Kooner91 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I am no expert on how the league revenue works, or how some of these rules are made, but I want to see your opinions on these. 1) Max contract length 5 years. -Long term deals are stupid -Less of this longer deals for smaller caphit bs. 2) Your caphit is not the annual average pay of your salary, it is Whatever you get paid. Example: Canucks sign Shane Doan to a 3 year contract worth 18mil. If it was by the current CBA, his caphit would be 6mil, but lets say the Canucks "frontload" his contract to this structure. 1st year: 8mil 2nd year: 7mil 3rd year: 3mil Doan's cap hit would be 8mil in the first year, 7 mil in a 2nd year, and 3mil in the 3rd year. -Now owners would have to think about their offers to the players they want to sign. -To me it just makes too much sense, but I'm probably missing something of why this wouldn't happen. -This with the first change could really end these front loaded contracts that the league hates. 3)No more NMC or NTC -Most GM's ask their players to waive it or players want to leave. If your living up to your contract, this shouldn't be a problem. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Those are pretty good rules but the NHLPA declines all of them.... NHL players want big money, front end loaded contracts, and the security that they cannot be traded or moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I've long advocated #2 on your list. I don't see the NHLPA having an issue with it either. The players may still get front-end loaded contracts, it's just that the team would have to have the cap space to make it work. That way they can make big money early on, and if they feel like retiring early, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BZRK Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Long term deals suck for fans, but what about the player's families? Long deals give the family security and a home, not just a place to live. I'm not a fan of those long contracts either, but it provides something for the players and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Long term deals suck for fans, but what about the player's families? Long deals give the family security and a home, not just a place to live. I'm not a fan of those long contracts either, but it provides something for the players and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BZRK Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 As long as they don't blow it, any player that merits a long term deal could also get enough from a short term deal to guarantee his family's comfort for as long as he lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kooner91 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Long term deals suck for fans, but what about the player's families? Long deals give the family security and a home, not just a place to live. I'm not a fan of those long contracts either, but it provides something for the players and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjames05 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Don't exactly agree with 1 or 3. Players and their families need some security, but I wouldn't mind a max length of say 8 years. Also I would like to there be a rule that players 40+ can only sign one year deals and multi-year contracts must expire before they are 40 (i.e. no Luongo- or Kovalchuk-type contracts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjames05 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 And maybe one more thing; Contracts cannot payout more than 1.5x the average cap hit in a single year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Power Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 You currently have a system in place that can limit the contract length of players and limit the NMC or NTC. It is called the GM. If a team feels that long contracts and front loaded contracts are damaging, then do no offer them ( look at BB). Otherwise a GM is just shooting themselves in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossram Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Making the cap hit the same as the salary would certainly take away all these front-loaded, lifetime deals. A contract limit would also be good as well, not five years though. Maybe something like six or seven. With these rules GMs would actually have to think carefully about the contracts they offer, rather than throw out 10+ million in the first few years and let some future GM deal with the potential problem of a declining player still on a huge contract. You can't get rid of NTCs and NMCs though. Players won't budge on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azzy Mahmood Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Those are pretty good rules but the NHLPA declines all of them.... NHL players want big money, front end loaded contracts, and the security that they cannot be traded or moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The problem that I have with all of these proposals is that the GM's are trying to save themselves FROM THEMSELVES. The NHL lost a year because the owners wouldn't budge on a hard cap; the owners/GM's then spent the next few years figuring out loopholes in the CBA. I'm not a fan of long-term contracts and also I think that NMC's/NTC's are handed out way too much, but there's also something to be said for GM's having to be stuck with bad contracts that they have signed. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners ask for non-guaranteed contracts in the next CBA negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.