The owners of teams that currently don’t have star players would never go for it, neither will teams that expect to be in playoff contention for the forseeable future. There are two main problems with it:

1. The NHL is looking for more parity… not less. Building a long term dynasty team would be MUCH easier under your idea.

2. If teams have a much easier time keeping stars since they can offer them contracts twice as long, that would mean the only way to get a star player if you don’t currently have one is to draft them. The problem is these are no certain things when it comes to draft picks. Not to mention teams that don’t have enough star power to win the cup, but aren’t terrible enough to get good draft picks would be stuck in a terrible limbo land.

————————————————————————————————————

Also, the players freaked out when the owners wanted to make it so there is no more then a 5% difference in year to year salary… do you honestly think they would take a deal where there is 0% difference allowed in year to year salary? Absolutely not. Besides, such an idea would be a real problem for older players looking for a bit of job security.

This is why its a lot harder then you think. What might sound like a good idea before you dig into it, is often a really bad idea that has no chance of going anywhere.

the owners already proposed an annual allowable variance of 5% in actual salary being paid; the PA immediately rejected that as a blatant assault on players’ contracting rights.

the PA would never accept a system limiting a players’ right to test free agency value by allowing only his home team to sign him for more than 5 years. let’s say a player wants the security of a long term deal, but wants it from a contender rather then continuing to play to play for a perennial loser. or can a home team sign a player to a 10 year deal but then be prohibited from trading him? Maybe a more acceptable option could be a system allowing for longer term contracts with only a rolling maximum of 5 years being guaranteed…i.e after year 1, years 2-6 become guaranteed, after year 2, years 3-7 become guaranteed, etc.

If nothing else, in an environment where revenue growth (or at the very least, inflation) means that a certain dollar figure gets less and less valuable as time goes on, locking players in at a specific cost is of considerable value for teams.

The question that might be harder to answer is, why owners want to impose maximum contract lengths (this commenter would suggest that it is merely being used as leverage in these negotiations).

Seems everyone gives a little there, and fans will be appeased because it will be easier for the home town team to keep players.