EDIT: As I fear that I'm taking us off track, I'll bring it back to my initial point--contract length limits are unnecessary, especially with a small yearly deviance cap. I'm not advocating for the baseball model, simply illustrating that a lack of contract length limits hasn't been detrimental to the competitive balance of that sport. The "broken" system in the NHL has been just as successful as any other system when it comes to allowing numerous teams to succeed. Capping contract lengths won't suddenly make poor teams profitable, and it won't make them more competitive.
I'm saying max contract lengths is good for the sport and good for ownership and good for most players because most of them are not gonna get over a 5 year deal anyway.
It just frees up badly invested money sooner. And all it costs is the retirement packages for a small handful of superstars.
Not only winning titles. The NFL and NBA simply don't have black hole franchises that do not compete like the MLB does. You would get that but worse if the NHL continued to move towards the MLB product.
The NBA has had a couple that are horribly run but it's not due to lack of income so much.
As my edit explained, I'm not interested in moving toward the MLB system. The NHL needs to come up with its own model for success. I don't think contract limits need to be part of it though.
Not only winning titles. The NFL and NBA simply don't have black hole franchises that do not compete like the MLB does. You would get that but worse if the NHL continued to move towards the MLB product.
The NBA has had a couple that are horribly run but it's not due to lack of income so much.
Thats not true. Only a few teams in the NBA actually profit.
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
Many feel #NHL is trying to squeeze players as much as possible as long as there's time on the clock.
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
@PredPAPaul Sense players are more willing to miss entire season than owners are if we were to reach that point
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
@AwsumnessReigns players
Tim Panaccio @tpanotchCSN
there is no confirmation whether mediators can arrive today or whether the NHL will agree to re-introduce them to the process.
JoshuaCooper @JoshuaCooper
From the periphery, the mediation request seems like stall tactic...
I'm saying max contract lengths is good for the sport and good for ownership and good for most players because most of them are not gonna get over a 5 year deal anyway.
It just frees up badly invested money sooner. And all it costs is the retirement packages for a small handful of superstars.
Sather has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract. You get rid of one, he'll add another. Again, it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of management that's responsible for these deals. You see a quicker turnaround on freeing up poorly spent money, I see a quicker turnaround on new poorly-spent money.
If teams want to waste their money and struggle as a result, we should let them. If the Isles want to give an overrated goalie a gajillion-year contract, hot on the heels of getting burned by Yashin's billion-year deal, why should they be stopped?
I think we're all just freaking out and speculating about nothing. No one knows what's going on inside right now. Let's just hope they meet this afternoon and that things can be patched over and continue to advance
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.
Sather has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract. You get rid of one, he'll add another.
If a team has 7 million a year tied up in DiPietro for the next decade right now, well, what if he was capped at 5 years instead?
A poor GM might hand out another bad deal, but you can be sure it's not going to DiPietro again.
It's good for the other players to spread the money around instead of keeping it all in Rick DiPietro's pocket.
In a cap system where the owners can't spend beyond a certain amount, less for Rick DiPietro means more for someone else.
So once again, these long term deals are only benefitting the few players who receive them and hurting all the other players.
Quote:
Again, it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of management that's responsible for these deals. You see a quicker turnaround on freeing up poorly spent money, I see a quicker turnaround on new poorly-spent money.
So? It still gets more evenly distributed among the players.
Instead of one 10 year, 70 million dollar contract (for example), at worst you've now got two 5 year, 35 million dollar contracts. It's a 2-for-1.
Quote:
If teams want to waste their money and struggle as a result, we should let them.
Why should we let them? The CBA is in place not only to govern the relationships between players and owners, but also for the good of the game.
It's best for the sport not to allow these deals. You claim you see "new poorly spent money" but that is not necessarily true. Did the Rangers sign another Scott Gomez after freeing themselves from his contract? No, they invested that money much more wisely in Marian Gaborik.
It improved their team more, which improves the quality of the product they put on the ice, which improves the game.
Thats not true. Only a few teams in the NBA actually profit.
A good portion of the "losses" of several NBA teams is actually due to accounting.
For instance, after the Nets were sold, the purchase price was much greater than the tangible assets of the franchise, so the difference between the two had to go on the balance sheet as an intangible asset. A portion of this total is then amortized over a certain length of time. This shows up on the income statement of the team as an expense, but no actual money was lost.
In 2005, the Nets declared a loss of over $40 million, but actual dollar amounts were around $7 or $8 million. This is true for all franchises that have been sold recently.
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.
Agreed - get creative with it. At 5 years, the year to year variance can be 10%, at 7-8 years, its 5%, something like that. But overall, yes, I think the 5 year thing is bonkers.
I also cant believe this is the issue that could cancel a season.
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.
I don't see why the players should have to "get anything." They are getting the benefit of shorter contracts, which helps most of them.
But I agree I think 5 years is a bit too short. There is also something to be said for a team being able to maintain stability with it's stars. That is also good for the product.
I don't see why the players should have to "get anything." They are getting the benefit of shorter contracts, which helps most of them.
But I agree I think 5 years is a bit too short. There is also something to be said for a team being able to maintain stability with it's stars. That is also good for the product.
I'd go with 7 years like the NFL does.
How do limited contracts benefit the players? Thats an insane thing to say.
Its about security for them.
