Should Contracts Be Limited to Five Years?

[Howie58]

Greetings:

 

I posted this on the off-season thread but it warrants standalone food-for-thought.

 

A few weeks ago I listened to the NHL Network while driving home.  Doug Wilson and San Jose have a policy wherein contracts are limited to five years.  

http://thehockeywriters.com/doug-wilson-and-the-san-jose-sharks-contracts/

 

The rationale is simple and has the buy-in of their top players--Good players want to play with good players and don't want a system that locks in mediocrity. This is not a CBA issue--it is team policy.

 

We start the season thinking about how long Schenn should be signed for.  We hope Voracek returns to '14-'15 form.  Giroux is fine but we worry if he is either past his prime or at a plateau with dip in the near future.  I have to respect Wilson's view.  And I look at the recent Subban-Weber deal and think how long-term plans/hopes/expectations get changed.  Does San Jose have it right? I think so.

 

Best,

 

Howie

 

[flyerrod]

I don't think it is a bad thing necessarily but the biggest issue you have will be having to over pay someone to take the lesser years on the contract. These guys know that they are only a second away anytime they step on the ice from a potential career ending injury. San Jose needs to go into reload right now. Their collective age showed by the time they made it to the SCF. If they are going to continue to follow that model, we will soon see if it can work in reality.

[Howie58]

Agreed that San Jose was older but that is a life cycle problem that most franchises face at some point--there is talk of that being the case in Chicago as we speak.  Holding all things equal, I would just as soon not have an eight year noose to deal with as GM.  By the way--Subban's NMC was about kick in with MTL.   It would be interesting to see how average contract length correlates with winning percentage--if at all.   Or you could ask if average contract length correlates more than average age?  I guess we need the analytics gang.

[albertaflyer]

Toronto Bluejays have their own in house policy of no contracts over 5 years. I think it's good policy. Chances of getting full production out of the last few years of these long contracts are pretty low. No matter what the sport. It does hinder signing big name free agents though.

[Howie58]

I guess there's a trade-off. You might lose an occasional blue chipper. Or you might gain flexibility.  Lemoriello's effort with Kovalev (I think it was 10 years over 100 million) was blocked by the league because it was viewed as an effort a indirectly circumventing the salary cap (he wouldn't be playing at 45--guess he was no Jagr).  But these long term contracts with front-loaded pay may not be much different if there's a belief the player will be traded later on.  I wonder if term length will come up in future CBAs on that score.  I wonder what percentage of contracts beyond four or five years are played out?

 

 

[briere48]

i'll take 5 year contracts, 8 years is just too much, especially if you are overpaying the wrong guy and cant be traded because they are signed too long and too much money, i would totally be in favor of this.

[aziz]

i'd be more interested in a ban on restricted movement clauses.  i think players themselves might be less inclined to look for loooong deals if they have to be concerned about ending up in an armpit at some point with several years left on their deal.  no NMC/NTCs would mean the only control they could exert would be during contract negotiations, and so (theoretically) would want more opportunities for them.

[flyercanuck]

48 minutes ago, aziz said:

i'd be more interested in a ban on restricted movement clauses.  i think players themselves might be less inclined to look for loooong deals if they have to be concerned about ending up in an armpit at some point with several years left on their deal.  no NMC/NTCs would mean the only control they could exert would be during contract negotiations, and so (theoretically) would want more opportunities for them.

 

I don't know if you need a ban on NMCs....you just need a gm who realizes not everyone deserves one.

[radoran]

ÖI hate the megalength contracts from before the last lockout - of which Weber is one example - and while the league has taken some steps - 8yr max, limit to how much lowest paid year can differ from highest, limit in signing bonus - I still think eight years is far too much of a commitment to 99% of players.

 

But from the player perspective it can often be a family issue - not having your kids yanked all over the country - and it's hard to see where they would agree to a strict limit much lower. That's where the NMC/NTC come in for some guys. 

 

From a team perspective there is the concept of developin and lockjng up your assets, too. A lot of the problems we're seeing with these long term deals is when to go to guys who will be "playing" at 37, 38, 39, 40.

 

But Crosby and Malkin are the first pair of long term deals that have panned out - three if you inckude Kessel, but I'll wager a Cup in Pittsburgh wasn't what the team that signed him had in mind when they did. 

 

Of course those two - and Kane and Toews as well - had won a Cup before getting their ling term mammoths.

 

On the plus side, the Flyers have Simmonds locked up for three more seaons. On the minus side, Andrew MacDonald. For four more.

[flyerrod]

21 minutes ago, radoran said:

On the minus side, Andrew MacDonald. For four more

I would not mind the Flyers exposing MacDud......to something like "Captain Trips"..............that is one homeriffic contract...........

[aziz]

4 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I don't know if you need a ban on NMCs....you just need a gm who realizes not everyone deserves one.

