The Continuing Chronicles Of Jay Feaster's Incompetence

[TGWL]

I completely agree with number 3 & 5.

[Guest mr. potato head]

Why? (Mostly on #3)

[Ruki]

I think there should be max contract lengths, because people getting locked up for 10+ years makes free agency boring!

[Guest mr. potato head]

I think there should be max contract lengths, because people getting locked up for 10+ years makes free agency boring!

But if teams don't like the crazy contract lengths, they can just stop offering them. Or wait the 6-7 years necessary until everyone realizes how horrible the deals actually are past the first little bit.

[Gabriel]

I would like a five year contract limit. It would stop the GMs from giving out these massive contracts that always come back to bite them in the ass. It would also create more parity in the free agent market. So instead of a team landing a player because they're willing to sign them for a contract that might be longer than the player's career, it would put everybody on the same playing field, and force the players and agents to choose teams almost solely based on personal preference, cap space and desire to win.

The biggest issue I have with longterm contracts though, is the Roberto Luongo Connundrum. You have a player who was an elite level force when he signed his deal, but has since become expendable due to the rise of Cory Schneider. Of course, he wants out so that he can be a number one somewhere. But he has a no movement clause, which hinders what the Canucks can do. On top of that, his term and salary is pretty steep, and Mike Gillis thinks he can ask for the moon for him. So now we're in a position where the player doesn't want to be there anymore, but the GM won't move him because he can't get "market value" for him.

I think the thing that the NHL should be focused on with these discussions is protecting the GMs from themselves. They're not all retarded, but the majority of them put themselves in these bad situations which force the fans and players to sit through these long and arduous periods of "will they or won't they".

[SeanDMan]

I think evidence tends to suggest that more managers are batshit insane as opposed to not.

[Plubby]

But if teams don't like the crazy contract lengths, they can just stop offering them.

This seems pretty stupid to me. If i'm Vancouver's GM and I want Roberto Luongo on my team at the time he signs that deal, but I have some pseudo-samurai honour code in which I just don't do long-term deals, then all it takes is one other team who doesn't have my morals and as a team, i'm boned. You have to close that hole.

[Toe]

I don't care about long deals. GMs are giving them out, and GMs are trading for them.

[Guest mr. potato head]

But if teams don't like the crazy contract lengths, they can just stop offering them.

This seems pretty stupid to me. If i'm Vancouver's GM and I want Roberto Luongo on my team at the time he signs that deal, but I have some pseudo-samurai honour code in which I just don't do long-term deals, then all it takes is one other team who doesn't have my morals and as a team, i'm boned. You have to close that hole.

And also close the hole that allows GMs to offer marginal players $8 million per year if they so choose?

A bad contract is a bad contract. Just because some GMs have found ways other than the dollar figure to create a bad contract doesn't mean there needs to be a rule against it.

[caucasianheat]

If they institute maximum term limits, it'll probably be with the caveat that you can stack the salary any way you want to make the cap math work. The players will want it and the owners can't help themselves anyway.

Chaining good players to the worst teams for 5 years of ELC seems cruel and unusual, not to mention that it fucks with two prime moneymaking years of a young player's career and they can't supplement it with proposed elimination of the signing bonus.

[Plubby]

But if teams don't like the crazy contract lengths, they can just stop offering them.

This seems pretty stupid to me. If i'm Vancouver's GM and I want Roberto Luongo on my team at the time he signs that deal, but I have some pseudo-samurai honour code in which I just don't do long-term deals, then all it takes is one other team who doesn't have my morals and as a team, i'm boned. You have to close that hole.

And also close the hole that allows GMs to offer marginal players $8 million per year if they so choose?

A bad contract is a bad contract. Just because some GMs have found ways other than the dollar figure to create a bad contract doesn't mean there needs to be a rule against it.

I'm talking when a player says "I want ten years" and you propose that the GM's all say "Sorry, I don't do 10 years." like they're sorority girls...or...Nikita Filatov saying "Filly don't play defense". All it takes is one GM with a glaring enough hole in his team (it'd probably be Scott Howson) to decide that this player is worth it then they lose the player.

