that the players would prefer to retain the long term deals. The 5% adjustment is the key.

I would expect them to settle on max term of 8 years and no more than a 10% salary adjustment in any one year of the term.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:44 PM
  #46
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And of course if the owners jointly agreed to simply not offer such contracts, that would be illegal collusion. Since self-restraint and collective restraint are off the table, the remaining option is to write restrictions into the CBA.
Yes, that's the part that fails me. That they can't legally do it without the paper to say it, but they can do it by having it writing down in the CBA. Yeah, I know, doing naturally would be wrong, but forcing the PA to sign to it would be right.

Still say that the primary obstacle to doing it naturally is the varying perspectives of the owners themselves as to what the contract limit should be. It's the great economic disparity which exists in the League which truly must force the owners to put guidelines in place which can keep salary costs within the reasonable reach of all.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 11-09-2012 at 12:59 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:57 PM
  #47
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,841
vCash: 500
In a lot of these threads there is a fundamental lack of economic knowledge, namely supply & demand. We wouldnt need contract term limits if the supply exceeded demand. Unfortunately that isnt the case in this league.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:03 PM
  #48
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
In a lot of these threads there is a fundamental lack of economic knowledge, namely supply & demand. We wouldnt need contract term limits if the supply exceeded demand. Unfortunately that isnt the case in this league.
The supply for what and the demand for what? You're not saying that there is a greater demand for hockey than there is a supply of hockey to go around, are you? Or is it the supply of players available to meet the demand for players? Whichever, it's still got to come down to how much public demand there is for hockey, in order for the owners to earn the quantities of $ that they keep offering the players.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:05 PM
  #49
Bad Will Hunting
It's my fault
 
Bad Will Hunting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Southie
Posts: 26,248
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
In a lot of these threads there is a fundamental lack of economic knowledge, namely supply & demand. We wouldnt need contract term limits if the supply exceeded demand. Unfortunately that isnt the case in this league.
Supply is never going to exceed demand. The type of contracts prompting this have been(and are likely going to be) offered to super star/ franchise type players. There will never be enough of them in the league

Bad Will Hunting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:06 PM
  #50
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I don't have a problem with long term ...

...He will get a hybrid solution of the two. It's pretty obvious that the players would prefer to retain the long term deals. The 5% adjustment is the key.

I would expect them to settle on max term of 8 years and no more than a 10% salary adjustment in any one year of the term.
How big a deal is this for the players?

What problem would there be to having, for example, a 5 year maximum?

middletoe 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 04:23 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.