The NHL needs non-guaranteed contracts!

[Terrier]

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?

I agree that the next NFL CBA negotiation is going to be very interesting. I wish I had a buck for every time I've heard critical comments about Gene Upshaw's stewardship of the NFL players union. Considering the NFL is awash in TV money and that franchise values are through the roof, the players, most of whom don't have long careers, are going to demand some more security in their contracts.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

I can't wait.
The NHL is going to lock out, and the NHL is going to flop. FLOP heavy in the USA.

Buh-bye Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay. I wish teams like Atlanta, Nashville and Minnesota the best.

There is a decent chance that the NHLPA will lose 250+ jobs because these teams won't last under a long lockout. Nothing is getting done. Everyone in the long run is getting screwed. Players, Owners, the NHL, the Fans.

BUT, the longer the lockout the more the Owners and NHL will win.

I, 100% side with the NHL on this. The Players, for the most part can enjoy the SEL.

 

[Puckhead]

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.

Gaborik and Dupuis did it last year, and Havlat will do it this year. This is very common every year. Just because you don't follow it, doesn't mean its not happening. Holdouts are a dime a dozen and it has been getting worse in the last few years. The players have had varying degrees of success, but in the grand scheme of things it always screws things up. The player misses training camp, he is not in game shape when he does return, and the team suffers because that player is missing from the games if the holdout goes into the season. I don't necessarily blame the players alone. I think a lot of that nonsense is started by the agents who are supposed to be looking out for their clients best interests. If the player is losing money by not getting paid during his holdout and then signs for the same or less, (in the case of Gaborik and anyone who tries that on Lou Lamoriello) having missed games, runs the risk of coming back in cold and getting injured, how is that in the players best interests. It is almost guaranteed that the player who holds out will have a sub par year, so why bother? Look back 2 years ago when the Sharks were expected to challenge for the cup. Nabakov and Stuat decided to hold out, the team got off to a terrible start, and when Nabakov and Stuart finally signed, it didn't matter. They had far from stellar seasons, and the team missed out on the playoffs. You really think that the owners forget stuff like that. A contract should be honoured by both sides, but the players see a chance to bend the team over for a few extra bucks and guess what? Now take Yashin for instance, he holds out an entire year on the Senators and how do the bone head Islanders deal with him...They give him a guaranteed 10 year deal worth 90 million.

 

[Malefic74]

I agree that the next NFL CBA negotiation is going to be very interesting. I wish I had a buck for every time I've heard critical comments about Gene Upshaw's stewardship of the NFL players union. Considering the NFL is awash in TV money and that franchise values are through the roof, the players, most of whom don't have long careers, are going to demand some more security in their contracts.

True, but some good has come out of that CBA. In the old days only the glory boys; the quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers, would see the big money. You'd never see bidding wars over cornerbacks, or offensive tackles drawing salaries in the millions of dollars.

The NFL has it's problems no doubt, but they are the most proactive league in terms of resolving problems as quickly as possible. Their concept of the copetition commitee alone is nothing short of brilliant. Those negotiations probably won't be all sunshine and roses, but I don't think they will be near as ugly as the so-called "negotiations" between the NHL and the NHLPA.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Gaborik and Dupuis did it last year, and Havlat will do it this year. This is very common every year. Just because you don't follow it, doesn't mean its not happening. Holdouts are a ....

WRONG ..

these players had fulfilled their contracts. if they dont want to play NHL hockey for less than 100 billion dollars a second, they dont have too, as they are NOT UNDER ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. (exageration of course)

the players who have a contract and refuse to honour it are the scum, but they are few and far between (Yashin and Tkachuk and ... ???).

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Gaborik and Dupuis did it last year, and Havlat will do it this year. This is very common every year. Just because you don't follow it, doesn't mean its not happening. Holdouts are a dime a dozen and it has been getting worse in the last few years.

As DR said, you are mistaking the right of an individual to not sign a contract with the puke-behavior of not honoring a contract your word.

Nobody should ever be forced to sign a contract they do not want.

 

[HughJass*]

I can't wait.
The NHL is going to lock out, and the NHL is going to flop. FLOP heavy in the USA.

Buh-bye Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay. I wish teams like Atlanta, Nashville and Minnesota the best.

There is a decent chance that the NHLPA will lose 250+ jobs because these teams won't last under a long lockout. Nothing is getting done. Everyone in the long run is getting screwed. Players, Owners, the NHL, the Fans.

