Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...
posted at 8/17/2012 1:57 PM EDT
In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...
[QUOTE]It's incorrect? You have evidence that a team could have signed Suter or Parise with a 5 year deal? I think not. If you want to compete in the free agent market you need to sign a player to a long-term deal. All it takes is one or two teams willing to offer it (good decision or not) and the others are forced. Even RFA's are no longer safe, as we saw with Weber. Nashville's choice was 14 year deal or rebuild. If they wanted to compete, then needed to match. I don't know what you're babbling on about when it comes to principles and stuff. The long contract limits also have little to do with revenue splits and the survival of Phoenix. They are about having sensible contracts and avoiding cap circumvention. This is a sports league. It needs rules on and off the ice to make it fair and competitive. A rule on contract lengths is not the owners trying to save themselves from themselves, but the majority of owners trying to save the group from a few rogues. In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... :
Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]
Babbling?? I'd sooner have adult discussions with you, but if you prefer us to continue rudely, guess I'll have to go along.
I was responding to 2 points you made earlier on this thread.
#1. You stated, "they are signing players to long term contracts, because they have to in order to compete"
#2. Paraphrasing..."teams are competitors, not one collective mind".
Although I agree with much of what you've written above, it doesn't really apply to what my response was to your original thought.
It's not opinion Oates, it's fact that you DON'T need to sign expensive UFA's to ridiculous terms and amounts of money to compete. Many successful teams don't do that....that's irrefutable. Those that do, don't automatically come out on top. They take a huge gamble, and under the system, that could go either way. My response to your 2nd point, was merely that although true, it didn't validate point #1.
I guess my opinion is that the durations aren't really a deal breaker. I agree they're not a good thing, but still having to work within the confines of a reasonable cap I believe, balances things out.
I don't put that part forth as fact, just my opinion.
I'm wondering if having to re-invent the wheel, from a bargaining perspective, every 4 years or so, isn't playing right into the hand of the Minnesota's and NJ's. As it stands now, they have to be accountable for their decisions. A reworked deal could give them somewhat of a pass.
In summary, I don't disagree these long term deals should be looked at. I just don't think they're as big a hurdle or issue, as some. Rather than the length, I'm more concerned about the accounting. What you spend per year, per player, should go toward the cap. If you want to sign him for 20 years...fine, but what he's paid each year is the cap figure. If he quits, retires, whatever, after 3 years, he stops getting paid, the cap hit is removed, and his team keeps his rights for 17 more years in the event he ever changes his mind.