Toggle sidebar

Around the League 2019-20

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the contender or bust standard is impossible to live up to. Nice in theory, but there are so many things that have to go your way to be a real contender. You even have to suck in the right year to get the right top pick to build around. Just a solid top 3 pick usually isn't enough. Sometimes simple relevancy is enough though. That's what Columbus and Arizona were/are going for. Being part of the mix. It's ok to shoot for that if you're realistic. Not everyone can be an elite contender, and there are 16 playoff spots. If we just want the real contenders even thinking about success, chop off 10-12 of those playoff slots. No more 8th seeds winning the Cup. You have to be elite from start to finish, to have the privilege of playing for the championship. Get rid of the riffraff. You are not elite if you're upper middle class. GTFO.

TB and Cal get 1st round byes last year. Bos/SJ, Was/NYI, and the normal playoff scenario commences.

Imagine how even more boring everything would be if all the non-contender playoff teams didn't even try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lumbergh, crassbonanza and Raccoon Jesus
KingsFan7824 said:
I think the contender or bust standard is impossible to live up to. Nice in theory, but there are so many things that have to go your way to be a real contender. You even have to suck in the right year to get the right top pick to build around. Just a solid top 3 pick usually isn't enough. Sometimes simple relevancy is enough though. That's what Columbus and Arizona were/are going for. Being part of the mix. It's ok to shoot for that if you're realistic. Not everyone can be an elite contender, and there are 16 playoff spots. If we just want the real contenders even thinking about success, chop off 10-12 of those playoff slots. No more 8th seeds winning the Cup. You have to be elite from start to finish, to have the privilege of playing for the championship. Get rid of the riffraff. You are not elite if you're upper middle class. GTFO.

TB and Cal get 1st round byes last year. Bos/SJ, Was/NYI, and the normal playoff scenario commences.

Imagine how even more boring everything would be if all the non-contender playoff teams didn't even try.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't want baseball-style winnowing of interest with months remaining in the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crassbonanza
kovacro said:
Dunno, what's the incentive for the players to agree to that?
Click to expand...
Its in their best interest, by far. Average players (who far outnumber the top guys with long contracts) are getting royally screwed by players not living up to those mega contracts (Phaneuf, Lucic etc). They are getting pushed out of the league early and replaced by younger players or low-balled because the teams can't afford them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
HookKing said:
Its in their best interest, by far. Average players (who far outnumber the top guys with long contracts) are getting royally screwed by players not living up to those mega contracts (Phaneuf, Lucic etc). They are getting pushed out of the league early and replaced by younger players or low-balled because the teams can't afford them.
Click to expand...

The players won't see it that way. They see longer term potential = more job security
 
HookKing said:
Apparently they can't add.
Click to expand...

Except you are looking at it from the perspective of the whole, instead of the individual.

Derek Forborts current contract wasn’t effected by either of those players. But if you had non guaranteed contracts, he could be out of the league right now. So what do I care if a couple over paid vets eat 1/1000th of the total cap than they should. I have my financial security.

Not to mention non guaranteed contracts are crap, unless a player can opt out at anytime as well.

I guarantee that would be a hill players are willing to die on if it came up during CBA talks.
 
KingLB said:
Except you are looking at it from the perspective of the whole, instead of the individual.

Derek Forborts current contract wasn’t effected by either of those players. But if you had non guaranteed contracts, he could be out of the league right now. So what do I care if a couple over paid vets eat 1/1000th of the total cap than they should. I have my financial security.

Not to mention non guaranteed contracts are crap, unless a player can opt out at anytime as well.

I guarantee that would be a hill players are willing to die on if it came up during CBA talks.
Click to expand...
You missed my point. That was why players shouldn't allow long contracts. Has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts. Players will never give those up.
 
The NHL Owners aren't going to want to limit terms more either. They are looking at the NBA, which recently limited terms to 5 years and are suffering from fan fatigue due to players moving so often. Ownership in the NBA have been broaching the idea of extending max contract limits, with the NBAPA saying it is a nonstarter. For owners in the NHL, Phaneuf/Lucic not living up to their contracts is easily counteracted by players such as MacKinnon, Marchand and Pastrnak who are outperforming their contracts and making their fan base happy.
 
