length of Contracts

[MHA]

David Stern is trying to reduce the length of contracts from 7 to 4 years.

Is Bettman trying to put a limit on the amount of years per contract

Click to read more...

 

[X0ssbar]

Nope - I don't think length of contracts is a burning issue in this particular CBA negotation.

..now the next CBA..that's another question all together..

 

[nomorekids]

i don't think it's as much of an issue in hockey as it is baseball and basketball, where 6-7 year contracts are common. you don't see many contracts go past 3-4 years(except the occasional bizarro alexei yashin situation).

 

[Icey]

i don't think it's as much of an issue in hockey as it is baseball and basketball, where 6-7 year contracts are common. you don't see many contracts go past 3-4 years(except the occasional bizarro alexei yashin situation).

In 2000 that might have been a correct statement, but in the last couple of years 5 year contracts have turned into the norm. Contract length IMO should be maxed at 3 years. There is absolutly no reason whatsoever to ever offer a contract longer than 3 years in length. Never.

 

[Montrealer]

In 2000 that might have been a correct statement, but in the last couple of years 5 year contracts have turned into the norm. Contract length IMO should be maxed at 3 years. There is absolutly no reason whatsoever to ever offer a contract longer than 3 years in length. Never.

You really can't think of any reason at all?

Really?

 

[Mess]

David Stern is trying to reduce the length of contracts from 7 to 4 years.

Is Bettman trying to put a limit on the amount of years per contract

From the NHL latest proposal

PLAYER CONTRACTS

-- NHL Minimum Salary increased to $300,000 per year.

-- We believe that in order to ensure that Players are compensated in the fairest possible manner, the parties may have a mutual interest in negotiating over the establishment of an NHL Maximum Salary for individual players. No specific amount is being proposed in this regard.

-- Guarantee terms (1/3 or 2/3 for skill; 100% for injury) remain unchanged.

-- Maximum term of 3 years

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html

 

[Icey]

You really can't think of any reason at all?

Really?

No I really can't.

A lot can happen in 5 years. Players can get hurt and are not the player the team signed such are Brian Bernard or sometimes a player is just not a good fit for a team such as Pierre Turgeon, and sometimes a players skills just diminsh such as John LeClair, but yet all three of these players were tied to long term contracts and the team was stuck with them.

If a player is good and earns his contract then he will be offered another contract from the team. Look around the league and look how many players play on the same team year after year on one year contracts.

 

[PigPen]

From the NHL latest proposal

That was the Feb 2, 2005 offer and is off the table.
It does show however that the league has an interest in shortening contract terms.

 

[Mess]

That was the Feb 2, 2005 offer and is off the table.
It does show however that the league has an interest in shortening contract terms.

While that is true , it could also be said about every single issue in the CBA until it is final though ..

Although we have heard nothing to the contrary on the subject that suggests its not included any longer as this was a part of the Final Offer" that cost us a season ..

The thread starter also ask if Bettman was looking into shorter contracts .. Which this certainly answers that question .. Whether the NHL wins on this point is still yet to be determined.

There are both good and bad situations from both sides on length of contract issues, all depending if job security out weighs market prices for wages in contracts.

The Yashin contract is an example of a bad long-term contract from an Owners point of view.. However had Martin St. Louis locked himself into a long term deal before he won NHL MVP he would have seriously short changed himself in doing so.

Many things factor into this as well .. The current level of UFA age, no-trade clauses, buyout rates, Qualifying offer rates, Arbitration rights and now the Hard Cap effect as well..

 

[thinkwild]

In 2000 that might have been a correct statement, but in the last couple of years 5 year contracts have turned into the norm. Contract length IMO should be maxed at 3 years. There is absolutly no reason whatsoever to ever offer a contract longer than 3 years in length. Never.

Alfie was like that on the Sens. The guy played his entire under 31 career on one and 2 year contracts. Until he was a UFA and we locked him up for 5 years. That may no longer be a wise thing to do.

Hossa and Chara at 26 and 27 with the UFA age dropping, man would I ever love to get these 2 inked to 5 year contracts right about now to take them through their UFA years so we dont have to worry about it.

 

[Montrealer]

No I really can't.

A lot can happen in 5 years. Players can get hurt and are not the player the team signed such are Brian Bernard or sometimes a player is just not a good fit for a team such as Pierre Turgeon, and sometimes a players skills just diminsh such as John LeClair, but yet all three of these players were tied to long term contracts and the team was stuck with them.

If a player is good and earns his contract then he will be offered another contract from the team. Look around the league and look how many players play on the same team year after year on one year contracts.

True, but there are success stories even with 4 or 5 year contracts... the idea being that the player is trading possible earnings for security, and the team is taking on more risk to save some costs.

The way you're portraying it, it's a 100% negative situation. If you said it was more negative than positive, I wouldn't have said anything. The 100% certainty you showed, however, made me chuckle.

 

[Icey]

True, but there are success stories even with 4 or 5 year contracts... the idea being that the player is trading possible earnings for security, and the team is taking on more risk to save some costs.

The way you're portraying it, it's a 100% negative situation. If you said it was more negative than positive, I wouldn't have said anything. The 100% certainty you showed, however, made me chuckle.

And sorry but I still stick to my original statement. There is no reason to ever lock a player up for more than three years because a lot can happen to both the team situation and the player. Take Derian Hatcher for example. He turned down more money in Dallas for a longer term contract in Detroit. Half a dozen games into the season he tears his knee up once again and is out almost the entire season. Hatchers knees will never be what they were and therefore he is no longer the player Detroit thought they signed (and BTW is the reason Dallas would not offer him the longer term contract), but they are stuck with him for 3 more years at $5M. There are more examples like this than the other way around.