this says it all

[jammer2]

@Mad Dog You make a lot of sense MD, even if Homer "had to have him", it makes no sense to part with a younger guy, with more tread on the tires to accomodate him. Just one of those guys I always secretly wanted to be a Flyer, but I agree, it does not make a lot of sense from a Homer perspective....with Luke, GrossmanN already on the roster, Oliver trying to break in, the additon would give up to many "crease clearer" types. Also have to factor in Morin, who would plaly the same type of game as others mentioned.

[flyercanuck]

Maybe just me (and slightly off topic) but does anyone else think there should be a mechanism for mutually agreed renegotiation of contracts?

When you're "forced" to give guys like Clarkson 7 year contracts, something's clearly wrong.

Nobody "forced" anyone to give out a 7 year contract, just like nobody "forced" Homer to give everyone he signs a NTC. It's just stupid gms being stupid.

[brelic]

Nobody "forced" anyone to give out a 7 year contract, just like nobody "forced" Homer to give everyone he signs a NTC. It's just stupid gms being stupid.

That's why it's in quotes. It's the perception, real or imagined, that if one GM doesn't do it, another one will. In a lot of cases, that's true. So to remain "competitive" (again in quotes, because it's a perception in many cases), they over-commit.

Nobody "forced" Homer to give Lecavalier or Streit long deals and NTC/NMC, but that's probably why they signed with us and not another team. Homer was willing to over-commit. The reality is that it's probably a handful of bad GMs that have skewed the whole thing upwards.

Homer is one of those GMs. Charles Wang also got the ball rolling with the horrendous 15 year contract for an unproven goalie.

They need to bring in non-guaranteed contracts. I bet you that will be on the table for the next strike/lockout.

[Polaris922]

@aziz

I agree with @jammer2 that Scuderi is among the best at shutting down the opposition. You won't hear a GM say it was a mistake to let someone go very often. I think Scuderi will be fine here until perhaps that last year. He's not a puck carrier and doesn't need the wheels of one. He's solid in his own end and seems to avoid injury. He's first pair material and I'm betting he'll play with Letang. His defense will balance Letang's rushes and buy the time Letang needs to recover from any turnovers.

I regretted losing him in the first place, but knew we couldn't pay him what LA did!

[radoran]

They need to bring in non-guaranteed contracts. I bet you that will be on the table for the next strike/lockout.

It was on the table in this lockout. And the one before that. And the one before that.

The players have pretty much said "no guaranteed contracts, we don't play". It's a real line in the sand for them.

Owners have effectively kept top salaries capped at around $8M (with few notable exceptions) for the last 10-15 years and likely have it set that way for the next 5-10 - at least.

The fact that they choose to give out ridiculous terms with ridiculous payments and restrictive clauses is entirely up to them.

[aziz]

@Polaris922

Doesn't need the wheels of a puck carrier, but needs the wheels of a positional defenseman. The term "pylon" comes from when they go. Once you can't keep up with your check anymore.....

He was pretty ok in Pittsburgh, I didn't see a ton of him in LA....how did he manage to have the worst +/- among their dmen over the last two seasons? Not being snarky, really don't understand how that happened, because he is pretty good (among the best is pushing it, though) defensively.

[aziz]

Also, what do you mean the penguins couldn't pay him what LA did? His new contract is almost exactly what LA paid him.

[AJgoal]

Also, what do you mean the penguins couldn't pay him what LA did? His new contract is almost exactly what LA paid him.

I think he means when he left - the Pens couldn't match what LA offered.

[brelic]

It was on the table in this lockout. And the one before that. And the one before that.

The players have pretty much said "no guaranteed contracts, we don't play". It's a real line in the sand for them.

Owners have effectively kept top salaries capped at around $8M (with few notable exceptions) for the last 10-15 years and likely have it set that way for the next 5-10 - at least.

The fact that they choose to give out ridiculous terms with ridiculous payments and restrictive clauses is entirely up to them.

The owners could declare it a make or break issue, much like they did with the salary cap.

There's really no other place in the real world where a contract can't be severed, terminated, and renegotiated. And don't give me buyouts... they're too punitive to the team. They're living in fantasy land.

[radoran]

The owners could declare it a make or break issue, much like they did with the salary cap.

I would just go back and look at the owners' initial demands - they included non-guaranteed every time. They got the salary cap by keeping guaranteed contracts. Players accepted that deal.

They claim they won't accept non-guaranteed deals and a salary cap.

There's really no other place in the real world where a contract can't be severed, terminated, and renegotiated. And don't give me buyouts... they're too punitive to the team. They're living in fantasy land.

You mean they're living in a world where they get paid millions of dollars to play a game?

Yep, sounds like fantasy land. Sure isn't "the real world."

