Should bridge deals be mandatory for players coming out of their ELC?

[SniperOnTheWing]

I was reading the McDavid contract thread in the Oilers board (rumored $14 million asking price) and had this thought:

Should a player's second contract be a mandatory capped bridge deal, coinciding with his RFA status? Say a bridge deal was capped at 4 years with a max potential salary of $8 million. This would guarantee a structure like this:

Three years ELC ($900k~) > Four years bridge ($8 million max for the best players) while the player is RFA > Full-on free agency (whatever the player wants)

This would provide stability for teams trying to build around young stars like McDavid and prevent someone from going from a $900k ELC to a cap-killing $14 million contract in one stroke.

Click to read more...

 

[JetsHomer]

No. It would just take money from second contact players and give it to UFA players who would find their contracts even more inflated. RFAs are already earning less than they should

 

[SniperOnTheWing]

No. It would just take money from second contact players and give it to UFA players who would find their contracts even more inflated. RFAs are already earning less than they should

This would only effect the elite of the elite, like McDavid and possibly Matthews. Guys who can and will push the $8 million ceiling coming right off ELC. Guys the league will want to see succeed on teams that are on the upswing and could potentially be cap crippled before they even get rolling. Average joe on an RFA isn't going to be effected by a capped bridge deal when he might only see $6 million or so anyway. If the league wants to promote building and give the best (and most marketable) players the best chance to win this is how you can do it. If a team blows the opportunity and mishandles their other UFA's then that's on them.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

No. Let players be paid what they've earned to be paid.

 

[SniperOnTheWing]

No. Let players be paid what they've earned to be paid.

Have they really earned it after a couple of seasons though? The $10 million+ guys in the league today are all multiple Cup winners. I love both McDavid and Matthews and will pump them up all day long but I wouldn't give either of them $10-14 million extensions after two years in the league unless I absolutely have to. Right now teams have to but it doesn't make it the best solution.

Hell half the posters on the Edmonton board are already willing to trade McDavid just for ASKING for $14 million hah.

 

[mikee]

Wah

Try doing it with two elite guys who came off ELC at the same time, use the same agent, won't take a discount, and need the exact same contract, and have cup on their resume. Then do it ask again when they reach UFA with two more cups.

 

[mikee]

Capping it just gives money back to owners or to less deserving players. So.... No I don't think that is a good idea

 

[PredsV82]

players don't like it because it potentially costs them money

owners/teams don't like it because it potentially costs them 4 years of having a superstar (3 year ELC plus 8 year extension vs 3+4 before UFA status)

 

[Old Guy]

Should a player's second contract be a mandatory capped bridge deal, coinciding with his RFA status?

No. Unless bargained for collectively, that would be restraint of trade which is illegal in the US.

 

[L13]

Definitely not. Players should earn as much as they deserve. (That's why I'm against ELCs in general.)

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

NHLPA says nah. To the poster above, ELCs are necessary for cap reasons and poaching

 

[Eisen]

I was reading the McDavid contract thread in the Oilers board (rumored $14 million asking price) and had this thought:

Should a player's second contract be a mandatory capped bridge deal, coinciding with his RFA status? Say a bridge deal was capped at 4 years with a max potential salary of $8 million. This would guarantee a structure like this:

Three years ELC ($900k~) > Four years bridge ($8 million max for the best players) while the player is RFA > Full-on free agency (whatever the player wants)

This would provide stability for teams trying to build around young stars like McDavid and prevent someone from going from a $900k ELC to a cap-killing $14 million contract in one stroke.

Absolutely not. The owners have enough advantages as is. The ELC already is a huge bone to them.

 

[Advanced stats]

Have they really earned it after a couple of seasons though? The $10 million+ guys in the league today are all multiple Cup winners. I love both McDavid and Matthews and will pump them up all day long but I wouldn't give either of them $10-14 million extensions after two years in the league unless I absolutely have to. Right now teams have to but it doesn't make it the best solution.

Hell half the posters on the Edmonton board are already willing to trade McDavid just for ASKING for $14 million hah.

Well if you don't think he's earned it, than trade him..

He's absolutely earned it.

 

[cptjeff]

No. Unless bargained for collectively, that would be restraint of trade which is illegal in the US.

You do realize that everything about NHL player compensation is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, right?

Of course, that's another reason this conversation is moot- the players would never in a million years agree to this. And the entry level deal exists to let teams see if players are the real deal before giving them massive contracts, unlike some sports where rookies are paid tens of millions to sit on the bench when it turns out they suck (cough cough, NFL). 3 years is enough, after that players should be able to get paid what they're worth.

