The owners are the ones seeking a limit on contract years, so I don't think they share your displeasure on the matter.
- BulliesPhan87

I would like to know exactly which owners are against long term contracts. In my mind the Islanders are the club that started insane long term contracts and they've always been poor.

i just think its on of those things they threw in there to have the players strike it down. Then they will be able to say they made concessions as well. if they didnt want those contracts than what the hell was last summer lol
- Philly1980

It was them playing by the rules. It's been accurately described as 'protecting the owners from themselves'. In a situation where they must compete with each other for talent, they had to use long term contracts to succeed. That doesn't make it illogical that they'd want to curtail that now, when they're all on the same page.

If the contracts given out this summer were what the owners wanted, you'd think they want massively higher player salaries too.

EDIT: As for five years being too short, I wouldn't mind seeing it bumped to seven or eight years.

It was them playing by the rules. It's been accurately described as 'protecting the owners from themselves'. In a situation where they must compete with each other for talent, they had to use long term contracts to succeed. That doesn't make it illogical that they'd want to curtail that now, when they're all on the same page.

If the contracts given out this summer were what the owners wanted, you'd think they want massively higher player salaries too.

EDIT: As for five years being too short, I wouldn't mind seeing it bumped to seven or eight years.
- BulliesPhan87

The NHL should be able to franchise players which would allow them some contract flexibility with the player.

The NHL should be able to franchise players which would allow them some contract flexibility with the player.
- Philly1980

I'd be interested in seeing something link that added to a proposal. But I'm still in favor of a reasonable maximum limit on contract years.

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'd also like to see an attempt to undo the 'cap hit based on AAV' thing. It was because of it that structuring salaries a certain way could alter the cap hit, so why not just have salary = cap hit?

Lets get a deal done!

Lets get a deal done!
- stveshdy

Yes, please!

I'd be interested in seeing something link that added to a proposal. But I'm still in favor of a reasonable maximum limit on contract years.

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'd also like to see an attempt to undo the 'cap hit based on AAV' thing. It was because of it that structuring salaries a certain way could alter the cap hit, so why not just have salary = cap hit?
- BulliesPhan87

Its common in business to spread out the cost of something....Even my company when they built their datacenter they are splitting the cost up over ten years. Im guessing they get loans to cover some of these large contracts.

Its common in business to spread out the cost of something....Even my company when they built their datacenter they are splitting the cost up over ten years. Im guessing they get loans to cover some of these large contracts.
- Philly1980

Except the frontloaded contracts do the exact opposite, they payout the majority at the beginning instead of spreading it out. So again, I think it's worth considering to do away with the annual average approach and remove the temptation to frontload.

Yes, please!
- BulliesPhan87

I need something to watch during the weekdays. There's a chance the league can still have an 82 game season, lets get it done.

I need something to watch during the weekdays. There's a chance the league can still have an 82 game season, lets get it done.
- stveshdy

Amen, sir. There's new Grossmann avatars waiting to be made!

Lets face it revenues for the bottom 8 are never going to go up no matter how competitive they are.....their fanbases suck and show minimal support no matter how successful their clubs are.
- Philly1980

Your conclusion is right, but your reasoning is wrong. Some markets simply have advantages due to size or location that other markets will never have - and that allows the larger, more favorably located markets to raise revenues much more easily. Support from the fan base, performance of the team on the ice, and other such stuff can't compensate for that.

A team like St. Louis will almost always be in the bottom-8 of revenues; it has nothing to do with the fan base [it's strong, it will support a team where the ownership doesn't throw in the towel a la Bill Laurie in 2005-06] but the economics of that market simply make it impossible for the team to take up season ticket prices to the point that they're out of the bottom-8. There's few large companies left, which means a smaller and more shaky economic base - which makes selling luxury boxes and club seats at premium prices much more difficult. Even in the ideal setting with the Blues winning the Cup, they would still struggle to get out of the bottom-10 for more than a year or two.

That's not an indictment of the fan base. That's the simple reality of the St. Louis market and the economics underlying it.

EDIT: As for five years being too short, I wouldn't mind seeing it bumped to seven or eight years.
- BulliesPhan87

So, you're OK with a 36-year old player having a 7-8 year long contract ... right? I'm going to guess not - which really means you don't want a "max length" contract that's one size fits all; you really want something that varies based on age. I suggest the following:

1. If the player is 36 or younger at the time the contract starts, the max length is the greater of "36 - players age" or 3 years.
2. If the plyaer is 37-39 when the contract starts, the max length is 2 years.
3. If the player is 40+, the max length is 1 year.

This still allows for 13-year deals, but ensures they end by 36 [when the player is still reasonably expected to be playing]. However, it prevents the ultra-long, "... and when he's 39-40, there's little chance he'll still be around" deals we've seen.

The NHL should be able to franchise players which would allow them some contract flexibility with the player.
- Philly1980

Great in theory - but I can blow holes in such an idea all day long. It wouldn't favor small-market teams like many think; depending on how the idea was worded, it might even punish them.

