Toggle sidebar

Around the League Thread | New Year, New Me

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
mriswith said:
They really need to drop the contract max term to 5 years and make UFA a year earlier in exchange. That would kill off a lot of tanking (not all of it) and create a lot more action in the trade market.

Right now the pain of losing a trade is way bigger than winning, team control is way too big of a factor in being competitive, and bad long term contracts have too high of downside for an orgs competitiveness.
Click to expand...
excellent post i agree and have been saying this to buddies. The one thing i also said is a compliant buy out every 4 or 5 yrs.

Would be nice to see some players get pushed back into the marketplace and others that are Landeskog allow the team to cut bait and not have to manage LTIR for a decade.

Especially when everyone knows you're not coming back at all or anything resembling your cap hit. Why a team should be penalized for eternity on a guy that became awful because of injury is mind numbing and just slows any ability to pivot
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora and December5th
sting101 said:
excellent post i agree and have been saying this to buddies. The one thing i also said is a compliant buy out every 4 or 5 yrs.

Would be nice to see some players get pushed back into the marketplace and others that are Landeskog allow the team to cut bait and not have to manage LTIR for a decade.

Especially when everyone knows you're not coming back at all or anything resembling your cap hit. Why a team should be penalized for eternity on a guy that became awful because of injury is mind numbing and just slows any ability to pivot
Click to expand...
ive been saying the same thing. doesnt the nhl want to have the most entrertaining product? why hamstring teams for years at a time. these harsh buyout rules lower the quality of the viewing experience and give fans less hope for their team
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora and sting101
December5th said:
ive been saying the same thing. doesnt the nhl want to have the most entrertaining product? why hamstring teams for years at a time. these harsh buyout rules lower the quality of the viewing experience and give fans less hope for their team
Click to expand...
It’s a give and take with nhl and PA. What may hurt the nhl moving forward with more teams is the time these rebuilds are spending being at the bottom. Lose interest fast.

But it’s going to take a lot from the nhl to convince PA to go shorter on contract term as players enjoy the security given the buyout rules of 2/3 salary and 100% SB money after age 26.
What does the nhl have to offer? Ufa at 26 maybe 25 after 6 nhl seasons? Everyone coming off elc has arb rights? Give the PA and extra 1% of HRR?
 
mriswith said:
They really need to drop the contract max term to 5 years and make UFA a year earlier in exchange. That would kill off a lot of tanking (not all of it) and create a lot more action in the trade market.

Right now the pain of losing a trade is way bigger than winning, team control is way too big of a factor in being competitive, and bad long term contracts have too high of downside for an orgs competitiveness.
Click to expand...
Players are probably the ones against that. Careers are short and they know they are 1 injury away from losing the bag.
 
arttk said:
Players are probably the ones against that. Careers are short and they know they are 1 injury away from losing the bag.
Click to expand...
1 year earlier UFA would be the compensation for it.

I think it would be worth giving up a point or two of revenue split on the owners side as well because it would dramatically reduce downside risk for franchises heading into a downswing, which has a very real financial value, but the owners are greedy short term assholes and probably wouldn't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora
mriswith said:
1 year earlier UFA would be the compensation for it.

I think it would be worth giving up a point or two of revenue split on the owners side as well because it would dramatically reduce downside risk for franchises heading into a downswing, which has a very real financial value, but the owners are greedy short term assholes and probably wouldn't do that.
Click to expand...
Not really, yeah you get onto UFA at 26 but a 5 year contract at 26 means you will be looking for another one at 31 right after they have peaked and at best they get another another 5 year at a lower number and that’s it for them. Top players now can get a 8 year after ELC and then probably hit UFA right at 28 and then at the prime age, they can get another 8 year taking them to like 36.

Mid tier players are already getting like at max 4-5 year term on their contracts anyways so going to UFA earlier by 1 won’t really make the market more vibrant.

