Jump to content

All overpaid starting lineup (first and second team)


yave1964

Recommended Posts

  Been kicking around who has the worst contracts in the game, the Kings have term out everywhere with a bunch of thirty somethings but most are in the acceptable range unless you look at them as a whole, combined they leave the team with few options. But this is who I feel have the worst contracts in the game today, a combination of money and term that make the player an albatross on the team, very little production for the money and the term too long to move. I have come up with a first and second team:

 

FIRST TEAM BAD CONTRACTS

 

CENTER Ryan Kesler. Good lord he should have retired after the hip surgery. He isn't a shadow of his former self, he is a shadow of his shadow with 4 goals and 5 points and a minus 15. 6.9 million per thru 21-22.

 

WING Bobby Ryan at 7.2 million thru 21-22 the Senators were hoping to dump his deal in the Karlsson purge but no GM alive wanted to touch that deal. In his six years in Ottawa has never scored more than 23 goals, has 9 this year at the half turn.

 

WING Milan Lucic. Essentialy Edmonton traded Taylor Hall for the carcass of Lucic and the over paid Larsson who narrowly missed my list. Lucic has 6 million per thru 21-22 and has 2 goals all year.

 

DEFENSE Brent Seabrook. Actually having a decent bounce back year but at 6.9 million thru 23-24 he wont earn his paycheck by a long shot.

 

DEFENSE Keith Yandle Yeah I know he is a decent power play option but there are few softer players in the game and at 6.4 million thru 22-23 the Cats are stuck with him.

 

GOALIE Cory Schneider 6 million a year thru 20-21 has not won a game in thirteen months and currently on IR. It becomes worse when you realize he was traded for Bo Horvat.

 

SECOND TEAM

 

CENTER Brandon Dubinsky Dont let my wife and daughter see this, lol, he was their favorite player for years until they became fans of Boone Jenner. 5.8 million thru 20-21 for a 4 goal checking center who has lost more than just one step is insane.

 

WINGER  James Neal. Signed a 5ive year deal at 5.75 million per with Calgary in the offseason, Has 4 goals, minus 11 on the top team in the West and can barely play 4th line minutes in his first year.

 

WINGER Loui eriksson  Loui is the Keith Yandle of forwards, the only player in the game without a spleen. 6 million a year thru 21-22 has 8 goals this year after scoring 11 and 10 per season over the previous two. 

 

DEFENSE karl Alzner 4.6 million per thru 21-22 was a desperation signee by Montreal after all the real free agents ran the other way. Has split the year between Montreal and the AHL this season.

 

DEFENSE Brendan Smith 4.4 million per thru 20-21 has the hockey IQ of a newt on Ritalin, spent most of his first year on the deal in the AHL has spent much of this season getting paid to watch games from the press box as a healthy scratch.

 

GOALIE Jake allen 4.3 million per thru 20-21, the Blues loaded up everywhere except in net and watched as the season crashed and burned with Allen being a primary culprit. Whispers are the Blues may waive him to try to get him to the AHL if he goes unclaimed. Nothing prospect Binnington has stolen his job.

 

HONORABLE MENTION 

 

Jonathan Toews 10.5 million thru 22-23

TJ Oshie 5.7 million thru 24-25 

Zach Parise 7.5 million thru 24-25

Andrew Ladd 5.5 million thru 22-23

Ryan Calahan 5.8 million thru 20-21 

David Backes 6 million thru 20-21

Dion Phaneuf 7 million thru 20-21

Ilya Bryzgalov being paid 1.6 million per thru the 26-27 season to not tend net for the Flyers.

 

That is mine, anyone disagree with any of the above feel free to chime in, or add your own. Yeah I know guys like Oshie, Parise and Toews are all having good years but none will live up to the contract they signed, it is already a heavy burden on their respective teams and will get heavier as time goes by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
32 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

Ilya Bryzgalov being paid 1.6 million per thru the 26-27 season to not tend net for the Flyers.

 

Rick DiPietro being paid $1.5M per thru the 28-29 season to not tend net for the Islanders.

 

Also, too, do you think Kopitar has more seasons like last year (35g, 92p) or the 16-17 season (12g, 52p) given that he's "on pace" for 24g, 56p) this year on his $10M per cap hit through 23-24?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Rick DiPietro being paid $1.5M per thru the 28-29 season to not tend net for the Islanders.