HookKing said:
You missed my point. That was why players shouldn't allow long contracts. Has nothing to do with guaranteed contracts. Players will never give those up.
Click to expand...

Whoops, in that case possibly. But if you are a player and you know the owners want it reduced, aren’t you making them give up something good just because you can?

Also it might also have to do with power dynamics within the union, stars will always want it longer cause it be benefits them. Roll players meh, though I would be curious on the average length of “average” nhl players vs nba/nfl deals where they have these restrictions.

Does 5 yrs for an average player more palatable because it’s not 7 or 8 like stars get? Does that 5 yr deal become 2-3 if stars are capped at 5?
 
KingLB said:
Whoops, in that case possibly. But if you are a player and you know the owners want it reduced, aren’t you making them give up something good just because you can?

Also it might also have to do with power dynamics within the union, stars will always want it longer cause it be benefits them. Roll players meh, though I would be curious on the average length of “average” nhl players vs nba/nfl deals where they have these restrictions.

Does 5 yrs for an average player more palatable because it’s not 7 or 8 like stars get? Does that 5 yr deal become 2-3 if stars are capped at 5?
Click to expand...
No, a reduced contract length would be the same for everyone. Yes, the stars will want the long ones but they are badly out-numbered. Probably goes back to childhood where the best, strongest etc. kids got to make the rules.
 
crassbonanza said:
The NHL Owners aren't going to want to limit terms more either. They are looking at the NBA, which recently limited terms to 5 years and are suffering from fan fatigue due to players moving so often. Ownership in the NBA have been broaching the idea of extending max contract limits, with the NBAPA saying it is a nonstarter. For owners in the NHL, Phaneuf/Lucic not living up to their contracts is easily counteracted by players such as MacKinnon, Marchand and Pastrnak who are outperforming their contracts and making their fan base happy.
Click to expand...

NHL owners would certainly welcome lower term limits. The NBA is apples to oranges with the NHL since these dudes in the NBA can bet on themselves and sign one year deals that dwarf the annual salary of your highest paid NHL player on a 8 year deal.

McDavid isn't going to sign a $15MM deal for one year and hope that he doesn't get a horrible injury in a high-contact sport while Kevin Durant can rupture his achilles but still sign a four year $164MM deal that allows him to opt-out after three years. The money is just so insane in the NBA that these guys aren't signing the five year deals to begin with: at least not the biggest of stars. The money isn't so crazy in the NHL to forego the years of guaranteed money: they would still sign the five years if that was the max. Then, you make the current team allowable to go a percentage over the cap or some other sort of thing to give them an advantage when it comes to signing them. That doesn't work as intended in the NBA but, again, it is because the money is so crazy.

Pretty sure it is the NHLPA that wouldn't want shorter contracts; however, they would take that over non-guaranteed deals. If the contracts lengths are limited, the NHLPA will demand a much higher cap. I'm fine with that since I don't care about the actual dollars but rather how much a retirement contract cripples my team in the twilight years of a long term deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
BigKing said:
NHL owners would certainly welcome lower term limits. The NBA is apples to oranges with the NHL since these dudes in the NBA can bet on themselves and sign one year deals that dwarf the annual salary of your highest paid NHL player on a 8 year deal.

McDavid isn't going to sign a $15MM deal for one year and hope that he doesn't get a horrible injury in a high-contact sport while Kevin Durant can rupture his achilles but still sign a four year $164MM deal that allows him to opt-out after three years. The money is just so insane in the NBA that these guys aren't signing the five year deals to begin with: at least not the biggest of stars. The money isn't so crazy in the NHL to forego the years of guaranteed money: they would still sign the five years if that was the max. Then, you make the current team allowable to go a percentage over the cap or some other sort of thing to give them an advantage when it comes to signing them. That doesn't work as intended in the NBA but, again, it is because the money is so crazy.