 

i think the problem is exactly the same as the inflated salary thing.  a *decent* player *knows* someone will give him a number, and so forces his current team to meet that theoretical number.  similarly, they hold the NM thing over a GM's head, *someone* will give it to me.  so, make it so no one can.  i'm not sure what purpose those clauses have, other than catering to a player's entitlement.  i see no downside to banning them.

[OccamsRazor]

Could always do like the NFLand stop all these guaranteed contract crap that would help a lot.

 

My employer doesn't guarantee my job i have to perform day in and day out.

[King Knut]

10 hours ago, flyerrod said:

I don't think it is a bad thing necessarily but the biggest issue you have will be having to over pay someone to take the lesser years on the contract. These guys know that they are only a second away anytime they step on the ice from a potential career ending injury. San Jose needs to go into reload right now. Their collective age showed by the time they made it to the SCF. If they are going to continue to follow that model, we will soon see if it can work in reality.

 

This is the only thing.  You're not going to sign or resign your big names. Maybe that's not a bad thing though. 

 

I hate Jake's deal.  It's still one of Hexy's only real missteps IMHO.  God willing and the creek don't rise Jake proves me wrong, but it's just too big for too long to be worth it. 

 

Certainly for UFA or upcoming UFA deals. 

 

If if they were to sign Schenn for 6 years. Own it wouldn't crush me. I'd prefer it to 8 that's for sure.  

 

But if you restrict An RFA like Schenn or Ghost say to a 5 year deal, you're:

 

a) going to force him into demanding a shorter deal now. 

b) going to lose him when he hits his prime (whether it's at 28 when his five years are up and someone else dumber than you will give him 7 years...cough cough Danny Briere, or even worse, when he's 26 and someone will give him an 8,9 or even ten year contract depending on how good he is). 

 

[King Knut]

32 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Could always do like the NFLand stop all these guaranteed contract crap that would help a lot.

 

My employer doesn't guarantee my job i have to perform day in and day out.

 

You're  not a contract employee then are you?  Most contract employees out there have a duration and have to be paid off to be fired.  Of course quitting isn't easy for them either.  It's what a contract is.  A legally binding agreement for a certain duration of time.  You can't call it a contract if it's not binding.  That's the whole point. 

 

Also, Do you do a job where your career could be catostophically ended at any moment?  

 

The non guarantee of NFL contracts is some serious crap.  At least NHL GMs deal with the reality and honesty of their word.  A guy gets hurt and can't play as well so you cut him.  No one else will sign him either.  Career over.  Hardly seems fair. 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, aziz said:

 

i think the problem is exactly the same as the inflated salary thing.  a *decent* player *knows* someone will give him a number, and so forces his current team to meet that theoretical number.  similarly, they hold the NM thing over a GM's head, *someone* will give it to me.  so, make it so no one can.  i'm not sure what purpose those clauses have, other than catering to a player's entitlement.  i see no downside to banning them.

 

Hopefully we're coming to a point in the history of this league where GM's and agents are starting to get a little more realistic about the players that are worth these measures.  

 

Claude is the only guy in this team at this point worth such measures.  Very few players in the league are on that level.  10, maybe 15.   Maybe less. 

 

Ghost may get there. Provo.  Sanheim.  Time will tell. 

 

Schenn might be close if he plays like he did at the end of last year all the time now.  But even then...

 

its not for guys just because they scored 30 goals once. 

[OccamsRazor]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

You're  not a contract employee then are you?  Most contract employees out there have a duration and have to be paid off to be fired.  Of course quitting isn't easy for them either.  It's what a contract is.  A legally binding agreement for a certain duration of time.  You can't call it a contract if it's not binding.  That's the whole point. 

 

Also, Do you do a job where your career could be catostophically ended at any moment?  

 

The non guarantee of NFL contracts is some serious crap.  At least NHL GMs deal with the reality and honesty of their word.  A guy gets hurt and can't play as well so you cut him.  No one else will sign him either.  Career over.  Hardly seems fair. 

 

My being a contract employee doesn't matter. We have contract employees they/their contract can be terminated.

 

Like i stated the NFL can do it so can the NHL.

[King Knut]

Just now, OccamsRazor said:

 

My being a contract employee doesn't matter. We have contract employees they/their contract can be terminated.

 

Like i stated the NFL can do it so can the NHL.

 

That doesn't make it right. Legally for most of us it's not worth the trouble to fight, but it is actually difficult to pull off. 

 

Yiu our can write it into a contract, but ultimately hat tenders the contract moot and basically makes it "at will" employment. 

 

A contract should only be terminated in cases of extreme malfeasance or if you're pretty sure you can out lawyer them and you only try that (and many many companies do) when it's an extremely low profile situation.  

 

the higher the profile, the harder it becomes. 

 

Even if they're inept... You shouldn't have signed a contract with an inept person.   That's the whole point.  

 

Otherwise se it could go both ways.  What if Giroux decided to terminate his own contract because he didn't like something Homer  said to him or he didn't like a trade Hextall made?

[King Knut]

6 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I don't know if you need a ban on NMCs....you just need a gm who realizes not everyone deserves one.

