would maximum 2 year contracts help the owners

[shayne]

the new CBA needs alot of things but i have never heard of maximizing contract lenghts.
I thought of this because as soon as the hard cap is instituted, agents would want a way around it and 6 7 or 10 year contracts is a way to guarentee the players gets his money but is under a cap.

the other benefit is every one would have to play harder for there next contract, guys like yashin or jagr don't really try much when they have long term deals in their pocket.

i think it would work and it would be something the owners could use as a way to get better performance or walk away without qualifying them when their contract is up.

thoughts

Click to read more...

 

[Hasbro]

Marvin Miller (he of the baseball player's union) said his worst fear was all players being free agents every year.

So yeah it could, but if you think the NHLPA is intractable on the cap...

 

[fan mao rong]

Yeah, I think a limitation on the length of contracts would help owners. The mistakes would not last as long. I was thinking of 1 year contracts with an option for a 2nd year at 10% increase. They could buy out that option at 1/2 the increase. A test case on that may shortly occur in the NBA, where their owners (some of whom are also NHL owners) are trying to cut the maximum length of contracts from 7 years to 3 years. Rumor has it that the NBA also may shortly be locked out.

 

[Digger12]

Marvin Miller (he of the baseball player's union) said his worst fear was all players being free agents every year.

So yeah it could, but if you think the NHLPA is intractable on the cap...

Simple case of supply and demand...restrict the supply (in this case UFA's) to a relative trickle every summer, watch the demand skyrocket as teams trip over each other trying to sign them.

Glut the market, teams can afford to be more selective and suddenly it's players competing with each other to get signed on with a team vs. the teams competing for 3 or 4 elite guys.

Believe me, the LAST thing the NHLPA wants is unrestricted free agency for everybody.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

and that is probably the answer for the NHL. The best system is an Free market. No union, no CBA. The players are independent contractors and unrestricted whenever that contract expires. If a team treats players well and pays them well, they will be a desired employer. If they don't they will probably end up folding. The high skill players will still ge reasonable deals, while the grunts will likely make close to the minimum (still a very good living)

 

[thinkwild]

Of course, no CBA changes are needed for owners to give out 2 year contracts. Ottawa is very picky about long term contracts. Luckily we got Hossa finishing off a 4yr contract. But Alfie was on 1 and 2yr contracts all the way up to unrestricted free agency. There is no need to sign an RFA for longer than 2 years.

Maybe forcing all UFA contracts to be only one year would encourage more player movement and lower salaries. But often if you buy lots of years of contract, you can get a discount too. But for RFA salaries, it is usually the owners that win by getting them signed long term.

Id think its more appropriate to say: the last thing the owners want is unrestricted free agency for everybody. The average players salary will drop because there will be many of them. But the best players will be just as rare as before and will command even more. Especially if they can fit under some franchise exemption of a large market.

I dont see why it would be suggested that a free market means no union or cba. The players would still have a union to negotiate on their behalf working conditions, safety, etc. But how could these poor helpless owners who need a babysitter to protect them from spending too much even with all the current salary restrictions, possibly compete in the real big bad world? That would be their biggest nightmare. Fans are furiously trying to save owners from that.