The NHL needs non-guaranteed contracts!

[borro]

Like football, the ability to cut say a Jagr would alleviate alot of the upward spiral pressure on salaries. If good players don't play good, they get cut! Seems logical to me!

Click to read more...

 

[degroat*]

The NHLPA is more against non-guaranteed contracts than they are against a cap.

 

[GKJ]

Seems logical to you.



Not logical for the union.

 

[borro]

The NHLPA is more against non-guaranteed contracts than they are against a cap.

So, make it non-negotiable. Give in on the Cap demand but insist on non-guaranteed contracts. The rank and file player will be all for this. It works for the NFL. Why couldn't it work for the NHL? Still gives you freedom to improve the team, but puts the onus on the player to be worth what he is paid. I like it!

 

[GKJ]

So, make it non-negotiable. Give in on the Cap demand but insist on non-guaranteed contracts. The rank and file player will be all for this. It works for the NFL. Why couldn't it work for the NHL? Still gives you freedom to improve the team, but puts the onus on the player to be worth what he is paid. I like it!

In the NFL players get cut simply because of the changes in the cap and changes in the players salary structure. The onus might be on the player, but time and time again players have good seasons and get gone because of the cap number.

 

[borro]

In the NFL players get cut simply because of the changes in the cap and changes in the players salary structure. The onus might be on the player, but time and time again players have good seasons and get gone because of the cap number.

Which is why you don't make a Cap. You put the onus on the player to be WORTH his contract. Period.

 

[thinkwild]

There is still a marketplace for players under a cap. The same owners who cant control themselves will be negotiating them.

The onus is on teams to equally distribute talent measured by salary under cap. When you think your team is one missing piece from a cup, there will be other teams 3 missing pieces away. The cap will ensure both are equally 2 missing pieces away. But under a cap world, that would be an elite team. And so like in the horrid NFL system, they have a chance to win.

 

[borro]

There is still a marketplace for players under a cap. The same owners who cant control themselves will be negotiating them.

The onus is on teams to equally distribute talent measured by salary under cap. When you think your team is one missing piece from a cup, there will be other teams 3 missing pieces away. The cap will ensure both are equally 2 missing pieces away. But under a cap world, that would be an elite team. And so like in the horrid NFL system, they have a chance to win.

With a Cap comes all the whining about having to cut a guy. Leave it flexible and you eliminate that.

 

[GKJ]

Which is why you don't make a Cap. You put the onus on the player to be WORTH his contract. Period.

So you want to make a cap and then make the players contract not guarenteed?

Thats like if you were a teacher in a union, and another teacher moved into town and took your job, and you end up bagging groceries or moving to a new city.

 

[borro]

So you want to make a cap and then make the players contract not guarenteed?

Thats like if you were a teacher in a union, and another teacher moved into town and took your job, and you end up bagging groceries or moving to a new city.

Reading comprehension not your strong point? I said NO CAP and NO GUARANTEED CONTRACTS. Is that so difficult to follow?

Come on kim, how do you get from my statement...
which is why you don't make a Cap...to... So you want to make a Cap...

 

[Astaroth]

Like football, the ability to cut say a Jagr would alleviate alot of the upward spiral pressure on salaries. If good players don't play good, they get cut! Seems logical to me!

The only reason the NFL has this is because they crushed the Union back in their last labour dispute. That being said the NFL is healthy only because of the massive TV contract that they enjoy but trust me when 2007 rolls around, the s*** is going to hit the fan to say it lightly. I am totally against non-guaranteed contracts, say what you want about the players' earning power but a contract is a contract. Unless of course you let the players have the same privilege and negociate when he wants and can leave when he wants?

 

[Snap Wilson]

So, make it non-negotiable. Give in on the Cap demand but insist on non-guaranteed contracts. The rank and file player will be all for this. It works for the NFL. Why couldn't it work for the NHL? Still gives you freedom to improve the team, but puts the onus on the player to be worth what he is paid. I like it!

Sure, and would you allow a player to leave a team whenever he wants as well? If teams can cut a player when he's overpaid, then he should be able to leave when he's underpaid, right? Or does only one party have to adhere to the contract?