In most places where contracts are "severed and terminated" there are severe penalties included in the language negotiated by the parties. Renegotiation, in the eyes of both sides IMO, would lead directly to circumvention.

The facts are that the game is played under a specific set of rules. Everybody knows these rules. They are enforced much more clearly and efficiently in the board room than on the ice.

Once you have an "agreement" you have to play by the rules.

[aziz]

I think he means when he left - the Pens couldn't match what LA offered.

I get that, just strikes me as weird that a team couldn't/wouldn't pull together $3.4mil for one of "the best" shutdown dmen in the league.

[Polaris922]

I get that, just strikes me as weird that a team couldn't/wouldn't pull together $3.4mil for one of "the best" shutdown dmen in the league.

Scuderi wasn't very well recognized for his work until we lost him. That's when the void he left became apparent. I was wrong in my assessment at the time that LA was overpaying. Apparently the organization was too. His work in LA was excellent. Especially come playoff time when he seems to turn it up a notch and is very tough to play against. Is he older? Yes. But I didn't see any sign of pylon in his game this season. Maybe in a few years, but Shero explains the contract length well in that topic in the Pens forum (about free agency) and I believe in him. Scuderi's teammates have called him "The Piece" for some time. That refers to a comment he himself made, but that it stuck shows his importance. The Kings organization really didnt want to lose him. That many Pens called him after the news broke to welcome him back tells the story to me.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Polaris922

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

The NHLPA will never go back now that they have guaranteed contracts. I see that as the last thing they want to lose. Just another stupid thing the owners have done. No other sports allows them, do they?

edit: I see you and rad already discussed this. If I'm the players and the owners say it's a make or break, I just laugh and bring up the last lockout, the amnesty buyouts, and the fact the owners then threw all the money and more they were saving at other players for equally stupid contracts.

Edited July 11, 2013 by flyercanuck

[aziz]

@Polaris922

'Course, it is also the team whose captain threw a temper tantrum when it was suggested their overpaid flakey goaltender be moved. Bros before pros and all that.

[brelic]

The NHLPA will never go back now that they have guaranteed contracts. I see that as the last thing they want to lose. Just another stupid thing the owners have done. No other sports allows them, do they?

I'm not sure.. I don't follow other sports. I believe the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts because it was brought up in some NHL discussions during the lockout, but don't know about the others.

edit: I see you and rad already discussed this. If I'm the players and the owners say it's a make or break, I just laugh and bring up the last lockout, the amnesty buyouts, and the fact the owners then threw all the money and more they were saving at other players for equally stupid contracts.

I'm not sure how it operates in other sports (i.e. does the NFL have a cap AND non-guaranteed contracts?), but the owners can make it happen if they really want it to. At the end of the day, they are the employers, and they don't need the players to go on with their lives. Sure, their NHL team will be gone, but that's not their primary source of income. They were already filthy rich before, and they will be without it as well.

Anyway, it's sad when the league has only been back from the lockout for about 6 months, and I can already anticipate another lockout before the next CBA.

Yes, the owners do it to themselves. That is the primary problem, but it never gets fixed. GMs will continue to hand out really bad contracts, and the buy out route is just not a very good way to terminate contracts.

I just don't understand why you can't "fire" players, like in any normal sphere of life. Just because they make a lot of money doesn't mean they shouldn't be a structure with normal contract rules.

There's already a mechanism in place for players that feel they're performing above their pay grade. That's arbitration. And the team can walk away from the decision. That's fair for both sides.

There should be a mechanism in place for players who perform below their pay grade. The GMs are the dumb ones because they gave up their right to fire or lay off their employees. To me this makes absolutely no sense.

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

Absolutely. If a player wants the security of a longterm deal, his employer should at least have the security of him earning it.

[canoli]

There should be a mechanism in place for players who perform below their pay grade. The GMs are the dumb ones because they gave up their right to fire or lay off their employees. To me this makes absolutely no sense.

Absolutely. I'm pretty sure no other pro league has guaranteed contracts, as in "we (owners) owe you (player) no matter what." Of course it's a "real line in the sand" as Rad says but at some point the bluff should be called. Where are they all gonna go, Russia? the KHL? please.

[Adamflyers]

@brelic

The NHLPA will never go back now that they have guaranteed contracts. I see that as the last thing they want to lose. Just another stupid thing the owners have done. No other sports allows them, do they?

As far as I know, the other major American sports, with the exception of the NFL, has guarenteed contracts. Thats one thing I love about the NFL is when a guy's production drops or he becomes a locker room cancer, they can just cut him.

[brelic]

Absolutely. I'm pretty sure no other pro league has guaranteed contracts, as in "we (owners) owe you (player) no matter what." Of course it's a "real line in the sand" as Rad says but at some point the bluff should be called. Where are they all gonna go, Russia? the KHL? please.

