The players have to take some responsibility for signing these deals as well, knowing the risk and financial burden it puts on a lot of the teams. They certainly (their agents really) drive up the price as UFAs to maximize earnings.

In the end, contract length means very little if you can have cap hits and salaries be equal, or at least with only small variances, over the length of the contract. No $1M salary in the final years after giving $10+M in the first few means that deal isn’t as good for the players and the cap hit can’t be artificially lowered.

The 5 year Max is likely to effect star players a lot more, no arguing that.

But the 2 year ELC and added year until UFA is meant to hammer the avg player. Think how many avg players spend 2-3 years in the AHL. Taking away another year of that ELC will allow teams to sign avg players to lower paying two-way deals after their ELC expires because the player has no leverage or NHL experience. A Player like Kyle Palmieri who spent the past two years in the AHL would have had his ELC expire with barely a cup of coffee in the NHL. If there wasn’t a lockout he would be playing top 6 minutes for the ducks this season, which would give him a heck of a lot bargaining power come RFA time.

I’d be fine with even 7 years max (along with something to protect the actual yearly salary from dropping considerably in the final years) but it’s clearly something the NHL doesn’t have to have so low to protect themselves from themselves.

So your concept of staying competitive by “keeping up” with the idiot owners who hand these deals out is flawed. Owners who feel compelled to follow suit, well, that’s their problem.

All teams want to win, so if there is a loophole they are going to exploit it. If one team starts to do it, all the other teams have to follow if they want to compete even if they don’t want to. Its a legit problem that needs to be fixed, and if your best argument against fixing it is: “Don’t fix it, just don’t do it”, you really don’t have much of an argument (or an understanding of the concept “winning”).

1. These contract issues, which Fehr says is a major sticking point, don’t effect 90% of the players in the NHL. Only a handful of super starts will ever get a contract longer then five years, and an extra year of restricted free agency isn’t going to hurt most players.

2. When it comes to a possible salary reduction, your super starts are willing to throw a season away to avoid it since in the long run it might actually save them money. However the vast majority of NHL players will lose more money with a lost season, then they would have just taking a small pay cut and playing the full year.

—————

So when you see Fehr on stage with Crosby right behind him, and hear inflamatory statements from guys like Kovelchuck/Ovechkin…. remember that this lockout is all about guys like them, not your average player. Fehr is willing to throw the season away so a handful of NHL players make a bit more money over the course of their career, while hundreds of other players would lose quite a lot.

everyone knows this. i also dont like 10 yr deal esp. when it comes to Hockey. Hockey is not basketball. one shot one hit can change his whole career.

However, owners have offered long term deals to swallow some cap hit from a player like ovi, sid, perise, weber and else. question is WHY did they offer the long term deal? if they thought it was too risky, then they should have not offered it. Simple as that. ok forget the past.

on HRR issue, honor the current contracts. then 50/50 split, then players also should give up this kind of contract year limit issue. this is the only way.

Unless the NHL just decides they won’t honor them and creates new issues to hold a hockey season hostage with…