Skip to content

NHL proposes five-year max length for contracts

Oct 16, 2012, 2:05 PM EDT

In addition to the NHL offering the players  a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue in the league’s latest CBA proposal, here are some other details of the offer, via Sportsnet’s John Shannon:

In the last CBA, players were allowed to sign so-called “lifetime” contracts. Ilya Kovalchuk, for example, was given a 15-year deal by the Devils. Also of note, five years is the maximum contract length under the NBA’s new CBA.

Free agency previously started at 27 and seven, respectively.

In the last CBA, ELC’s were three years.



Previous estimates had total revenue sharing between large-market and small-market teams around $150 million.

Owners would prefer no arbitration.

If accepted, will be known as the “Wade Redden rule.”

  1. t16rich - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:08 PM

    Good. That’s what they should be.

    • sabatimus - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM

      Yep. If this had been in place, it would’ve saved Mike Milbury from himself with the DiPietro deal. That deal alone probably got him fired. The limit on contract length would also help curtail the increasing tendency by teams to circumvent salary cap rules by front-loading contracts and having a pittance at the end of the contract–when absolutely nobody believe the player will still be playing for the team, if at all. I mean, DiPietro’s contract was 15 YEARS, and there are other more current examples (Hossa).

      • islesjb - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:41 PM

        Anyway we can make the 5 year contract limit retro-active to 2006?

        ps. Milbury is a huge jabronie

      • sabatimus - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM

        Yes he is. I’m a Bruins fan and I think Milbury is an incredible ass.

      • islesjb - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:51 PM

        Can’t stand him as a commentator. Acting like a know-it-all even after managing the Isles into the ground. In fairness, Milbury only drafted DP (and traded away Luongo to move up to do it). The contract came under Snow but it was really Wang who pushed it through.

        Milbury has a laundry list of other offenses and blunders that I won’t even get into

      • phillyphever - Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM

        Wasn’t it Snow that gave DiPietro that contract?

      • bcisleman - Oct 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM

        No, it was ALL Wang. His way of saying that the Milbury era of trading away the best talent was over. Wang wanted to do The Contract a year earlier but Bettman made him wait a year in hopes he would change his mind. Didn’t work. That summer (2006), Isles briefly signed Neil Smith as GM & then quickly fired him. Not sure if The Contract was part of the control issues that led to the firing. Snow then replaced him and likely did so on condition that he accept The Contract. He has been given control of the operational side of the franchise since and its pretty clear that The Contract doesn’t fit his philosophy.

        BTW, Milbury CAN be faulted for one awful Isle contract. If this season is a go, it will probably change at some point this year–but, at the moment, Alexei Yashin is the highest scoring forward on the Isles payroll.

  2. tmoore4075 - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    I don’t like the cap on contracts. I think there needs to be one to protect the owners from being stupid but 7 or 8 years would be better. Teams should be allowed to protect their investments from bolting and it gives the players some security as well.

    The rest of those details…I’m all for. The AHL thing is very very interesting.

    • elvispocomo - Oct 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

      I like the idea of teams not hiding bad contracts (either in the AHL like Redden, or overseas like Huet) so it’ll be interesting to see how that pans out.

  3. capesouth - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    If nothing else, optimism is a productive thing…that’s what this is.

  4. barkar942 - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    How about any contract ends automatically at the end of any season when the player turns 36. From that point on, over 35 contracts are one year deals only and only count at 50% towards the cap. Encourages teams to sign these older players but stops all of the done at 44 years old contracts. If free agency doesn’t start till 28, then deals need to be 7 years long.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Oct 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM

      Why not just have every year in the contract a certain percentage of the highest yearly salary a player earns? Like, if the highest yearly salary for a player is $8mil, then every other year has to be minimum somewhere within 50-75% of that salary, so like $4-6mil. That way you can’t front load a 10 year contract with $10mil/yr for the first 3 yrs and then trail it off to <$2mil to fit under the cap. Makes sense to me.

  5. dropthepuckeh - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    AHL contracts contributing to the NHL cap sounds very aggressive and like a back door way to lower the cap without saying it. I’d be curious how much of an impact it would have on most teams.

