I think it's too early to tell. The Ovi contract was (I think?) the first big money long term deal, but he was younger and it was pretty much straightlined in value. So far, that deal seems like a reasonable one, even if the Washington are up against the cap limit.
The debate on long term contracts seem to mostly focus on "is it worth trading the performance on the first few years (when contract is more affordable) for the cap albatross the last few years". But, Luongo's deal seems to point out another issue - what if you sign a star player, but then you mismanage the rest of the team . Luongo has 5 years left on a 12 year deal with a $5.3 million cap hit. If he can continue to perform as an average to above average starter for the next three years, I think that contract would have been worth it for some team. Imagine if the Rangers had Lundqvist on a Luongo type deal? They would have had $3 million more in caps space the past few years when they were a legitimate contender. Vancouver, though, was only competitive for the first three years of Luongo's deal. A shorter contract would have not only protected against a Luongo decline, it also would have given the Canucks a lot more flexibility in case the rest of the team declined. Instead, they ended up trading Luongo for pennies on the dollar.