 

Honestly, I can't figure out why it's such a bad thing to not have one.  Very few players get them and most players have to live with the possibility of being traded.  It's the game. Sorry. 

 

Also, if you're someone like Claude and someone wants to trade for you at 30+ it's because they're trying to make a run at the cup and need that push.  And if you're team is trading you it's because they're NOT and they need to rebuild... At least 90% of the time anyway. 

 

Rarely you'll see a PK for Shea deal, but how often does that happen?  Besides, neither player got sent to a crappy team.  Though admittedly, if I was PK I'd rather be in Montreal.  I'm not PK and personally I'd prefer Nashville, it's a hell of a town, but that's a different story. 

[radoran]

2 hours ago, aziz said:

 

i think the problem is exactly the same as the inflated salary thing.  a *decent* player *knows* someone will give him a number, and so forces his current team to meet that theoretical number.  similarly, they hold the NM thing over a GM's head, *someone* will give it to me.  so, make it so no one can.  i'm not sure what purpose those clauses have, other than catering to a player's entitlement.  i see no downside to banning them.

 

See, I think what it takes is the gumption to say "let the other guy screw up"

 

If it takes another team giving up that leverage to attract a player, then fine. Let them. 

 

I get why players want that. I think it goes far beyond hockey issues. Older guys with kids in high school (or even junior) want to be able to give their family some sense of stability. Younger players want some control over whether they'll be in Bethlehem instead of Philadelphia.

 

I have some sympathy in the first case. In the second, the GM that gives into that already lost.

 

Either way, you would almost undoubtedly need NHLPA acquiescence to a ban on a contract clause.

[aziz]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

See, I think what it takes is the gumption to say "let the other guy screw up"

 

i don't know.  when the stance taken is, "we will only sign players to reasonable salaries over a reasonable number of years and with reasonable application of things like movement restrictions," but players know there are 5 or 10 or 20 GMs out there not taking that stance, you have a problem.  you have a principled team that can't attract or retain talent.  i can't think of any strong team in the league that has been reasonable.  reasonable leaves you with a team full of matt reads.

 

you're right, though, the NHLPA would have to agree, and they won't.  nor will they agree to reduced maximum terms.  the theorycrafting is great, but that's all it is.  still, in my perfect world, movement restrictions wouldn't be allowed.

[OccamsRazor]

4 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

That doesn't make it right. Legally for most of us it's not worth the trouble to fight, but it is actually difficult to pull off. 

 

Yiu our can write it into a contract, but ultimately hat tenders the contract moot and basically makes it "at will" employment. 

 

A contract should only be terminated in cases of extreme malfeasance or if you're pretty sure you can out lawyer them and you only try that (and many many companies do) when it's an extremely low profile situation.  

 

the higher the profile, the harder it becomes. 

 

Even if they're inept... You shouldn't have signed a contract with an inept person.   That's the whole point.  

 

Otherwise se it could go both ways.  What if Giroux decided to terminate his own contract because he didn't like something Homer  said to him or he didn't like a trade Hextall made?

 

 

Never said it made it right or wrong.

 

But there are ways to get around these problems and one is like the NFL does.

 

But that way also presents a new/different set of problems.

 

Basically both way have their good points and bad points.

 

And it's up to the owners and NHLPA to fix these things and come up with a solution.

 

 

But it doesn't help matters for the owners to offer these crazy deals only to turn around and bitch about it then say they need a lock out to fix this crap.

[hf101]

3 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

But it doesn't help matters for the owners to offer these crazy deals only to turn around and bitch about it then say they need a lock out to fix this crap.

1

 

It isn't always the owners offering these deals, it is the player's agents demanding these deals. The players, of course, want max dollars and max years for a guaranteed income.  

An interesting read about a slightly different subject, but something the players have focused on which hamper a GM's likely hood of trading or buying out a said player is the bonus structure of their contract.  According to this article by Travis Yost these contracts with are composed largely of signing bonuses are becoming increasingly popular as players prepare for a possible lockout in 2020.

[OccamsRazor]

41 minutes ago, hf101 said:

It isn't always the owners offering these deals, it is the player's agents demanding these deals

 

 

Yeah but someone is giving in...because if they all collectively say we're not paying that price then the player/agent ain't got no choice but accept what they are willing to pay on head to the KHL.

[RJ8812]

2 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Yeah but someone is giving in...because if they all collectively say we're not paying that price then the player/agent ain't got no choice but accept what they are willing to pay on head to the KHL.

there's always 1 GM willing to do it and it's usually the GM of a small market team, then in a few years, the owner is crying about it

[OccamsRazor]

5 minutes ago, RJ8812 said:

there's always 1 GM willing to do it and it's usually the GM of a small market team, then in a few years, the owner is crying about it

 

Exactly if they all collectively say it is to much and no one gives in to the player or agent demands then he has to accpect terms or take his ass overseas.

 

But in reality it's highly unlikely. There will always be one dipshit willing to offer them a boatload ( thank God Homer isn't doing it anymore).