NHL puts first offer on table in labor negotiations

I don't know much about hockey, and I don't think I have to, to know those terms are garbage in the opinion of any professional athlete.

quote:

---

There's no way the league can afford another lockout... can it?

---

Another lockout and contraction happens. Its taken awhile for what I've heard is a much better product to start getting better TV deals and another lockout would kill all that momentum IMO.

Or I'm an idiot and don't know what I am talking about.

That is ridiculous.

This is the worst part to me:

quote:

---

while forcing players to accrue 10 seasons -- regardless of age -- before becoming an unrestricted free agent

---

This means pending a trade, you will most likely be past your prime before you can become a free agent.

quote:

---

new mega millions tv contract with NBC...check...Revenue growing year by year...check...NO frickin' way there is a lock-out

---

Gary Bettman is the commissioner.. check... Yeah, there can be a lockout.

That's not an offer, it's a declaration of war.

It would be criminal for the players (and it's not going to happen, so whatever) but my team, as a small-market fan, would benefit a lot from this original offer.

I don't like the idea of limiting contract length to five years, but I DO like the idea of paying the players the same amount each season of the contract. You start doing that, you stop these ridiculous 13-year, $98 million contracts that pay a $1 million salary that last two years of the deal (which the players likely won't play because they'll retire) that are only added to lower the cap hit. That will naturally lower contract length, and salary a bit. I'd also like to see entry-level contracts extended to four years from three (I actually think this has a decent chance of happening) but I'm also biased there. The unrestricted free agency after 10 years is just absurd, and obviously won't happen (nor should it).

Saw some proposal (not from the NHL, but on a message board) about a "loyalty" clause (I guess the NBA did it), where if a player stays with one team his entire career a certain length of time, his cap hit is a reduced percentage of his actual salary should he sign his next contract again with that same team. This allows the original team to pay more than the guy would make on the market, because their cap hit would be lower. I think this one has a great chance of happening, because the owners would be for it so they don't lose star home-grown marketable talent, and the players would like it because it would also drive up salaries a bit.

ETA: One other potential suggestion for long contracts/cap hit, which I haven't seen mentioned, but just thought of, is to institute a rule that there can be no year of the contract where a player's salary can be lower than 50% (or 60% or 70% or 40% or whatever) of the contract's cap hit (i.e. the average of what he's making over the course of the contract). That would stop the addition of these stupid two-three years thrown on at the end where the players make nothing to lower the hit. That would be a bit of a compromise, rather than forcing them to take the same amount every year of the contract. Players wouldn't like it much, but this kind of stuff is getting out of control.

quote:

---

can it?

---

frick no, the league got really fricking lucky after the lock out with big time stars in those drafts like crosby and ovie, that once in a generation talent ant coming around for a while to save the NHL if another lock out happens.