 

[borro]

Sure, and would you allow a player to leave a team whenever he wants as well? If teams can cut a player when he's overpaid, then he should be able to leave when he's underpaid, right? Or does only one party have to adhere to the contract?

He has the ability to do that whenever his contract expires. Some measure of protecting undesirable markets needs to exist, in my opinion.

 

[borro]

The only reason the NFL has this is because they crushed the Union back in their last labour dispute. That being said the NFL is healthy only because of the massive TV contract that they enjoy but trust me when 2007 rolls around, the s*** is going to hit the fan to say it lightly. I am totally against non-guaranteed contracts, say what you want about the players' earning power but a contract is a contract. Unless of course you let the players have the same privilege and negociate when he wants and can leave when he wants?

A contract is a contract, the assumption is that the player lives up to his end. His end is not being lived up to (performance wise) in many cases. This idea of negotiating with no need to perform sucks!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Sure, and would you allow a player to leave a team whenever he wants as well? If teams can cut a player when he's overpaid, then he should be able to leave when he's underpaid, right? Or does only one party have to adhere to the contract?

Well, right now the fat cats and their agents whine to get the money and half the time stop playing. So it's kind of the other way around.

Not to mention the thieves and scums who sign contracts and don't live up to their word. Have you seen the owners try to pull that off?

I'm all for non-garanteed contract for players. Maybe they'd ask for money they can actually earn instead of having infamous contract years and then sit on their lazy asses.

If the salary is right for the performance, the player won't be cut.

Under this system though, to be fair for the player you might have to pump up some performance clauses a little which I don't like.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I am totally against non-guaranteed contracts, say what you want about the players' earning power but a contract is a contract.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[borro]

Well, right now the fat cats and their agents whine to get the money and half the time stop playing. So it's kind of the other way around.

Not to mention the thieves and scums who sign contracts and don't live up to their word. Have you seen the owners try to pull that off?

I'm all for non-garanteed contract for players. Maybe they'd ask for money they can actually earn instead of having infamous contract years and then sit on their lazy asses.

If the salary is right for the performance, the player won't be cut.

Under this system though, to be fair for the player you might have to pump up some performance clauses a little which I don't like.

I'm VERY much for performance clauses. I agree with everything you said here Vlad. Without some protection for the owners, they are not going to agree with any deal. The players need some protection. in the NFL, competition is their protection.

 

[Astaroth]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Lol, I guess I didn't make it clear. I meant by that was that nobody should able to renege on a contract once it has been signed. I am well aware of course that non-guaranteed contracts are legal and everything but it's the spirit of it; the team doesn't like your play, good-bye. While it is true it does offer extra incentive and makes the player as you say, earn his salary, I don't agree with it because players should be able to do the same thing. It's not a fair deal in my opinion.

 

[H/H]

So, make it non-negotiable. Give in on the Cap demand but insist on non-guaranteed contracts. The rank and file player will be all for this. It works for the NFL. Why couldn't it work for the NHL? Still gives you freedom to improve the team, but puts the onus on the player to be worth what he is paid. I like it!

How would you like a decade long lockout?

 

[borro]

How would you like a decade long lockout?

No, I want hockey ASAP. Since no progredss is being made, maybe suggets something else. This would not lead to a long lockout.

 

[Russian Fan]

Which is why you don't make a Cap. You put the onus on the player to be WORTH his contract. Period.

Why ?

You want to reward the GM's for making POOR DECISION ? It's fair to you that Bobby Clarke can be free of giving 9M$ a year to Leclair. The Flyers would be stronger & you would cry like a baby because Bobby Clarke could sign Demitra & Palffy by letting Roenick & Leclair away.

 

[ceber]

15% buyouts, unrestricted free agency starts at the end of the rookie contract, some sort of luxury tax. That's what I'd be tempted try right now. At least for a couple of seasons, just to see what happens.
- 15% buyouts gives teams a bit of incentive to keep a guy under contract even if his performance drops a bit, but doesn't make buying him out so painful that they wouldn't do it. Maybe try 10% or 20%.
- UFA after rookie contract will put plenty of players on the market, making it much more free, and salaries will drop considerably for all but the top-end players.
- Some sort of luxury tax will benefit the teams with responsible ownership when the rich teams go spend-crazy on free agents.