Ive taken the owners side on a lot of issues, but not this one. They need to deal with the year to year variance issues far more than capping a term on contract lengths. Thats like going to the dentist for a cleaning and coming out with a root canal.
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
Many feel #NHL is trying to squeeze players as much as possible as long as there's time on the clock.
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
@PredPAPaul Sense players are more willing to miss entire season than owners are if we were to reach that point
Andy Strickland @andystrickland
@AwsumnessReigns players
Tim Panaccio @tpanotchCSN
there is no confirmation whether mediators can arrive today or whether the NHL will agree to re-introduce them to the process.
JoshuaCooper @JoshuaCooper
From the periphery, the mediation request seems like stall tactic...
If a team has 7 million a year tied up in DiPietro for the next decade right now, well, what if he was capped at 5 years instead?
A poor GM might hand out another bad deal, but you can be sure it's not going to DiPietro again.
It's good for the other players to spread the money around instead of keeping it all in Rick DiPietro's pocket.
In a cap system where the owners can't spend beyond a certain amount, less for Rick DiPietro means more for someone else.
So once again, these long term deals are only benefitting the few players who receive them and hurting all the other players.
So? It still gets more evenly distributed among the players.
Instead of one 10 year, 70 million dollar contract (for example), at worst you've now got two 5 year, 35 million dollar contracts. It's a 2-for-1.
Why should we let them? The CBA is in place not only to govern the relationships between players and owners, but also for the good of the game.
It's best for the sport not to allow these deals. You claim you see "new poorly spent money" but that is not necessarily true. Did the Rangers sign another Scott Gomez after freeing themselves from his contract? No, they invested that money much more wisely in Marian Gaborik.
It improved their team more, which improves the quality of the product they put on the ice, which improves the game.
I'm getting too tired to keep going back and forth.
Goes to show how tough these negotiations are. You and I could go for days on just this topic. And neither of us (I'm assuming) have any financial stake in these discussions.
I do collective bargaining for a living, and damn does it get stressful. When you have a true vested interest in the negotiations it gets that much more heated.
I just hope that they get a deal done that works for all parties...and soon.
How do limited contracts benefit the players? Thats an insane thing to say.
Its about security for them.
If they think it's about security, they need to re-think the issue.
Seriously, tell me how much of a percentage of the players get over 5 year deals anyway.
Is it more than 5%? 10%? I highly doubt it.
So for the vast majority of players, they never get more than 5 year deals anyway. So by capping contract lengths at 5 years, 90% of those players are not affected.
Therefore, the argument that it's about "security" only affects the players getting contracts longer than 5 years.
And for a player that is getting a longer-than-5-year-deal.... well... it ain't gonna be for the league minimum, ya follow? A player who has gotten one of these ten or twelve year deals is getting $5 million, $7 million, or $9 million a season.
So don't tell me about security. They don't need it. They want more cash in their pockets like any greedy person.
The people who need "security" are the players who make the league minimum. The ones who are only gonna have 4-5 year careers and who will sacrifice their bodies and then have to get real jobs afterwards.
So how does this benefit them?
Well, like I just said.... if you give Rick DiPietro a 10 year, $70 million deal, under a cap system, that is $70 million that cannot be given to any other player who plays during that 10 year period.
So if you limit Rick DiPietro's contract to 5 years, well, Rick still walks away with $35 million. So I scoff at his silly "security" needs.
But now after 5 years, you can divide that remaining $35 million among new players. Some of it will trickle down to the role players and the smaller guys who DO NEED security.
At the very least, even if a GM rushes right out and makes another bad contract, at the very least, it has been two 5 year contracts worth $35 million each, instead of one 10 year contract worth $70 million. At the very worst, you have turned one bad contract into two.
But now, the money that you would have paid that second bad contract has been freed up. So it will trickle down to the smaller players.
That's how it helps the players.
The only people who have a vested interest in these long term deals are the megastars.
It's only "insanity" not to realize they are the ones who primarily benefit here, and that the small time players who NEED the money would benefit much more from shorter contracts for everyone. It puts the big fish more on their level.
Plus, while the rank-and-file membership might support the official NHLPA position of a shorter deal being better, their instincts could be to want a longer deal. That would prevent them from having to go through another CBA squabble during their careers.
They don't like the cap on contracts, but the reality is that the majority of players don't receive contracts longer than five years. Those multiyear deals are generally for star players.
They don't like the cap on contracts, but the reality is that the majority of players don't receive contracts longer than five years. Those multiyear deals are generally for star players.
I like how basically the entire day has been no real news because the players have been in meetings, so every person with a twitter account needs to weigh on what's happening right this moment, where talks stand, who's screwing up and making a mistake, etc
Nothing at all has happened, nothing has changed, players have been meeting and that's it.
I was thinking about this earlier. It seems like it would be backwards. You'd think the NHL would want a shorter term in case they screw up the CBA again and you'd think the players would want a longer term so they don't have to have as many givebacks in future CBA's...??
Youve given little to no thought about how that would effect the market for players overall.
If the longest they can sign a star player for is 5 years, you think they're going to be willing to sign a bottom 6 guy for 3-4 years. They'd see their terms lowered to. You've apparently fooled yourself into thinking all will be fine with them.
Like the tweets above, I'm pro union, but if Fehr is going to pull this bs trying to salvage every last victory/peanut for the NHLPA then he is a true ass****