Your posts imply that this is an owner/GM driven problem and it's just not. The player drives the contract length. HE has control. If a player won't sign for less than seven years and your own personal ideals say you only offer five then you have placed yourself out of the market. Your proposed solution is a gentleman's agreement. If you want to bind the GMs to a gentleman's agreement on contract term in a situation where the player has control over his own contract then the situation is effectively lawless. A gentleman's agreement is not binding. You need to legislate this hole. You do not need to legislate dollar values, the cap already drives dollar values on contracts so your comparison to bad contracts is just...worthless.

[SeanDMan]

Length of contract doesn't matter as much as terms. The pre-cap 10 year deal that Alexei Yashin got is much better than the one Luongo got because it had full accountability; all of that money was real. With Luongo's deal, because of how the CBA works, only the front loaded years are real and count; the rest of the contract can be written off by burying it in the AHL once Luongo retires (no one really expects him to 2019-22 when he's making $1 million a season), and if he's bought out, the cap hit drops significantly. With Yashin, the team was accountable for every cent under the rules at the time (and afterwards; the Islanders are still paying a cap hit on that buyout despite it being a pre-cap contract). The terms of the contracts and how they relate to the salary cap are what need moderating; absurd length is fine but it should be used rarely and only for elite players; having 3 or 4 "lifetime" contracts handed out per year isn't realistic but since they're a great way to circumvent the salary cap, they keep getting signed.

[Plubby]

Actually, i'd agree with that. If they make money paid equal to cap hit then I think i'm okay with long term deals.

Either that or perhaps...I dunno - 5 year cap hits, you can have three of 6 or 7 years and one of 8+? That seems a little untidy though, I think I like it either as a hard 5 years on all contracts, or money paid equals cap hit.

The latter also means you don't have to do away with signing bonuses, the market will naturally reduce or eliminate them.

[SeanDMan]

Basically I think if you have a salary cap, then everything in the contract should count against the cap. Thus, perks or signing bonuses go into the contract.

Rich team? Have a $5 million dollar signing bonus. That's on a five year deal so your new cap hit is +1 million p/y.

Expensive city? Don't worry about it, here's an apartment downtown. But it costs $650k market per year, we'll have to factor that against the cap.

Want a new car? Sure, we'll get you a new BMW, and just spread the $355k over the five years of your deal.

That way you don't have situations where you're dealing with a good deal from Minnesota against a "great deal" wink wink nudge nudge from The New York Rangers. If everything is above board than players pick where they want to play for either top dollar reasons, or hockey reasons, but it ensures that there is parity across the board.

Except in Winnipeg because fuck living in an iceberg 5 months of the year.

[Guest mr. potato head]

Except in Winnipeg because fuck living in an iceberg 5 months of the year.

The perogies are excellent though.

[Ruki]

Weber signs a 14 year, $100+ million offer sheet from Philly.

If Nashville doesn't match it could be four 1st round picks, or two firsts, a second and a third.

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger Nashville was working on a trade and its believed several deadlines passed before Flyers grew tired of waiting. Weber signed offer sheet.

There is no way Nashville doesn't match. The picks will be mid-high twenties for the four years, and none will come close in skill to Weber. But, after it is matched, he will be traded somewhere.

[TGWL]

He can't be traded for at least a year. If Nashville doesn't match, then can trade those first rounders for a decent package, especially if they get 4 first round picks. I'm curious to know what the asking price was going to be for Weber if they decided to trade him before the offer sheet was made.

[Ruki]

I'd keep him for the year, then trade him. Because, still....even if you package up those four 1st round picks, odds are the player coming back won't be like Weber.

[SeanDMan]

Supposedly Nashville can still trade his rights to Philadelphia for something other than four picks. That is supposedly the discussion going on now.

[Ruki]

Supposedly Nashville can still trade his rights to Philadelphia for something other than four picks. That is supposedly the discussion going on now.

They can? I thought the only options were match or take the picks.

Four picks plus the Schenn's!