 

[Stopsight]

Have they really earned it after a couple of seasons though? The $10 million+ guys in the league today are all multiple Cup winners. I love both McDavid and Matthews and will pump them up all day long but I wouldn't give either of them $10-14 million extensions after two years in the league unless I absolutely have to. Right now teams have to but it doesn't make it the best solution.

Hell half the posters on the Edmonton board are already willing to trade McDavid just for ASKING for $14 million hah.

players have earned precisely whatever they can get a GM (even an addled GM) to pay them

 

[MasterofGrond]

Do we really need yet another way to artificially decrease the salaries of people who are forced to adhere to rules created before they even enter the organization that collectively bargained for them? To protect billionaires?

 

[SotasicA]

Definitely not. Players should earn as much as they deserve. (That's why I'm against ELCs in general.)

Would be a weird situation if you had to pay rookies 8-10M a year. Most teams then couldn't afford to draft those high picks.

 

[SotasicA]

Do we really need yet another way to artificially decrease the salaries of people who are forced to adhere to rules created before they even enter the organization that collectively bargained for them? To protect billionaires?

It's just a different way to distribute salaries. "Billionaires" would not be affected, and they probably don't care. Players get 50% of HRR. The PA and veteran players probably care more, because every extra dollar going to a kid is a dollar away from a league veteran.

 

[SniperOnTheWing]

Do we really need yet another way to artificially decrease the salaries of people who are forced to adhere to rules created before they even enter the organization that collectively bargained for them? To protect billionaires?

Did I say anything about protecting billionaires? It's about being able to afford a good competitive team while these players are young so they can win for the FANS benefit. I don't give a crap about who owns the Oilers, Leafs or whoever. I want to see my team have the best chance to win Cups. I want to see McDavid win Cups. What I don't want is to see good teams in cap hell before they even have a chance to get off the ground.

Besides, the cap is the cap regardless so that billionaire is only spending what he's allowed to spend anyway. Capping the superstars for a few years means another good player can still sign with a good team and maybe make a little more.

Once the RFA period is over and the player is free to go wherever he wants he can ask for $20 million if he wants. If he won a Cup or two in that time because his team could afford to be competitive then he can ask for even more. There's a benefit for the superstar too.

 

[SniperOnTheWing]

Would be a weird situation if you had to pay rookies 8-10M a year. Most teams then couldn't afford to draft those high picks.

This would only effect the very top tier generational players. It's would be a *maximum* of $8 million (or $7 million, or whatever). A $5 million player is still a $5 million player you don't HAVE to pay him the maximum.

 

[Sting]

No.

Realistically this would be an unfair advantage to teams who have stockpiled picks and/or got lucky enough to grab a couple franchise players.

Also unfair to the players who could be missing out on 5 or so extra million a year.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Maybe he would have still been traded but look at what happened between Montreal and P.K. Subban when he held out at the start of the 2012-2013 season, ended up getting a bridge deal and eventually signed that 8 year contract worth $72 million, which might have been less if they never gave him a bridge deal.

 

[Eisen]

Maybe he would have still been traded but look at what happened between Montreal and P.K. Subban when he held out at the start of the 2012-2013 season, ended up getting a bridge deal and eventually signed that 8 year contract worth $72 million, which might have been less if they never gave him a bridge deal.

Might have gotten an bad injury, too.

 

[coolboarder]

It is not necessary to have that bridge contract becoming mandatory because McDavid will wait for free agent period for an offer sheet by any team who is willing to give up 4 first round picks compensation for 7 years, 14 million per year. That will happen if the Oilers refuse to meet his asking price and wait until free agent for any highest bidder and force the Oilers to match his contract. I would bet you that it will happen.

 

[Lempo]

Definitely not. Players should earn as much as they deserve. (That's why I'm against ELCs in general.)

I wonder how much Jimmy Vesey would have earned in that kind of system in the last season.

Because in this current max $925k base salary + max $850k Schedule A bonus + max $2M Schedule B bonus system his final earned total of $925k was probably more okay (looking from the outside) that it would have been in the other kind of system.

It's not a perfect system by no means, but the conditional possible maximum of $3,775,000 payable to those players on ELC, who can a) initially negotiate a money-giving contract for themselves and b) back it up on the ice with a top 10 performance in his position is probably quite in line with what should be expected.