 

Also, too, do you think Kopitar has more seasons like last year (35g, 92p) or the 16-17 season (12g, 52p) given that he's "on pace" for 24g, 56p) this year on his $10M per cap hit through 23-24?

Yeah I thought of Kopitar and Shea Weber but forgot to put them on my list, lol. Another who you may disagree with is Patrice Bergeron who has four years at 6.8 million per remaining, 33 years old and always hurt. Elite when he is in the lineup but after missing only a handful of games in the four pervious seasons he missed 18 last year and alreadt has missed 16 this year. I think his decline phase of his career will be less a decline in skill and more injuries from his style eroding his ice time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalie: Carey Price, $10.5M thru 2025-2026. 

 

Goalie made of glass, bad attitude; contract length & amount are both terrible.

,910/2.67 GAA this season and ,900/3.11 GAA last season for a goalie who just became a barely average one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yave1964 said:

  Been kicking around who has the worst contracts in the game, the Kings have term out everywhere with a bunch of thirty somethings but most are in the acceptable range unless you look at them as a whole, combined they leave the team with few options. But this is who I feel have the worst contracts in the game today, a combination of money and term that make the player an albatross on the team, very little production for the money and the term too long to move. I have come up with a first and second team:

 

FIRST TEAM BAD CONTRACTS

 

CENTER Ryan Kesler. Good lord he should have retired after the hip surgery. He isn't a shadow of his former self, he is a shadow of his shadow with 4 goals and 5 points and a minus 15. 6.9 million per thru 21-22.

 

WING Bobby Ryan at 7.2 million thru 21-22 the Senators were hoping to dump his deal in the Karlsson purge but no GM alive wanted to touch that deal. In his six years in Ottawa has never scored more than 23 goals, has 9 this year at the half turn.

 

WING Milan Lucic. Essentialy Edmonton traded Taylor Hall for the carcass of Lucic and the over paid Larsson who narrowly missed my list. Lucic has 6 million per thru 21-22 and has 2 goals all year.

 

DEFENSE Brent Seabrook. Actually having a decent bounce back year but at 6.9 million thru 23-24 he wont earn his paycheck by a long shot.

 

DEFENSE Keith Yandle Yeah I know he is a decent power play option but there are few softer players in the game and at 6.4 million thru 22-23 the Cats are stuck with him.

 

GOALIE Cory Schneider 6 million a year thru 20-21 has not won a game in thirteen months and currently on IR. It becomes worse when you realize he was traded for Bo Horvat.

 

SECOND TEAM

 

CENTER Brandon Dubinsky Dont let my wife and daughter see this, lol, he was their favorite player for years until they became fans of Boone Jenner. 5.8 million thru 20-21 for a 4 goal checking center who has lost more than just one step is insane.

 

WINGER  James Neal. Signed a 5ive year deal at 5.75 million per with Calgary in the offseason, Has 4 goals, minus 11 on the top team in the West and can barely play 4th line minutes in his first year.

 

WINGER Loui eriksson  Loui is the Keith Yandle of forwards, the only player in the game without a spleen. 6 million a year thru 21-22 has 8 goals this year after scoring 11 and 10 per season over the previous two. 

 

DEFENSE karl Alzner 4.6 million per thru 21-22 was a desperation signee by Montreal after all the real free agents ran the other way. Has split the year between Montreal and the AHL this season.

 

DEFENSE Brendan Smith 4.4 million per thru 20-21 has the hockey IQ of a newt on Ritalin, spent most of his first year on the deal in the AHL has spent much of this season getting paid to watch games from the press box as a healthy scratch.

 

GOALIE Jake allen 4.3 million per thru 20-21, the Blues loaded up everywhere except in net and watched as the season crashed and burned with Allen being a primary culprit. Whispers are the Blues may waive him to try to get him to the AHL if he goes unclaimed. Nothing prospect Binnington has stolen his job.

 

HONORABLE MENTION 

 

Jonathan Toews 10.5 million thru 22-23

TJ Oshie 5.7 million thru 24-25 

Zach Parise 7.5 million thru 24-25

Andrew Ladd 5.5 million thru 22-23

Ryan Calahan 5.8 million thru 20-21 

David Backes 6 million thru 20-21

Dion Phaneuf 7 million thru 20-21

Ilya Bryzgalov being paid 1.6 million per thru the 26-27 season to not tend net for the Flyers.

 

That is mine, anyone disagree with any of the above feel free to chime in, or add your own. Yeah I know guys like Oshie, Parise and Toews are all having good years but none will live up to the contract they signed, it is already a heavy burden on their respective teams and will get heavier as time goes by.

