The NHL definitely has more issues with its contracts, partly due to the guarantees, than almost any other league. One thing I would like to see, is the arbitration system expanded to allow teams to take a player who is severely underperforming their contract to arbitration and get some relief on the contract. When a new contract is signed, it is basically at an amount where the player says, " I want X amount because I am going to give you a minimum of Y value per year." The team agrees to pay that money for that expected performance. If the player falls far enough out of the expected range for long enough a period, then the team could request the contract be arbitrated. For example, Kyle had 3 straight years here he produced more then .8 PPG. That's what his contract was for him to continue doing. Therte should be some percent drop from that where the team can arbitrate it. His first 2 years with Buffalo he averaged .63 PPG. That's is probably not enough of a change given team system, players they play with, coach usage, etc, to triger arbitration. However, last year he played 78 games and only averaged .37 PPG in a bottom six role. This is less than half the production he was signed for. One bad year likely wouldn't do it either, but right now he is on pace for 65 games and 20 pts, which is again .31 PPG in a bottom six role. This should trigger an arbitration. The burden of proof is on the team, but if the arbitrator agrees that the player is not living up to the agreement, then they would look at contracts of players with similar production and reduce the contract to a value that is say...150% of the average. Something where the player is still overpaid, but not grossly so. This gives the team appropriate cap relief for the production, and makes the contract more tradeable. Even if Kyles contract was reduced from 6M AAV to 4.5 M AAV going forward, it would make it more palatable.
