The club is happy.
The owner is very happy.
So are the fans.
Everyone is just peachy about Scott Hartnell re-upping on a 6-year, $28.5 million contract extension with the Flyers on Monday.
Everyone, that is, except the NHLPA and some agents.
Hartnell got a very modest bump in salary from a $4.2 million cap hit on his present deal to $4.75 on his next deal which begins 2013-14. Had he waited until free agency next summer, he would have gotten more than $5 million as an AAV.
What he settled for was not a lot for a guy who just turned 30 coming off a career year. And yet, I don’t think there are many NHL clubs who would have given Hartnell a six-year contract knowing he’ll be 37 at its end.
The two selling points were the length and a modified no-movement clause, which is pretty much standard on a lot of Flyer deals with their older veterans.
I can see why Hartnell took the deal – long-term job security. But his union and agents see it very differently.
Hartnell is one the 30 player reps on the CBA negotiating committee. It doesn’t make his peers look very united when he accepts a contract for under current market value to get maximum length job security at a time when the owners are trying to again hammer the players.
I don’t blame him, but I can assure you his peers aren’t entirely thrilled.
So here’s my debate question: because Hartnell is a player rep and has direct input into the CBA talks, is he obligated to demand market value, as a representative of his peers and for the greater good of the union?
Or does he only owe himself to get the best possible deal, regardless of how it may impact other players and regardless of whether he sits on any union committee?
It’s not an easy situation.
It wasn’t years ago, either, when Bobby Clarke had two contracts with the Flyers – one filed with the union as a player and a separate personal services contract to the club.
Let the debate begin. We got lots of time with this lockout coming.
Here's more stories on CSNPhilly.com:
click here 
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»