Lets get a deal done!
- stveshdy

PLEASE

Amen, sir. There's new Grossmann avatars waiting to be made!
- BulliesPhan87

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I'd also like to see an attempt to undo the 'cap hit based on AAV' thing. It was because of it that structuring salaries a certain way could alter the cap hit, so why not just have salary = cap hit?
- BulliesPhan87

Such an idea is more simple to understand, but it ends up making the salary cap system even harder. For a team like the Flyers, it prevents them from spending now in a "Cup or Bust" scenario; for a team like the Blues, it forces them to spend in real dollars to the cap floor - which puts even more financial pressure on them [and actually means they need even more revenue sharing to afford to hit the cap floor]. It will also make trades more difficult to pull off; throw in the "you can trade cap space" idea, and it will make trades more complicated since you have to match actual dollars for all years. As noted above, there's perfectly legitimate business reasons why you might want to front-load or back-load a contract; setting salary = cap hit removes that flexibility.

So, you're OK with a 36-year old player having a 7-8 year long contract ... right? I'm going to guess not - which really means you don't want a "max length" contract that's one size fits all; you really want something that varies based on age. I suggest the following:

1. If the player is 36 or younger at the time the contract starts, the max length is the greater of "36 - players age" or 3 years.
2. If the plyaer is 37-39 when the contract starts, the max length is 2 years.
3. If the player is 40+, the max length is 1 year.

This still allows for 13-year deals, but ensures they end by 36
- Irish Blues[when the player is still reasonably expected to be playing]. However, it prevents the ultra-long, "... and when he's 39-40, there's little chance he'll still be around" deals we've seen.


Great in theory - but I can blow holes in such an idea all day long. It wouldn't favor small-market teams like many think; depending on how the idea was worded, it might even punish them.

I didn't say anything about one size fits all or 36 year old players, I was just commenting on the reported five year limit in the proposal. But since we're on the topic now, here goes:

I favor a simple maximum limit on years to a system that does NOT allow younger players to get thirteen year deals (with the exception of perhaps one 'franchise player' if such a function could be hammered out). Five years is a bit short, but I think a limit on contract years is a good way to get rid of these huge frontloaded contracts used to save on the cap. As for older players, I wouldn't mind a much shorter limit on contract years (one, two, or three years, something to that effect), or even something similar to the current rule where their hit stays on the cap if they retire.

EDIT: Cleared up some unclear language.

EDIT 2: As for Philly1980's franchise player idea, sure you could blow holes in it, and perhaps bad wording could be punishing. But any rule with bad wording could punish teams. I don't think that's any reason to consider the idea itself bad.

I didn't say anything about one size fits all or 36 year old players, I was just commenting on the reported five year limit in the proposal. But since we're on the topic now, here goes:

I favor a simple maximum limit on years to a system that does NOT allow younger players to get thirteen year deals (with the exception of perhaps one 'franchise player' if such a function could be hammered out). Five years is a bit short, but I think a limit on contract years is a good way to get rid of these huge frontloaded contracts used to save on the cap. As for older players, I wouldn't mind a much shorter limit on contract years (one, two, or three years, something to that effect), or even something similar to the current rule where their hit stays on the cap if they retire.

EDIT: Cleared up some unclear language.

EDIT 2: As for Philly1980's franchise player idea, sure you could blow holes in it, and perhaps bad wording could be punishing. But any rule with bad wording could punish teams. I don't think that's any reason to consider the idea itself bad.
- BulliesPhan87

I have no problem with a 13-year, front-loaded contract with big signing bonuses in the first few years [especially since the signing bonuses count agaisnt the cap anyway]. I do have a problem with that contract if it lets teams incur cap savings up front, then never have to pay that savings back. If a team wants to handcuff itself with a 13-year, front-loaded contract, I have no problem letting them do that - but I want to make sure if that contract blows up, that team has to pay for it. Forcing the full cap hit to apply if the player isn't in the NHL isn't the way to go; it ensures that the players get paid less than the amounts incurred against the cap, and so the owners have to cut a check after the fact. The players want that money up front as much as possible.

The entire cap system is based on "$ paid while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap." Once you remove that in some form, the entire structure of the cap system becomes more unstable and guarantees someone is going to get screwed over; the more you loosen that restriction, the more unstable it gets and the more problems that result. What's out there right now is a lazy, half-assed solution that guarantees problems down the road and will require new "solutions" to fix the problems that result - and those "solutions" are likely to be just as half-assed.