BUT, the longer the lockout the more the Owners and NHL will win.

I, 100% side with the NHL on this. The Players, for the most part can enjoy the SEL.

I suspect you are not an American. And I also expect your head is in the clouds. I feel like Miss Cleo now

http://spectorshockey.tripod.com/spectors_soapbox.html

Very long read, but I think you need to see the argument against the league, bro.

Btw, non-guaranteed contracts are insane. It won't help anything.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I'm VERY much for performance clauses.

I have some reservations about them.

If they are individual clauses (goals, +/-, etc...), they may lead to individualistic play, and hockey is such a team game. I know it's a cliché but I really believe it. This can be disruptive in a locker room.

If they are collective ($2,00,000 bonus if you win the cup, $1,00,000 bonus if regular season champ or whatever) they could lead to more pukes like Kariya and Selanne signing up only with strong teams. Thus weak teams might become perpetually weak because who wants to sign with bonus clauses that are collective on a pathetic team?

There are a couple of individual trophies that can probably not affect chemistry much (bonus if you win the Selke for instance) but not many. And these awards are often controversial anyway, and also depend on a strong team. People can say what they want about Lidstrom being the top player in the league, I don['t believe a word of it. The guy's Norris awards are due in great part to his talent but he gets ZERO Norris if he had been on a crappy team.

In principles, clauses should be a solution, but due to hockey's nature, I find this a potential problem. For an owner, financially, I guess the clauses make sense. At the hockey level, coillectively, a coach might find them a pain in the ass.

 

[broman]

If they are collective ($2,00,000 bonus if you win the cup, $1,00,000 bonus if regular season champ or whatever) they could lead to more pukes like Kariya and Selanne signing up only with strong teams. Thus weak teams might become perpetually weak because who wants to sign with bonus clauses that are collective on a pathetic team?

Honestly, I don't get the grudge a lot of people reserve for Kariya & Selanne, other than that the two didn't sign for your own team....

What exactly was their cardinal sin? That they approached a team, instead of the other way around? Whoa. That they said out loud that they want a fighting chance for the Cup? As if everyone else doesn't. That they "walked out" on their previous teams? Get real. That they didn't ask for megabucks (which according to Vlad and many others is exactly the problem with players today, right?) but settled for a measly $7 million between the two of them? Man, I don't get it how they manage the bills with peanuts like that. That they somehow undermined the position of younger players downplaying their own value? Yeah right, the rulebook sure was rewritten overnight after this travesty. Every GM will from now on take $1.2M is the going rate for an All-Star, while up and coming youngsters will have to settle for 1/10th of that. Oh what suffering.

Please explain. I will be delighted to hear your underlying logic, if there is one.

 

[me2]

Kariya did nothing wrong. It was the Ducks that cut him, not the other way around. The Ducks signed him to a contract they didn't want to renew because they didn't think he was performing at that level: Vlad that's no different to exercising the option to walk away on a non-guaranteed contract, something you advocated above.

The Ducks chose to use the $10m from Kariya on Fedorov and Prospal, so it didn't weaken the Ducks at all.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

That they didn't ask for megabucks (which according to Vlad and many others is exactly the problem with players today, right?)

That's one of the problem of the NHL today but that's not the greater problem at all.

The strongest problem today is an unreasonably unequal financial field leading to several questionable moves across the NHL. That's what I have always been against.

You can cut it any way you want but in the end, Kariya and Selanne still signed with a rich powerhouse, only accentuating a phenomenon we have seen recently. In effect, players take paycuts to remain or join rich powerhouses like Detroit and Colorado, and other veterans defer money to play for those same team.

It only adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned.

As for my feelings for Paul Kariya, I believe this guy has zero loyalty nor any gratitude. He became a filthy rich athlete who never even earned half of his salary in Anaheim, he put the Ducks in a corner and left them when they would have easily resigned him for more than what he took with Colorado.

That's the least a heartless thief like him should have given back. On a scale of 10, Kariya scores an 11 on the puke-o-meter.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Kariya did nothing wrong. It was the Ducks that cut him, not the other way around. The Ducks signed him to a contract they didn't want to renew because they didn't think he was performing at that level: Vlad that's no different to exercising the option to walk away on a non-guaranteed contract, something you advocated above.

I strongly advocate for that right. he is absolutely free to make those lame, ungrateful decisions. Some decisions we take do make *******s of us, however. That was one of them.