Yeah, the rich teams will hog many of the top players. It's not perfect. I don't think there is a good solution.

 

[Puckhead]

The only reason the NFL has this is because they crushed the Union back in their last labour dispute. That being said the NFL is healthy only because of the massive TV contract that they enjoy but trust me when 2007 rolls around, the s*** is going to hit the fan to say it lightly. I am totally against non-guaranteed contracts, say what you want about the players' earning power but a contract is a contract. Unless of course you let the players have the same privilege and negociate when he wants and can leave when he wants?

If you are so against non-guarenteed contracts, obviously siding with the players, then where do you sit on the issue of players sitting out, trying to get more money and more years when they still have a contract in place. By not guaranteeing the contract, the player has the incentive needed to play the game to the best of his ability, and not drag his ass for 82 games. Gone would be the excuse that the player needs the right motivation...How about not getting paid? I think that would stoke the fires of some lazy players who play good enough to get the big deal, and then dissapear for the duration, only to start the cycle again in their last year of the deal. It would greatly increase production, while keeping the game intact. No need to widen the nets, get rid of the lines, make bigger arenas...Just get the players to live up to their god given talents. It should be a privelege to make your living playing a game, not a right.

 

[Epsilon]

If you are so against non-guarenteed contracts, obviously siding with the players, then where do you sit on the issue of players sitting out, trying to get more money and more years when they still have a contract in place. By not guaranteeing the contract, the player has the incentive needed to play the game to the best of his ability, and not drag his ass for 82 games. Gone would be the excuse that the player needs the right motivation...How about not getting paid? I think that would stoke the fires of some lazy players who play good enough to get the big deal, and then dissapear for the duration, only to start the cycle again in their last year of the deal. It would greatly increase production, while keeping the game intact. No need to widen the nets, get rid of the lines, make bigger arenas...Just get the players to live up to their god given talents. It should be a privelege to make your living playing a game, not a right.

Just how many guys have done this besides Alexei Yashin and Pavel Bure? People make it sound like NHL players bail on their contracts with the same frequency NFL teams cut guys loose.

 

[me2]

Like football, the ability to cut say a Jagr would alleviate alot of the upward spiral pressure on salaries. If good players don't play good, they get cut! Seems logical to me!

I'm with the players on this. IMHO guaranteed contracts are GOOD

Firstly. If teams can cut players without penalty at will it means that they can afford to offer more for player contracts driving up prices. Turgeon here's $7m, you aren't working out, well see ya. Where is downward pressure on salaries?

Secondly, teams that offer overlong, overexpensive deserve to be punished for stupidity. Its not the players fault the team was stupid, punish the team not the player.

Thirdly, use performance bonuses to balance out cost v performance issues.

Finally, if teams want a non-guaranteed contracts they can do it now. All they have to do is make every contract offer a 2-way or club option.

Non-guaranteed contracts reward the over-paying clubs and poor managers. The more teams that get burned on Turgeon and LeClair type deals the better for fiscal responsibility.

Lets say player X is 31 and wants to retire at the end of contract with his prefered club. He's an elite player but realises he's aging is worth $5m/y for year 1, $4m for year 2, $3m for years 3 and $2m for year 4 and $1m for year 5: total value $15m but only wants $12.5m. The clubs needs to spreadout the payments and they come to a deal of $2.5m/y for 5 years. Is it fair the club can cut him after 3 years when he deferred salary to years 4 & 5?


If player X has signs 5 year contract for $15m at a flat rate of $3m/y. In year 1 he breaks his leg, in year 2 he gets a concussion, year 3 a injured back is not as strong or as fast or as phyicals. He's not lazy, greedy or underperforming, he's injured giving his all for the club. Is it fair the club walks away from years 4 and 5? I don't think so.

Net result is that agents are going to demand upfront payments and signing bonuses to ensure their players are covered, and fair enough too. Is that going to be helpful to poorer clubs who can't match the signing bonuses, I don't think so.

Guaranteed contracts are not a problem, overpriced salaries are.