 

Yeah, what a bunch of horrible contracts. Many players I used to like a lot but geez, how much do they get paid for skating circles?! The CBA sucks... mucho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Villette/Lavaux said:

Goalie: Carey Price, $10.5M thru 2025-2026. 

 

Goalie made of glass, bad attitude; contract length & amount are both terrible.

,910/2.67 GAA this season and ,900/3.11 GAA last season for a goalie who just became a barely average one.

An overrated goalie for sure. Not worth the money. Hasek in his prime could've earned it. Canadians/Canadiens probably the only ones drooling for him anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parise and Suter  7.5 mil each through 24-25.

 

Parise is a player that would complement a true elite player. He isn't a true superstar. A lot of the time he struggles to even make the top 50 in scoring. He has had great seasons but not worth the money and length. Money would have been better spent elsewhere.


Suter started off good but either is a lazy player or spends to many minutes and declines. He has been declining and making some foolish mistakes the last few years. Now he is a orange cone on the ice.


I was never happy about their contracts. At that point it was two of the biggest contracts but you wouldn't exactly call these guys superstars. Their names were well known. Our owner want to buy a championship but didn't look to much into their pasts. We are now a team with the same core guys for years who at best are literally a first round punching bag for whoever we play and at worst the team that will just miss the playoffs but find ways to play literally two of the worst teams in a row and start off with a 2-0 lead only to lose 5-3 or 7-4. The Wild are literally stuck in the middle and it started with these two contracts. We draft late because of this but don't have the money to get a real superstar(s). I am still convinced when their contracts finally are up and we look back we are going to say these are two of the worst sports contracts in Minnesota Sports history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2019 at 2:09 PM, Hockey-78 said:

The CBA sucks... mucho.

 

Do we blame the players for signing the deals offered to them by management?

 

Nobody put a gun to Leipold's head and made him force ol' Fletch to give those ridiculous deals to Parise and Suter.

 

Nobody blackmailed Holmgren into offer-sheeting Weber.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

🍿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Do we blame the players for signing the deals offered to them by management?

 

Nobody put a gun to Leipold's head and made him force ol' Fletch to give those ridiculous deals to Parise and Suter.

 

Nobody blackmailed Holmgren into offer-sheeting Weber.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

🍿

No, nobody did. I think what he means with the CBA how these NMC exist and can completely anchor a team. NFL doesn't do these clause. Stars can go if they perform poorly or don't add anything to a team. Still not the players fault but it sucks for the fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Do we blame the players for signing the deals offered to them by management?

 

Nobody put a gun to Leipold's head and made him force ol' Fletch to give those ridiculous deals to Parise and Suter.

 

Nobody blackmailed Holmgren into offer-sheeting Weber.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

🍿

This is true.

 

Remember back when the Rangers gave Holik 9 million dollars a year? A 5-60 point checking Center. Back then pre-salary cap people were going nuts abut how stupid it is and Devils fans were smearing him for his "Lack of loyalty and greed"

 

I remember keenly typing the following.

 

"What is he supposed to say, Oh no, you are offering me too much money? No, he probably said "WHOHOO! and signed that thing pronto"

 

People saying the Salary cap sucks and CBA sucks forget it was a dance between 5-6 teams paying all the money to anyone who reached UFA status and every other team was losing players.

 

I for one am glad the days of paying Holik and Guerin types 45 million dollar 5 year contracts are over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yave1964

 

Good list as always! Can't argue with any of it.  I can't help but grin a little with Toews on there as it was not too long ago that half the forum would have taken him over Crosby to build a team around and the other half would have taken someone else. :DancingGrape:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL has given out some dousey contracts, but usually those players were only around 30 at that time, he had some magic to leave as a legacy with the Leafs.

 

He signed Patrick Marleau at 38 to a 3 year contract at $6.25 mil. per.

 

Marleau hadn't topped 50 points in his 2 prior years before signing and he managed 47 points in his 1st year with TO. This year the 2nd of his 3 years he has 20 points in 45 games, since he was over 35 when signed his entire cap hit will count against the cap even if bought out and he has a total NMC.

 

Now I'm probably being harsh to LL about this fiasco as I'm pretty sure Babs wanted Marleau but I can understand Babs simply wanting to improve the roster now but a GM should also consider the future, should have an eye out for the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Do we blame the players for signing the deals offered to them by management?

