| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2010 : 06:00:00
|
Poll Question:
With Kovalchuk inking his new...17 year deal...should the NHL look into contract length restrictions? If so, how long, and why?
|
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 06:08:14
|
Not 100% yes or no. I mean, a long term deal (5+ years) allows for teams to keep players that can be considered fan favourites in town longer, making them alot more marketable. Example, some of these players that played with one team for their entire career, maybe would have played for 3-4 different teams if their contracts were up every 3-4 years.
On the flip side, looking at the structure of Kovalchuk's deal, he gets all the money in the first 10-12 years, so he can literally do nothing between year 13-17 and still collect most of the money in the deal. This can benefit both sides, and also hurt both sides. From the teams stand point, after year 12, they can pretty much use him as trade bait, making between $500K - $1.5M. However, if he decides to decline any trades near the end, the Devils can be stuck with dead weight.
I can say pretty confidently, Kovalchuk will not play nowhere close to 17 more years in NJ. I see him going elsewhere after year 10, at the latest.
Back to the point, the NHL shouldn't have 100% control of contract lengths, but maybe have some type of system that doesn't allow teams/players/agents to work around the gaping loop holes in the current CBA. If they did put a restriction, maybe a 8-10 year maximum?
|
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 09:22:49
|
Rambo:
The best solution IMO - put in a rule that the $ amount paid out in any given year does not deviate from the cap amount by more than a certain %. So, if the max deviation was 20% (for example) , that would mean on Kovy's contract could not pay more than 7.2M or less than 4.8M in any given year of the contract, which is +/- 20% of the 6M cap hit. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 10:48:20
|
I have no problem with the length of the contract personally, but I can see the point. If an owner is wealthy enough and a GM is smart enough, a team can be built with these gigantic contracts full of superstars.
That being said, I completely disagree with restricting the length of individual contracts. What I see as more fair and reasonable is to do a 'year cap' on top of the salary cap. For example, the cap dollar is $59 million per season and your max number of years on salary is 50. So you sign Kovalchuk for 17 years meaning you have 33 years of contract for the rest of your roster.
This would mean you could have one or two monster deals to superstars to keep the cap number low but you would then be forced to have a number of shorter duration deals and risk losing players to UFA.
|
|
|
|
Guest6831
( )
|
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 14:25:14
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Beans15[/i]
[br]I have no problem with the length of the contract personally, but I can see the point. If an owner is wealthy enough and a GM is smart enough, a team can be built with these gigantic contracts full of superstars.
That being said, I completely disagree with restricting the length of individual contracts. What I see as more fair and reasonable is to do a 'year cap' on top of the salary cap. For example, the cap dollar is $59 million per season and your max number of years on salary is 50. So you sign Kovalchuk for 17 years meaning you have 33 years of contract for the rest of your roster.
This would mean you could have one or two monster deals to superstars to keep the cap number low but you would then be forced to have a number of shorter duration deals and risk losing players to UFA.
If 17 years is ok - then when does it become not ok? 25 years? Players playing into their 50's cmon man - how many players are 42 and still playing? It is a loophole that needs to be addressed.
This has nothing to do with GM smarts. Holland was the first to do it in Detroit, and maybe Snow in Long Island but he is a dufus but I digress. When Holland did it with Zetterberg it was smart. Lou is copying others and I can't see how this makes sense 10 years from now.
Anyone know when the current union agreement comes up for review?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 14:31:35
|
CBA is done after the 11/12 season. That is partially why the NHLPA did what they did last year and are trying to get this new guy in control. They wants some major league changes to some of the finacial pieces (bigger % impacting the Salary Cap and changes to the Escrow) and they feel that the owners are going to fight it.
Regardless, the length of the contract I don't believe to be the issue. No one said anything about Gretzky signing a 20 year deal in the mid-80's did they??
The issue is the ability to circumvent the salary cap using lengthy deals with full intention to buy the deal out. DiPeitro's is not structured like that. His is balance trhough the entire deal. However, most others (Pronger, Luongo, Zetterberg, Richards, et al) are designed for an insignificant cap hit for the final few years. The issue with the recent Kovalchuk deal is that this front loaded deal has 7 years of less than $1 million/season. That's huge.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 07/20/2010 18:40:31 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 05:33:13
|
There should be another choice to the poll:
* Should the NHL have already had the brains to ensure that ridiculous 17 year contracts for 27 year old players were not possible, due to it making a mockery of the cap concept?
. . . 'cause I would have picked that one.
To amend what Guest 6831 said, it WAS a loophole that should HAVE ALREADY BEEN addressed.
It could be addressed in a myriad of ways - limit cap length, no long term deal (anything more than 5 years) can be applied to a player if he will be 36 years old or more at any time during the length of the deal, etc.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 07/22/2010 08:29:45 |
|
|
|
Guest3153
( )
|
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 16:32:16
|
A cure to the loophole is incredibly simple. The cap hit in any given year is the amount that the player is being paid THAT year. There is nothing wrong with long contracts per se. The problem is when they are being used to blatantly circumvent the rules of the league i.e. the salary cap.
What on earth is the point of this average salary bs anyway? Ease of bookkeeping? Get a frickin accountant... |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 16:55:06
|
Totally agree with you guest!
Why did they do the "average salary" thing in calculating the cap hit? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 08:30:04
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by slozo[/i]
[br]There should be another choice to the poll:
* Should the NHL have already had the brains to ensure that ridiculous 17 year contracts for 27 year old players were not possible, due to it making a mockery of the cap concept?
. . . 'cause I would have picked that one.
To amend what Guest 6831 said, it WAS a loophole that should HAVE ALREADY BEEN addressed.
It could be addressed in a myriad of ways - limit cap length, no long term deal (anything more than 5 years) can be applied to a player if he will be 36 years old or more at any time during the length of the deal, etc.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
The NHL's attempt at this was the assurance that the next year's salary can not be less then 50% of the season before and there is a lock on the last 2 seasons. So it's not like they didn't think about it, it's just their idea on fixing it was not as effective as one would like.
Considering that when the CBA was brought in, the last player to have a goofy length deal was Gretzky in the mid-80's.
Hindsight is always 20/20. If this was so clearly obvious, why did you not bring it up when the same thing was happening over the past 3 seasons and the lengths of the deals were getting longer and longer. I don't recall anything after the Pronger Deal, the Luongo Deal, the Zetterberg Deal, or the Hossa deal. Ultimately, they are all the same deal, just a few years shorter. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 10:05:51
|
Hindsight is 20/20 Beans, true; but the people we are talking about are not a haphazzard collection of sports fans who conment on a hockey talk website from time to time, probably none of which are trained in contractual writing.
We are talking about professionally trained and supposedly bright lawyers and managers and assistants trained in writing agreements and contracts, all in the hockey business for years and years.
It's their JOB to know this stuff and predict it before it happens. They failed, IMHO. Hence, the farce we currently see.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 10:57:41
|
Not unlike previous discussions, it comes down to my often giving the benefit of the doubt to the NHL while your expectation seem to be anything less than perfection is unacceptable.
From experience in union negotiations, there are ALWAYS things that are unforseen and unexpected. The most iron clad contracts (CBA's or otherwise) always have loopholes. It's virtually impossible to cover every potentail situation. MHO, the NHL did forsee the potential issue and attempted to limit contracts with the limites to how much a contract could drop year after year. If they are at fault for anything is underestimating how big the potential of the issue was.
I do hear your point that these are the pros and not some schleps posting on a website, but even the most brilliant minds can no forsee everything. But I will concede that this one is a pretty big one to miss. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Contract Length Restrictions? 
