Speculation: Expansion Draft

[Shaman464]

I don't really have a problem with NTC/NMCs. Use good judgement and it's not a problem, when/if you sign a player for five years you should intend to keep the player for five years too. I know that's easier said than done, but still..

If I was a player, let's say I was an UFA, I sure as hell would want to make sure I was staying with the team I choose to sign for. So I totally see if from their side. Usually they do give up at least a few hundred thousand to get it, so both sides get something.

I think then no one should get more than a 1 year contract. What if in 3 years a team goes from contender to bottom feeder? They shouldn't sell? Or what if a team wants a NHL player in return to round a trade? Or if the player regresses over the course of that 5 years?

 

[RayMoonDoh]

I think then no one should get more than a 1 year contract. What if in 3 years a team goes from contender to bottom feeder? They shouldn't sell? Or what if a team wants a NHL player in return to round a trade? Or if the player regresses over the course of that 5 years?

Kind of missing the point. Trades are the exception to the rule, not a GM lifestyle. When players and mgmt agree to a contract, there is an expectation that both sides will honor that contract for its duration. Players and their families want to lay down roots and teams can lock players into acceptable AAVs on mid and long-term contracts.

Trades are part of the business, and are important because situations change and both teams and players benefit from a change of scenery. If Gretzky can be traded, and go on to play for 4 different teams in his career, then I think most players accept it could happen to them too.

At the end of the day, they're professional athletes and are compensated and treated as such. Being traded to a new metropolis is far from the end of the world for them.

I respect Hollands loyalty to his players, and I think it is an important factor in acquiring and retaining players.

 

[Actual Thought*]

I think then no one should get more than a 1 year contract. What if in 3 years a team goes from contender to bottom feeder? They shouldn't sell? Or what if a team wants a NHL player in return to round a trade? Or if the player regresses over the course of that 5 years?

You would never be able to sign anyone worth having. If you signed a player and he became worth having he would be gone. There are 29 other teams. You have to compete for the services of players if you want to compete as a team.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I think then no one should get more than a 1 year contract. What if in 3 years a team goes from contender to bottom feeder? They shouldn't sell? Or what if a team wants a NHL player in return to round a trade? Or if the player regresses over the course of that 5 years?

Players are commodities that teams compete for. Would the league be better if all contracts were year to year and therefore players wouldn't get complacent or they'd be replaced? Probably. But that's not how the league works.

Teams want cost certainty under a cap system, players want the security offered by a multiple year, fully guaranteed contract. It is a reality of the cap world and honestly a reality of life that people will compete for limited resources with the purchasing power they have at their disposal.

The only way that only offering one year contracts would work for a team is if ALL teams decided to only offer one year contracts and that would be collusion which violates the spirit of the CBA and several anti-trust laws.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

I think then no one should get more than a 1 year contract. What if in 3 years a team goes from contender to bottom feeder? They shouldn't sell? Or what if a team wants a NHL player in return to round a trade? Or if the player regresses over the course of that 5 years?

2/3 is better for your team and still tradeable.