 

Nobody put a gun to Leipold's head and made him force ol' Fletch to give those ridiculous deals to Parise and Suter.

 

Nobody blackmailed Holmgren into offer-sheeting Weber.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

🍿

You misunderstood my statement.

 

In general I think players have now too much power. Not just in the Wild. That power is being handed to them by multiyear deals with NMC/NTC's.

 

Yeah, nobody put a gun to your head either and yet you decided to post...😏 There's usually some incentive in every action. You wanted to crack wise, that's fine. And GM's act too, they have a job to do. Salary cap won't prevent them throwing insane offers since without getting good players their team will stink and they'll be canned very soon. It all is a treadwheel really.

 

We have players now who can't do anything on ice, yet they get paid handsomely. Hell, some players get paid millions for YEARS for NOT to play in their respective teams.

 

I'm perfectly aware of why this current system was build for. Do I think it's successfull? No I don't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The All-Overpaid has one common theme, age, generally when a player hits 28 to 30 teams get excited about throwing money at them for what they have done, what they have done. 

 

Players are given the big money and stupidly long termed contracts when they're least able to deliver.

 

What's really inexplicable is that forever GMs don't offer sheet great young talent but they're happy to overpay/overterm players that are past or near to being past their prime.

 

The GMs have all the power but most are still stuck in some time warp thought process that players don't hit their prime until they're like 27 or there abouts. There is a slight logic to this because the aging players also have experience but scientific studies have shown that players actually peak between their late teens and 25. If a team has a superior young talent, that's who should be given money and term. Once a player hits 27 big money can still make sense but term shouldn't be as long.  

 

There's a competition going on and GMs spend amazing amounts of money for UFAs or their own aging players to improve/maintain their teams but that is ultimately what will cost them their jobs/sink their teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hockey-78 said:

In general I think players have now too much power. Not just in the Wild. That power is being handed to them by multiyear deals with NMC/NTC's.

 

I agree with this. The problem is that it is management that offers the NMC/NTC in the first place - in many cases as leverage to induce a player to sign with them. It is shortsighted, to be sure, and often (usually?) puts the organization in a bad place long term.

 

1 hour ago, Hockey-78 said:

You wanted to crack wise, that's fine.

 

Actually, I wanted to continue my ongoing screed against the terrible decisions made by management.

 

Management makes a bad offer. Player accepts. Management and fans blames player for the contract.

 

I just don't see how that's entirely on "the player".

 

The CBA is a product of negotiation between the league and the players. The league wanted to impose a salary cap based upon a set split of hockey-related revenue. The players insisted upon retaining guaranteed contracts. That was the trade-off for both sides.

 

The players have had no incentive to give up guaranteed contracts.

 

The whole thing is a delicate balance between interests. It could come to the point where the league decides to impose non-guaranteed contracts on players and leave it up to the players to determine if they want to be paid millions of dollars to play a game for a living. I would expect that we would lose at least another season of hockey on top of the season and a half we've already lost this century.

 

But it may be worth it.

 

That said, I would then expect "clever" GMs to find a way to exploit the loopholes of that system, too.

 

The NFL is a problematic comparison because the NHL simply doesn't have the resources that the NFL has. The NFL is also almost-entirely a signing-bonus-based contract league at this point. Very few players expect to play their entire contract length so most of the "guaranteed" money is socked up front in the form of signing bonuses. I doubt that the League as a whole wants to put that burden on the franchise ownership because of the possibility of having the "haves" outspend the "have nots" (see: Weber, Shea for an imperfect example of a team attempting to strong arm another out of an RFA using signing bonuses).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think clever(questionable assertion) GMs are already exploiting the CBA which is mostly a team with the bucks to do so.

 

TO signs Marleau to about 19 mil. for 3 seasons, next year, his last, he'll be owed 4 mil. so in the first 2 years he's already been paid 15 mil. TO fans and probably management figure Marleau and what's left of his contract can be moved to another team who would appreciate only having to pay him 4 mil. while his cap hit is over 6. Arizona will with his contract be able to reach the cap floor without actually having to pay out the money.

 

A fly in that ointment might be TO also gave him a NMC and I doubt he'd voluntarily accept a trade to say Arizona as there is no sign he won't want to play next year and it's a whole lot more fun playing with a winning team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2019 at 5:48 PM, J0e Th0rnton said:

People saying the Salary cap sucks and CBA sucks forget it was a dance between 5-6 teams paying all the money to anyone who reached UFA status and every other team was losing players.