@flyercanuck @canoli

That's just it. It's not an unreasonable position to want out of contracts for either side. In fact, would it be so crazy to have contracts that never expire until one side decides to terminate the agreement in advance (maybe a season's worth of notice, or whatever criteria they want to come up with)?

So, the Flyers sign Mark Streit until such time as he no longer wishes to play for the Flyers, or until the Flyers no longer want or need his services.

I guess one rebuttal is that small-market teams would never get any players. Or at least not the best players.

I know I'm being naïve, and that such a normal, simple solution that works pretty much everywhere else in the world is just not tenable for the NHL. :unsure:

Anyway, I should know better than hijacking threads... ! I apologize.

Keep calm and carry on.

[JackStraw]

No other sports allows them, do they?

I believe MLB has guaranteed contracts. But since they don't have a real salary cap it's not that big a deal. If you're rich (Yankees) you can keep paying players after you cut them and not really worry about it..

Edit: Apparently the NBA has them too. So actually, it's only the NFL that doesn't have them.

Edited July 11, 2013 by JackStraw

[B21]

@JackStraw

@flyercanuck

@Adamflyers

MLB, NHL and the NBA all have guaranteed contracts. In the NFL, only the signing bonus is guaranteed which is why many of the big deals you hear about really aren't that big.

Example: Mike Wallace's deal with Miami is 6 years, $60 million. Only $30 million guaranteed. It's a pro-rated cap hit over the life of the deal...unless he's cut. Then what's left of the bonus hits the cap. I believe the team has the option to decide to pro-rate that "balance" over 1 or two years.

It makes for a lot of ways to get creative with the cap.

[radoran]

@flyercanuck @canoli

That's just it. It's not an unreasonable position to want out of contracts for either side. In fact, would it be so crazy to have contracts that never expire until one side decides to terminate the agreement in advance (maybe a season's worth of notice, or whatever criteria they want to come up with)?

So, the Flyers sign Mark Streit until such time as he no longer wishes to play for the Flyers, or until the Flyers no longer want or need his services.

I guess one rebuttal is that small-market teams would never get any players. Or at least not the best players.

I know I'm being naïve, and that such a normal, simple solution that works pretty much everywhere else in the world is just not tenable for the NHL. :unsure:

Anyway, I should know better than hijacking threads... ! I apologize.

Keep calm and carry on.

To be clear, I don't give a rat's ass either way on this issue - it just seems Very Important to the players.

Again, pro sports is not "the rest of the world" in any way, shape or form. There is no resemblance.

I could see your plan "working" but I see serious potential problems. There has to be a somewhat competitive balance to a sport or it becomes utterly unwatchable - the NBA has reaached that point. MLB is working in that direction.

Only the NFL seems to have stemmed the tide. Part of that may be the non-guaranteed deals, but as was noted, players are getting huge "signing bonuses" - bigger even than Weber's (if that's possible to imagine). I think that could (and likely would) lead to abuses by the "haves" of the world and result in the "have nots" being "never will bes."

The NHL also has very restrictive clauses handling young, developing players. If you want to say that the UFA situation is a problem, players can turn right around and say that the RFA situation is a problem. If players can "walk away" whenever they want to, that could be a significant problem across the board - from the draft through 35+.

if the organization can "just walk away" then players - who are at risk of career-ending injury every time they step on the ice - are hanging out to dry. Mike Rathje wouldn't have gotten his contract, the Flyers would have just "walked away" from the injured player. Not a great example, but a valid one (since the Flyers were stupid enough to offer the contract).

Plus the impact on the salary cap - and the ability of players to pull a LeBron and conspire with others to stack one team over others (heck, they could effectively be the Harlem Globetrotters and switch from team to team on an annual basis).

Guaranteed contracts aren't the problem. It's the people making the offers.

[flyercanuck]

@B21

Thanks B. It's been awhile since I was a fan of the NFL and never really got into NBA or MLB.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

'Course, it is also the team whose captain threw a temper tantrum when it was suggested their overpaid flakey goaltender be moved. Bros before pros and all that.

Must've been a Flyers jealousy report... never heard of that anywhere. Even here on the forums.

[aziz]

Can't remember where I read it. The concept was that a fleury trade or buy out were on the table for penguins' management, but Crosby said it wouldn't happen, and his word carries more weight with Mario than shero's. And so that discussion ended, and there was that awkward press release from shero about fleury being the goalie of the future, as poor an idea as that might be.

And Crosby has been getting fleury's back against bylsma for a few years, now, so there is some supporting though circumstantial evidence.

Not really sure what there is to be jealous of. There is only one goalie in the league to out-suck bryzgalov over the last several years.....