Re: franchise players - every such idea that's been offered up revolves around some form of "home grown" discount or benefit available to only players who are still with the team that originally drafted them. The NHLPA will never go for a system where a player can irrevocably lose rights based on actions largely out of the control of the players [i.e., a 21-year old has no control over where or if he's traded, or if he's waived and claimed by someone else - and under every "homegrown" proposal, once moved to another team he can never be franchised]. Besides, as long as the players are guaranteed a percentage of HRR and not one penny more, any "franchise player" idea is really a zero-sum game that shifts dollars from the handful who have the ability to benefit at the expense of everyone else who can never benefit. The vast majority of the NHLPA is unlikely to handcuff itself by accepting such an idea.

So, you're OK with a 36-year old player having a 7-8 year long contract ... right? I'm going to guess not - which really means you don't want a "max length" contract that's one size fits all; you really want something that varies based on age. I suggest the following:

1. If the player is 36 or younger at the time the contract starts, the max length is the greater of "36 - players age" or 3 years.
2. If the plyaer is 37-39 when the contract starts, the max length is 2 years.
3. If the player is 40+, the max length is 1 year.

This still allows for 13-year deals, but ensures they end by 36
- Irish Blues[when the player is still reasonably expected to be playing]. However, it prevents the ultra-long, "... and when he's 39-40, there's little chance he'll still be around" deals we've seen.


Great in theory - but I can blow holes in such an idea all day long. It wouldn't favor small-market teams like many think; depending on how the idea was worded, it might even punish them.

wasnt trying to make it favor small mkt teams lol

I have no problem with a 13-year, front-loaded contract with big signing bonuses in the first few years
- Irish Blues[especially since the signing bonuses count agaisnt the cap anyway]. I do have a problem with that contract if it lets teams incur cap savings up front, then never have to pay that savings back. If a team wants to handcuff itself with a 13-year, front-loaded contract, I have no problem letting them do that - but I want to make sure if that contract blows up, that team has to pay for it. Forcing the full cap hit to apply if the player isn't in the NHL isn't the way to go; it ensures that the players get paid less than the amounts incurred against the cap, and so the owners have to cut a check after the fact. The players want that money up front as much as possible.

The entire cap system is based on "$ paid while in the NHL" = "$ incurred against the cap." Once you remove that in some form, the entire structure of the cap system becomes more unstable and guarantees someone is going to get screwed over; the more you loosen that restriction, the more unstable it gets and the more problems that result. What's out there right now is a lazy, half-assed solution that guarantees problems down the road and will require new "solutions" to fix the problems that result - and those "solutions" are likely to be just as half-assed.

Re: franchise players - every such idea that's been offered up revolves around some form of "home grown" discount or benefit available to only players who are still with the team that originally drafted them. The NHLPA will never go for a system where a player can irrevocably lose rights based on actions largely out of the control of the players [i.e., a 21-year old has no control over where or if he's traded, or if he's waived and claimed by someone else - and under every "homegrown" proposal, once moved to another team he can never be franchised]. Besides, as long as the players are guaranteed a percentage of HRR and not one penny more, any "franchise player" idea is really a zero-sum game that shifts dollars from the handful who have the ability to benefit at the expense of everyone else who can never benefit. The vast majority of the NHLPA is unlikely to handcuff itself by accepting such an idea.

But isnt it that way now....i mean look at pronger the guy is finished due to injury and we have to go through this game of doctor every year with him. There should be some exceptions like in the case of injury.

only caught the 3rd period, but Bryz let up a pretty bad goal on the GWG. The last two were both the result of horrible defense, including a turnover at the blueline by the defenseman. Good thing it doesn't really matter.

only caught the 3rd period, but Bryz let up a pretty bad goal on the GWG. The last two were both the result of horrible defense, including a turnover at the blueline by the defenseman. Good thing it doesn't really matter.
- wilsonecho91

Open the floodgates..

The "no change in salary by year of more than 5%" idea is just asinine. It's a fan-based solution that fixes nothing and is much more likely to drive up salaries, which does nothing to fix the (non-)problem of the higher values of the "2nd contract". If anything, it will push those contracts up even higher - and, with the change in the length of ELC's and age for UFA, will either encourage players to take a 1-year deal post-ELC and then a 5-year deal, or vice-versa. Either way, it will be more likely that players hit UFA at age 28 because that will be the next chance to get big dollars.
- Irish Blues

That's exactly what the league wants.

It's no secret that they want to get rid of guaranteed contracts, but know that PA will never agree to that. So they're composing rules that will have players taking shorter-term deals = less guaranteed money floating around.

Open the floodgates..
- funmaster18

2012-13 Flyers Slogan: "Overcoming Bryzasters"

Not as catchy as "Vengeance" or "Hungry for More," but it'll work.

That's exactly what the league wants.

It's no secret that they want to get rid of guaranteed contracts, but know that PA will never agree to that. So they're composing rules that will have players taking shorter-term deals = less guaranteed money floating around.
- bradleyc4

Saving owners/GM's from themselves - or their more-affluent contemporaries.

2012-13 Flyers Slogan: "Overcoming Bryzasters"

Not as catchy as "Vengeance" or "Hungry for More," but it'll work.
- Flyskippy