 

:cool[1]:

 

#LuxuryTaxSystem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, radoran said:

The players have had no incentive to give up guaranteed contracts.

 

A guaranteed contract is an easier pill to swallow if you're not limited by a cap. It gives teams a lot more flexibility to move players and to effectively "bury" players who don't perform. You're not pressured to play lousy players, and you're not handcuffed for the next five years to a bad deal that ruins your team payroll. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

A guaranteed contract is an easier pill to swallow if you're not limited by a cap. It gives teams a lot more flexibility to move players and to effectively "bury" players who don't perform. You're not pressured to play lousy players, and you're not handcuffed for the next five years to a bad deal that ruins your team payroll.

 

Sure, but the owners insisted on a hard cap.

 

Again, the owners insisted upon a hard cap. They are the ones making the offers. The player signs the contract and it's "the player's fault" the team made a bad deal.

 

The solution for not being handcuffed by bad deals?

 

Don't make bad deals.

 

Should be an interesting negotiation in 2020...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Sure, but the owners insisted on a hard cap.

 

Again, the owners insisted upon a hard cap. They are the ones making the offers. The player signs the contract and it's "the player's fault" the team made a bad deal.

 

The solution for not being handcuffed by bad deals?

 

Don't make bad deals.

 

Should be an interesting negotiation in 2020...

 

I often wonder HOW the owners became billionaires given how poorly most of them manage a team payroll in sports lol.  😁

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Sure, but the owners insisted on a hard cap.

 

Again, the owners insisted upon a hard cap. They are the ones making the offers. The player signs the contract and it's "the player's fault" the team made a bad deal.

 

The solution for not being handcuffed by bad deals?

 

Don't make bad deals.

 

Should be an interesting negotiation in 2020...

 

Yup.

 

-sh|t on players for bad performance.

-sh|t on management for bad contracts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I agree with this. The problem is that it is management that offers the NMC/NTC in the first place - in many cases as leverage to induce a player to sign with them. It is shortsighted, to be sure, and often (usually?) puts the organization in a bad place long term.

 

 

Actually, I wanted to continue my ongoing screed against the terrible decisions made by management.

 

Management makes a bad offer. Player accepts. Management and fans blames player for the contract.

 

I just don't see how that's entirely on "the player".

 

The CBA is a product of negotiation between the league and the players. The league wanted to impose a salary cap based upon a set split of hockey-related revenue. The players insisted upon retaining guaranteed contracts. That was the trade-off for both sides.

 

The players have had no incentive to give up guaranteed contracts.

 

The whole thing is a delicate balance between interests. It could come to the point where the league decides to impose non-guaranteed contracts on players and leave it up to the players to determine if they want to be paid millions of dollars to play a game for a living. I would expect that we would lose at least another season of hockey on top of the season and a half we've already lost this century.

 

But it may be worth it.

 

That said, I would then expect "clever" GMs to find a way to exploit the loopholes of that system, too.

 

The NFL is a problematic comparison because the NHL simply doesn't have the resources that the NFL has. The NFL is also almost-entirely a signing-bonus-based contract league at this point. Very few players expect to play their entire contract length so most of the "guaranteed" money is socked up front in the form of signing bonuses. I doubt that the League as a whole wants to put that burden on the franchise ownership because of the possibility of having the "haves" outspend the "have nots" (see: Weber, Shea for an imperfect example of a team attempting to strong arm another out of an RFA using signing bonuses).

 

 

Good post for sure. To counter (not saying you are wrong) some of what was said, the player also didn't have a gun to his head to sign a contract. I would argue that if a player was serious about wanting to win a Championship that taking a big contract, unless the team was a proven winner with most of it's core guys, will be a huge anchor on a team. Example, is my team the Wild. We were not a team that even showed one ounce of the ability to make the playoffs before their signings. Hell, we couldn't even get to 90 points in a season. They knew going in the team needed a ton of work and were going to have to spend money to improve. Yet they still signed some huge contracts. You are right, not 100% their faults but they deserve 50% of the blame. Their contracts have hindered the Wild and now we are looking at a declining team that very soon is going to struggle to even compete for a WC spot. What's worse is their contracts are still here for another 6 years and the Wild can't do a single thing about it.