    • hockeyflow33 - Oct 16, 2012 at 4:20 PM

      Not much of any. It certainly wouldn’t apply to 2-way deals and there aren’t many guys who pass through waivers and stay in the AHL for extended periods of time

    • stakex - Oct 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

      All this would do is prevent teams from stashing NHL contracts in the AHL. Two way deals and AHL only contracts would NOT count against the NHL cap.

  6. gomer1 - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM

    If nothing else, this should guarantee that we will get NHL hockey this season, at some point, and probably fairly soon. It may take a little while for them to go back and forth and hammer out some details, but this seems very promising considering where they were… this morning.

  7. blomfeld - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    “ps: Quick’s contract is wrong too, as the maximum length for an NHL contract should be 5 x years …”

    Blomfeld on Oct.10th @ PHT

  8. illadelphiasphinest - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM

    This is rediculous. The owners want max 5year contaracts. Yet they are handing out these 8-10-12 year deals like candy to Suter, Webber, Crosby, Parise etc… What a joke the owners are!!

    • tmoore4075 - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM

      I agree but I’m ok with it being there. I have a feeling it’s from the small market teams trying to stop the big markets from signing players to 10 year contracts.

    • capesouth - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:43 PM

      You have to understand that even though some of them are being hypocritical and signing players to the huge deals, they are also trying to do whatever they can to lock players up. They are just working within the current set of rules. If this CBA passes, then they’ll work within those rules. Can’t blame owners signing players like Parise to their teams if it is within the rules. It’s like being between a rock and a hard place. If they take a stand and say, “even though it’s allowed, I refuse to sign this player to a 10 year deal”, then I guarantee someone else will sign that player. Things are cut and dry..It’s business and they have to roll with it, given the current standards.

    • davebabychreturns - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM

      You do know that teams have to function within a marketplace that the CBA sets the rules for, yes?

      They can’t just refuse to participate and let their team rot because they don’t like the rules. Only one GM has ever done that – Brian Burke – and frankly it’s all a smoke screen to hide the fact that his employers either don’t have the budget or the reputation to acquire high end free agents.

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Oct 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

        Wow, nice roast!

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Oct 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM

      Yes and no. There was a loophole that was obviously exploited under the expired CBA by certain owners, but for teams basically had to spend crazy money on the players in order to bring them in, or else someone else would. We only know of the few big contenders for Parise and Suter but it was reported that virtually every team in the league inquired on them, if they didn’t put a bid in. Things will change now.

    • stakex - Oct 16, 2012 at 5:51 PM

      It wasn’t the owners who wanted these super long deals… it was the players. Do you really think the Pens would have given Crosby the deal they did if it was up to them? Of coruse not. They gave him the deal because he wanted it, and if they didn’t give it to him… someone else would have.

      This has been a huge misconception during this battle. The owners only gave out deals like this because they had to. If you wanted to keep or attract star players you had to be willing to make them an offer they couldn’t refuse… and that means a lot of years on the deal.

  9. lostpuppysyndrome - Oct 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    I think it says something about the owners too that they came out with a new offer before the PA did. That, and the fact that they want to still squeeze in 82 games in a shortened season says to me that the owners have had enough. Come on Fehr, get it signed!

  10. lsxphotog - Oct 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

    “Wade Redden rule” hahahahaha

  11. thedavesiknowiknow - Oct 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    Good. July 1st gets more boring every year (as the crop who aren’t signed to 10+ year deals gets thinner every year). Hopefully they include a clause to stop the front-loading/back-loading deals while they’re at it.

  12. source7769 - Oct 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    I dont know why everyone uses dipietros deal as the worst deal at the time he was a good goalie and wouldve gotten paid by someone and much more then the 4.5 per they gave him he took less money per yr but was essentially a career deal all they did was take an 8 yr deal and stretch it out and its not like they couldve predicted him breaking down that quickly , to me giving crosby all those years and being 1 hit away from being done is alot riskier considering they cant insure his head injuries and not like the isles ever will need the cap room

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1805)
  2. P. Kane (1335)
  3. P. Datsyuk (1184)
  4. S. Matthias (1139)
  5. M. Giordano (1042)