December 7th, 2012, 12:25 PM #211
I don't disagree with a single word you wrote there. But I alluded to as much in my first post. My broader point was simply that among the various contracting issues, salary cap circumvention was but one of the many underlying concerns. So even if salary cap circumvention becomes a thing of the past, there remain other concerns, such as fostering competitive balance, limiting the downside risk of "bad" contracts, etc.
Originally Posted by santiclaws
December 7th, 2012, 12:34 PM #212
Without the ability of the gm's to decrease the AAV of these contracts against the cap it shortens the pool of money first and foremost. Secondly don't forget this is also meant to limit that 2nd contract where gm's risk losing a developed player to FA. Doughty's deal aside the variance issue will not allow not only a ramp on the backside but a ramp on the front side. The overall effect of the variance limit is it will absolutely prevent a player from signing a longer term deal in general, not talking about 8-10 year deals. Moreso we are talking about the player that might get a 4 year deal will now only get 3.
Originally Posted by Bollocks
December 7th, 2012, 12:46 PM #213
Sort of how like it used to be until these anomalies of 10 year deals started cropping up in the past five years? Players used to always get 3-4 year deals and there was never an issue. It has only become one now that players see that they can make a ton more money up front with these BS deals and their retirement years being worked into them.
Originally Posted by jammer06
December 7th, 2012, 12:51 PM #214
and she appreciates it
Originally Posted by FishMonger
December 7th, 2012, 12:56 PM #215
The recently expired NHL CBA allowed the richest teams in the league to circumvent the cap at will with back-diving contracts featuring tacked on years, Long-Term Injured Reserved exemptions and by stashing bad contracts in the AHL or overseas.
Originally Posted by Bollocks
The reality is the top revenue teams operated under a soft cap system. Even with a 5 year contract limit and a 5% variance, if the same loopholes for swallowing bad contracts are in the next CBA, the big market teams will continue to operate under a different standard than the rest of the league because they can afford to.
December 7th, 2012, 01:04 PM #216
There is a flip side to this however. With the rate of revenue growth that was in the last CBA many of those long term deals turned into discount deals in the prime years (by comparative salaries) and were locked in longer. While the overall money when initially signed seemed big, the longer terms actually spread top players money out. Overall the dynamic of selling a tattoo for team success will no longer be in a few gm's handbags when they have to keep pulling it out every three years.
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
December 7th, 2012, 01:09 PM #217
Last edited by FishMonger; December 7th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
December 7th, 2012, 01:13 PM #218
The NBA is a whole different ball of wax, a whole different system and ultimately not that relevant to these NHL labor talks.
Originally Posted by Kubrick
Let me just start with the premise that contract term limits can both help and hinder. If you're a GM (or an owner) in any sport, in general you'd ideally want to lock up your best performing players to very long contracts (up to the point where their productivity goes downhill) and your least valuable players tied to very short contracts. Without a crystal ball, there will always be a certain degree of guesswork in determining which players should get long contracts and which should get short contracts. As such, mistakes are inevitable: some players will vastly overperform their contracts, but many more will underperform their contracts.
By insisting so strongly on a maximum contract length of 5 years, the NHL seems to be making at least two points: they want to protect teams against the ever-present downside risk of underperforming players and they want to maintain some semblance of competitive balance because not every team could offer $100M+ contracts. Would this exert downward or upward pressure on salaries as a result? I'm not sure. With certain notable exceptions, the NHL's salary cap is a hard cap and contract decisions are a near zero-sum game overall. Coupled with a defined revenue sharing ratio, if there was too much downward pressure on salaries, the players would simply have all escrowed amounts refunded to them and possibly be paid additional amounts over and above their contracts to reach a collective 50% (or to reach whatever ratio is ultimately agreed upon). There could in fact be upward pressure too: some GM's might be enticed to offer a higher annual salary, knowing that their teams can only be on the hook for a maximum of 5 years if a player's productivity disappoints. It's therefore difficult, if not impossible, to draw definitive conclusions on the contract term limit in isolation. Suffice it to say, however, the NHL clearly believes it's beneficial.
December 7th, 2012, 01:55 PM #219
Originally Posted by kings13
what santi said
December 7th, 2012, 02:12 PM #220
We've gone over this before. The NHL simply adds a no-strike clause to the "play during negotiations" agreement. If the NHLPA doesn't agree to that, then the NHL locks out the players.
Originally Posted by aaron
I'm just furthering, or attempting to at least, santiclaws' point.
Last edited by LOSTcauseZERO; December 7th, 2012 at 02:17 PM.