Pretty sure it is the NHLPA that wouldn't want shorter contracts; however, they would take that over non-guaranteed deals. If the contracts lengths are limited, the NHLPA will demand a much higher cap. I'm fine with that since I don't care about the actual dollars but rather how much a retirement contract cripples my team in the twilight years of a long term deal.
Click to expand...

I mean, you can argue that the players are not signing 5 year deals anyways, but the fact is that the NBA owners have been pushing to extend the max term longer and the NBAPA have dug their heels in over that issue. So, we see a comparable league(basically a sister league) that is struggling with this issue. Viewership is plummeting and some teams are suffering at the gate. I don't think owners consider term length to be as big of a deal as some fans do. I think teams would rather lock up their superstar for 8 years and risk him not performing than risk losing their talent sooner. Remember, the amount teams owe the players is established in the CBA, there is no financial incentive for owners to limit terms. Also, remember that ownership recently asked for an extension of the CBA in exchange for the Olympics, so they don't view it as a pressing problem.
 
crassbonanza said:
I mean, you can argue that the players are not signing 5 year deals anyways, but the fact is that the NBA owners have been pushing to extend the max term longer and the NBAPA have dug their heels in over that issue. So, we see a comparable league(basically a sister league) that is struggling with this issue. Viewership is plummeting and some teams are suffering at the gate. I don't think owners consider term length to be as big of a deal as some fans do. I think teams would rather lock up their superstar for 8 years and risk him not performing than risk losing their talent sooner. Remember, the amount teams owe the players is established in the CBA, there is no financial incentive for owners to limit terms. Also, remember that ownership recently asked for an extension of the CBA in exchange for the Olympics, so they don't view it as a pressing problem.
Click to expand...

Sure...the owners of the Bucks would love to extend the max but the glamour cities are going to want to be able to get all these star UFAs. Regardless, I feel like the NBA is such a bigger cash cow that they aren't really comparable except for the fact they play 82 games and the seasons overlap.

I agree that the owners don't find contract length to be a huge issue because it generally helps when you are able to get young stars locked up. The issue is when you get around to signing a 30 year old star. I feel like there should be some sort of mulligan to get out of these things but the player still gets his money. Like, you get one get out of jail card every five seasons or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crassbonanza
BigKing said:
I feel like there should be some sort of mulligan to get out of these things but the player still gets his money. Like, you get one get out of jail card every five seasons or something?
Click to expand...

I really like your idea of a compliance buyout once every 5 years or so. I think that would be a great compromise and it can benefit the players as well by allowing teams to take on a bit more risk.
 
crassbonanza said:
I really like your idea of a compliance buyout once every 5 years or so. I think that would be a great compromise and it can benefit the players as well by allowing teams to take on a bit more risk.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of GMs not sticking their dicks in the light socket and praying for the circuit breaker to save them. ;)
 
HookKing said:
No, a reduced contract length would be the same for everyone. Yes, the stars will want the long ones but they are badly out-numbered. Probably goes back to childhood where the best, strongest etc. kids got to make the rules.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean a hard rule.

But more a trend that just sort of develops. For instance really only stars are getting 7 year deals. But plenty of average players are getting 5 year deals. If the max is 5, will the average players really only get 2-3 yr deals?

I mean its impossible to say for sure, but that is just the impression I get as it would "flow down hill" and average players would get more short term deals.
 
KingLB said:
I didn't mean a hard rule.

But more a trend that just sort of develops. For instance really only stars are getting 7 year deals. But plenty of average players are getting 5 year deals. If the max is 5, will the average players really only get 2-3 yr deals?

I mean its impossible to say for sure, but that is just the impression I get as it would "flow down hill" and average players would get more short term deals.
Click to expand...
Interesting point but why would there be a need for a flow down hill?
 
The Sharks and Kings now have identical 11-18-7 regulation records. The Ducks are 11-16-7. Ottawa is 11-18-6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom