Comments on: Schneider thinks NHL will blink on contract rights

By: thomaspratt

thomaspratt — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:53:12 +0000

The way this is playing out, the players would have to be foolish not to believe that the owners will be coming after guaranteed contracts the next time the CBA expires. In that context, taking a stand on contract rights makes perfect sense. Players can probably live with 7% less HRR, but restricting their freedom to move would cost them all more over the long term.

I don’t think there is much need to restrict the long term, back diving contracts. They have been failures for most teams that have signed them — Luongo is a great example of a contract that has come back to haunt the Canucks. I think most teams will have learned not to sign them, and at the same time, they are a good tool for a team like Nashville to lock up a franchise cornerstone like Weber.

The one legitimate contracting issue I see for the league is reestablishing the second contract, so players don’t go from their entry level deal right to a long term, high value deal.

By: fortwaynekomets

fortwaynekomets — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:25:05 +0000

7 letters my friends… ECHL & AHL.

By: elvispocomo

elvispocomo — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:58:04 +0000

That’s the same process the NHL used for their mid-October offer (50/50, “make whole” provision, etc). They said that’s the best they could do and told the NHLPA they wouldn’t meet unless it was to talk about making tweaks to their offer, rather than discuss things in general.

Well, the NHLPA didn’t budge on having to accept that as a last offer and the NHL came back to the table to talk in general about the CBA as well as made a significant change to the make whole provision. Why shouldn’t the players think this is all more bluff and bluster from the NHL rather than truly their last/best offer?

By: bigtganks

bigtganks — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:30:22 +0000

5 years from now these players will all say whether they’re in the league or not, “wow, that was stupid of us to not just get a deal done, we lost so much money that we’ll never get back” while the owners will say “see, it worked out well for both of us”.

That’s what’s happened every other time previous to this…

By: fortwaynekomets

fortwaynekomets — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:21:55 +0000

I think the 5 year max signing is ludicrous!!!

I was just thinking this.summer… damn will I even be a Bruins fan in 2014?? cause there losing all their young talent if they choose to not resign match new contracts!

I like to see a good core group of players on a team for atleast 5 years. not maximum. teams need to realize they do.t always need to “shake things up” if they don’t win the cup, maybe if your a last place team, but just realize not every year can belong to everyone! which is what makes the cup so amazing!

By: billsin20xx

billsin20xx — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:58:50 +0000

The ‘make whole’ provision is for everybody. To go to 50/50 they would have to have all the players take a pay cut AGAIN (24% last contract). Obviously it would hit the higher paid players more, but it would hit everybody.
As a fan I like the long term contracts, it really depresses me when a player you think of as a life time player for your team bids himself out after 5 years.

By: dprouse

dprouse — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:16:17 +0000

If the NHL was ready to give on contracting issues, they would have done so last week. The fact that they didn’t, and in fact walked away from the table when the NHLPA wouldn’t budge, tells you that Schneider is wrong – the owners are, in fact, willing to go to the wall on this. In the meantime, the players are about to miss their third pay of the season tomorrow. You can argue as to whether you think the owners are right or wrong, but they clearly hold the hammer here, and are quite prepared to use it.

I would turn Schneider’s question around – if you are a veteran player in the last year of your contract, watching your last chance to earn another contract slipping away, would you think that this was worth losing the season? Revenue splits have already been decided, and “make whole” is really only relevant for a few high end players. Now your union is asking you to throw away the season over the age of free agency and contract lengths? If that’s me, I might want to ask Donald Fehr what his Plan “B” is, because as we all know, Bob Goodenow didn’t have one.

By: paledevil

paledevil — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:40:01 +0000

Something about the phrase “like i know your going to ” has FUELED this drama from the beginning.. If one reads/hears “your gonna crack” they aint gonna crack…So be it ..To the death…

By: DED

DED — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:39:08 +0000

I can see the 5-year limit. It protects the owners from their own stupidity. Bumping up UFA to 28 (or 8yrs exp) is a bit steep though. Too much of a sacrifice on the part of the player.