 

Bad contracts suck in all sports but at least in the NFL, NBA and MLB they can cut them and pay what is guaranteed. NHL they are guaranteed everything with a NMC and teams can't do a single thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EJ0226 said:

I would argue that if a player was serious about wanting to win a Championship

 

I think this is "the rub" in the whole situation. I don't know how many players are playing "for a championship". I'm sure a lot "want to win a championship" but that putting tens of millions into the bank and securing their and their children's security long term just may have a higher priority.

 

Then you have issues like Toews/Kane/Kopitar - who all won championships before signing the "big deal". Or Tavares, who "wants to win" but was still looking for $11M to do so.

 

Players typically have a very short window in which to cash in on their athletic prowess and achievement - and are the "one play away" from their career ending. I don't blame them for looking for the best deal (much like NFL players look for the biggest up front signing bonuses they can get).

 

The issue for some organizations is that they really have to be willing to be nimble and/or "walk away" from potential bad deals. Instead, they get into positions where they "have to keep their guy" even when "that guy" might not be "the guy" to take them to a championship. How does it benefit the Kings, for example, to have $89,000 in projected cap space and 40 points on a last place team. Was keeping Kopitar that valuable to them that they needed to pay him $10M a season to age 37?

 

Kings have two playoff rounds in four - going on five - years since their Cup win and have nine 30+ year old players. They got swept by Vegas in the first round last season.

 

Now let's add in Doughty for $11M (starting next season). The Kings have 17 players under contract and $5.1M in cap space going into next season. As a last place team.

 

Is that going to get "better"?

 

My point is, would it have benefitted the organization to have assembled some assets by trading Kopitar/Doughty/Quick/etc., still being a last place team, and being able to pick up a top 1-4 pick as a potential foundation for a new build?

 

Would they perhaps have avoided a 35+ $6.25M NMC contract for Kovalchuck (7g, 20p in 37g) "to compete"?

 

Do we see the Kings as taking a Hughes or Kakko and suddenly being "a contender" as a result?

 

29 minutes ago, EJ0226 said:

Bad contracts suck in all sports but at least in the NFL, NBA and MLB they can cut them and pay what is guaranteed. NHL they are guaranteed everything with a NMC and teams can't do a single thing.

 

MLB contracts are guaranteed. NFL are at least partially and are generally front-loaded with signing bonuses. Many NBA contracts are at least partially guaranteed. LBJ had a no trade with Cleveland and has a 15% trade kicker in his current (guaranteed) deal, for example.

 

The NMC is another issue and, again, is offered by management. If the player is insisting, management can still walk away.

 

And, as we've seen in Philadelphia, even having an NTC or NMC doesn't mean that a Hartnell or a VLC can't be dealt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I agree with this. The problem is that it is management that offers the NMC/NTC in the first place - in many cases as leverage to induce a player to sign with them. It is shortsighted, to be sure, and often (usually?) puts the organization in a bad place long term.

 

 

Actually, I wanted to continue my ongoing screed against the terrible decisions made by management.

 

Management makes a bad offer. Player accepts. Management and fans blames player for the contract.

 

I just don't see how that's entirely on "the player".

 

The CBA is a product of negotiation between the league and the players. The league wanted to impose a salary cap based upon a set split of hockey-related revenue. The players insisted upon retaining guaranteed contracts. That was the trade-off for both sides.

 

The players have had no incentive to give up guaranteed contracts.

 

The whole thing is a delicate balance between interests. It could come to the point where the league decides to impose non-guaranteed contracts on players and leave it up to the players to determine if they want to be paid millions of dollars to play a game for a living. I would expect that we would lose at least another season of hockey on top of the season and a half we've already lost this century.

 

But it may be worth it.

 

That said, I would then expect "clever" GMs to find a way to exploit the loopholes of that system, too.

 

The NFL is a problematic comparison because the NHL simply doesn't have the resources that the NFL has. The NFL is also almost-entirely a signing-bonus-based contract league at this point. Very few players expect to play their entire contract length so most of the "guaranteed" money is socked up front in the form of signing bonuses. I doubt that the League as a whole wants to put that burden on the franchise ownership because of the possibility of having the "haves" outspend the "have nots" (see: Weber, Shea for an imperfect example of a team attempting to strong arm another out of an RFA using signing bonuses).

 

 

Thanks radoran, I appreciate it. A much better post than the previous one! We agree on many points.

 

I would also like to underline that although I started of saying "the CBA sucks a lot" and "that generally speaking players have too much power" but in no way do I think it's all players' fault. It's the whole system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...