I think the reality is if we shorten the contract length, the top players are going to squeeze as much money possible in those 5 year contracts to mitigate against the loss in security of a long contract and will suck money away from the mid and lower tier players. I think the only way to justify the cut in length would be to take UFA down to like 23 or 24.
 
arttk said:
Players are probably the ones against that. Careers are short and they know they are 1 injury away from losing the bag.
Click to expand...
Provided revenues were still split equally, AAV would increase accordingly. It's already kind of happening as a market correction as teams pay good players earlier, eliminate bridge deals, than have guys hitting UFA at 31-32 instead of 28.
 
bandwagonesque said:
Provided revenues were still split equally, AAV would increase accordingly. It's already kind of happening as a market correction as teams pay good players earlier, eliminate bridge deals, than have guys hitting UFA at 31-32 instead of 28.
Click to expand...
I think the risk is top end players would ask for as much as they can because they no longer have 8 year contracts. Top players are like nowheee close to the 20% cap because they can do like 8 year contract leading to like late 30s. If you ask them to take a 5 year contract at like 26, it’s logical for them to ask for like as much as possible because what happens if they get injured before the next UFA period.
 
arttk said:
I think the risk is top end players would ask for as much as they can because they no longer have 8 year contracts. Top players are like nowheee close to the 20% cap because they can do like 8 year contract leading to like late 30s. If you ask them to take a 5 year contract at like 26, it’s logical for them to ask for like as much as possible because what happens if they get injured before the next UFA period.
Click to expand...
That's not a risk, it's exactly what will happen, and it has to if money isn't being spread out over longer contracts with unproductive back ends. Players have to get half of HRR, and teams with the money essentially have to spend close to the cap to compete. The best players will be getting more of the cap and ineffective 37-year-old former stars will be getting less of it. In a hard cap league with a revenue split there's no competitive advantage to be gained for anyone by changing other terms or rules for everyone.
 
bandwagonesque said:
That's not a risk, it's exactly what will happen, and it has to if money isn't being spread out over longer contracts with unproductive back ends. Players have to get half of HRR, and teams with the money essentially have to spend close to the cap to compete.
Click to expand...
I mean that’s the risk the PA sees and why it won’t happen
 
arttk said:
Players are probably the ones against that. Careers are short and they know they are 1 injury away from losing the bag.
Click to expand...

arttk said:
I mean that’s the risk the PA sees and why it won’t happen
Click to expand...
How? The players are still getting the same share -- they'll just be getting more money earlier in their careers and if anything ameliorating any risk presented by injury.
 
bandwagonesque said:
How? The players are still getting the same share -- they'll just be getting more money earlier in their careers and if anything ameliorating any risk presented by injury.
Click to expand...
Right now the best players cost like 13ish% of the cap. If you shrink the contract length, they are going to start asking closer to 20%, like 17-18% and then that will raise the cost of 1st liners as well. If the 1st liners and top players are taking in bigger % of the pie, then the guys who suffer are the mid level guys. Guess what, there are more of them around and they have voting power.
 
arttk said:
Right now the best players cost like 13ish% of the cap. If you shrink the contract length, they are going to start asking closer to 20%, like 17-18% and then that will raise the cost of 1st liners as well. If the 1st liners and top players are taking in bigger % of the pie, then the guys who suffer are the mid level guys. Guess what, there are more of them around and they have voting power.
Click to expand...
Again -- you're completely overlooking that the entire point of shorter contracts for 1st liners is to realize savings on longer contracts for 1st liners. The notion that this will affect mid-level players is a supposition supplied without evidence.
 
bandwagonesque said:
Again -- you're completely overlooking that the entire point of shorter contracts for 1st liners is to realize savings on longer contracts for 1st liners. The notion that this will affect mid-level players is a supposition supplied without evidence.
Click to expand...
Ex. If the max is 5 years then contracts like Miller 8x7 would be more like 10x5. Draisaitl would cost like 15-17M instead of 13.5. With the top players taking more then there will be less money for the rest.
 
arttk said:
Ex. If the max is 5 years then contracts like Miller 8x7 would be more like 10x5. Draisaitl would cost like 15-17M instead of 13.5. With the top players taking more then there will be less money for the rest.
Click to expand...
If you think the issue is that I didn't understand shorter contracts would result in higher AAV, then we're having two completely different conversations here and there's not much point in continuing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom