Two timely articles from SI.

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
Examining why players act out against their team:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ross_tucker/06/17/protest.season/index.html

by Ross Tucker

The NFL, much like the calendar year, is made up of distinct seasons. There's the preseason, the regular season, the postseason and, of course, the offseason.

But the increase in players either publicly griping or failing to show up for certain activities to express displeasure with their contract status has spawned a new term. Welcome to protest season.
Never before, perhaps, have so many felt so compelled to reveal their frustration through either public words or personal absences. Kellen Winslow wants an extension in Cleveland.

Anquan Boldin says he may skip training camp if he doesn't get a new deal from Arizona. Heck, some teams -- like the Bucs with Jeff Garcia, Earnest Graham and Chris Simms or the Giants with Plaxico Burress and Jeremy Shockey -- have more than one player sitting out or spouting off.

It has become commonplace for players frustrated with their current lot to skip any and all voluntary activities, from offseason workouts to Organized Team Activities (OTAs), both critical building blocks for a team as it progresses towards training camp. If that doesn't work, and it rarely does, the next step is to sit out a mandatory event, even at the risk of being fined. Giants wideout Plaxico Burress is adding a new twist to that ploy by attending minicamp but not participating in any activities as he seeks an upgrade of the $10 million he has remaining over the next three years.

Bengals receiver Chad Johnson appeared to be subscribing to the same plan last weekend before reversing his field and participating in the final practice session.

The other alternative, of course, is that players and their agents speak out -- both publicly and privately. The war of words usually starts how it should, with a player's agent talking with management, making sure the team realizes the player is unhappy with his current situation. Typically, if the agent senses a lack of progress, he tries other methods, which can include leaking word to the media or an all out verbal offensive against the organization by the player, like the recent outburst by Jets tight end Chris Baker.

"It was really a last resort type of thing," Baker said on Sirius NFL Radio. "We had tried to talk with them earlier. This is not something I wanted to do at all. They kind of left me with no choice."

Most NFL fans have a tough time understanding players griping about their contract status, especially when they are already earning such large sums.
"People think that if you sign a contract, you should honor your contract," said Bengals safety Dexter Jackson, who has had a bird's-eye view of the Chad Johnson saga playing out in Cincinnati. "But the team can release you anytime."

Therein lies the crux of the problem and the major reason for frustration among NFL players, who are well aware of their football mortality. They recognize the contracts are one-sided in nature and the team can always ask a player to take a pay cut or release them outright should they have a subpar year or get injured. If a team can alter the contract if the player has underperformed, why can't a player attempt to alter the contract in a positive fashion if he has clearly outperformed his deal.

"Part of the reason I'm in this situation is I got hurt in the last year of my original contract," Baker said. "If I get hurt this year I would be right back in the same boat."

This insecurity especially comes to light when players see some of the contracts being given to their peers. Even old-school former NFL players can understand the mindset of the current generation. Former Bears great and current 49ers assistant head coach Mike Singletary said, "I understand it. You do a deal and then someone else at your position gets a whale of a deal."

Most intelligent players, however, realize the best way to get a new contract is to stay the course, be a good employee and keep your mouth shut. The Saints recently rewarded defensive end Will Smith with a monster deal, in part because of the way he handled the process. Some players clearly don't have the patience to do that.

Baker, a well-respected player in the Jets locker room who appears clearly uncomfortable with the attention his situation has been given, said, "You never want to take it to the press, you want to keep it in house. But he [Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum] hasn't attempted to make any type of resolution to the problem thus far. I just want the negotiation process to start. We haven't talked at all."

Though most players who hope to remain with their current organization certainly don't take the decision to go public lightly, there are still other players, like the Bengals' Johnson, who appear to subscribe to the philosophy that causing a scene or becoming a distraction is the fastest way to get a new contract -- with a new team.

The problem with Johnson's strategy is it's not working and he doesn't appear to know what he is going to do next. The game plan that worked for Terrell Owens in Philadelphia and Javon Walker in Green Bay does not appear to be working as the Bengals steadfastly refuse to give in to Johnson's demands. At this point, Johnson appears to be receiving a lot of attention but precious little else.

Most players point to almost every contentious situation and remark that the player almost always got what he wanted eventually. From Deion Branch in Seattle to Pete Kendall in Washington. The next couple of months will go a long way towards determining whether or not this trend continues.

Will certain teams acquiesce to player's demands and pay them or trade them or will they hold their ground and use the disciplinary measures in place to entice players to honor their contract?

Only time will tell.


Ross Tucker played for five teams in his seven-year NFL career. He has joined SI.com as a regular contributor on the NFL beat.





..................................


And from Micheal Lombardi

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/michael_lombardi/06/16/notes/1.html



• Commissioner Roger Goodell did a very smart thing last week, forming a committee of general managers and appointing former Giants GM Ernie Accorsi to serve as co-chair along with Ray Anderson from the NFL office. This new committee will provide advice and other feedback to the Football Operations Department on key issues such as the expanded use of technology; player development and scouting opportunities; innovation initiatives affecting the Pro Bowl, combine, draft and preseason; and all matters concerning protection of the integrity of the game.


• Minicamps? OTAs? This isn't real football, people. Steelers coach Mike Tomlin understands the true essence of the dog days of the NFL offseason, where headlines are made every time a player doesn't show up to practice. "It's different than playing the game of football," he said. "Don't read too deeply into evaluating this time of year. It's about teaching. This is football in shorts, and I keep that in mind as I look at what goes on out there. People that may do great things out there may disappear in pads. Guys who struggle out there in shorts may be great players in pads. I always keep that thought in mind. I reserve judgment until we go to training camp and put pads on."

Tomlin is Bill Walsh-like in his thought process. Walsh, who firmly believed we should teach the players the system, then develop the skills within the system, used the offseason for teaching his course of football.
By the way, I saw where Buffalo and Denver canceled parts of their mandatory camps. So why do we make such a big deal when players miss an OTA?

.....................................
 

Skkorpion

Grey haired old Bird
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
11,026
Reaction score
5
Location
Sun City, AZ
Thanks. Not really anything we didn't understand already but good to see in print.
 

vince56

ASFN Addict
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
8,918
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Arizona
you know, in business, most of the time there's a base pay, and then an incentive pay for outstanding performance. I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential.

Take the median salary of players in the NFL and that becomes the base pay.

Rank incentives based first on team performance and secondly on individual performance. Better teams and better players = more money. This increases loyalty of player to team, team to player, fan to player, and fan to team. Win/win. The only catch? Nothing is guaranteed but the base pay.

This will never happen, but damn it'd make for a better league.
 

Skkorpion

Grey haired old Bird
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
11,026
Reaction score
5
Location
Sun City, AZ
you know, in business, most of the time there's a base pay, and then an incentive pay for outstanding performance. I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential.

Take the median salary of players in the NFL and that becomes the base pay.

Rank incentives based first on team performance and secondly on individual performance. Better teams and better players = more money. This increases loyalty of player to team, team to player, fan to player, and fan to team. Win/win. The only catch? Nothing is guaranteed but the base pay.

This will never happen, but damn it'd make for a better league.

I'm with you. Would the players agree to it if the owners concede guaranteeing the base pay for every year of the contract? Who knows?
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
0
I'm with you. Would the players agree to it if the owners concede guaranteeing the base pay for every year of the contract? Who knows?

The players would never go for it. Players get injured so they will not base their pay on mostly incentives when they might not get to earn those incentives. Upfront gauranteed money is still vastly the better idea in terms of the players.

Plus if you gaurantee the base salaries it will then just make the base salaries higher for the good players meaning you are in the same boat of "I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential."

Everything is always based on past and potential perfromances. Its the same for every sport.
 

SoCal Cardfan

ASFN Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Posts
6,056
Reaction score
1,296
I'll never side with the "It's a dangerous sport, and our shelf-life is limited BS.

They are making an obscene amount of money to play a GAME, How much money do they pay out to one of our brave men or woman in uniform, after they lose both legs? I'm guessing not quite as much as your average injury settlement. :sarcasm:

These A-holes all got a free ride to college, god forbid they should have to use their brain to make a living after their limited "shelf-life" of making millions is up.



That being said... A precedent has been set, and if I was in their shoes, I'm sure I would pull this crap too if it meant millions more.
:soapbox:
 
Last edited:

Capital Card

The Kobayashi of Kool-Aid
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
3,131
Reaction score
288
Location
Pigskin Slaughter House-Smithfield, VA
I too hate the nfl salary structure. My biggest gripe though puts me on the players side.

I can't for the life of me figure out how the players union agreed to a scenario where a player who gets cut has his contract is voided; yet, if a coach gets fired, he contues to be paid via a guaranteed contract?

So long as the NFL embraces their unilateral contract situation, I'll never bash a player for holding out for more money - provided their play on the field puts them into a higher category of stardom.

(Note: this doesn't mean I think they should all get new contracts, I'm just not going to hold it against them for trying. - ie Docket)

Go Cards!!!
 

CardinalChris

Big Man Himself
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
3,929
Reaction score
0
Location
Fresno, CA
I too hate the nfl salary structure. My biggest gripe though puts me on the players side.

I can't for the life of me figure out how the players union agreed to a scenario where a player who gets cut has his contract is voided; yet, if a coach gets fired, he contues to be paid via a guaranteed contract?

Because how many of those players complete or perform for the entire contract. 6-7 year contracts make it unlikely a player will maintain a level of performance. Could you imagine if teams carried the contracts of once-great players who passed their prime like the NBA? The players in their prime would miss out on money because it was tied up in those guaranteed contracts. The short shelf life dictates this type of structure teams can get out from under underperforming players. To counter that the league uses the signing bonus so the player gets theirs up front.

So long as the NFL embraces their unilateral contract situation, I'll never bash a player for holding out for more money - provided their play on the field puts them into a higher category of stardom.

(Note: this doesn't mean I think they should all get new contracts, I'm just not going to hold it against them for trying. - ie Docket)

Go Cards!!!

The play matching is the problem. A player (take dockett for example) who has one good year and demands a huge increase is silly in my opinion.
 

RugbyMuffin

ASFN IDOL
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Posts
30,485
Reaction score
4,876
I can't for the life of me figure out how the players union agreed to a scenario where a player who gets cut has his contract is voided; yet, if a coach gets fired, he contues to be paid via a guaranteed contract?

I see where you are coming from and all but SCREW THAT.

Anyone one of us can be fired at a moments notice. What makes they guys any different? Because they are pro-atheletes? That is B.S. They are being given a golden oppourtunity, in a highly competitive enviroment. If you can't cut then you get fired (just like any other job). If you get hurt too much you get fired (just like any other job). If you don't put the work in and you lose your effectiveness then you get fired (just like any other job).

And if these players don't have back up plans? Well, then maybe they should have hit the books (just like any other person that goes to college).

The players should be happy and appreciative for the oppourtunity, and work hard to keep thier job. It is no different than any other job. They are all pampered enough as far as I am concerned.
 
OP
OP
SuperSpck

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
I'll never side with the "It's a dangerous sport, and our shelf-life is limited BS.

They are making an obscene amount of money to play a GAME, How much money do they pay out to one of our brave men or woman in uniform, after they lose both legs? I'm guessing not quite as much as your average injury settlement. :sarcasm:

These A-holes all got a free ride to college, god forbid they should have to use their brain to make a living after their limited "shelf-life" of making millions is up.



That being said... A precedent has been set, and if I was in their shoes, I'm sure I would pull this crap too if it meant millions more.
:soapbox:

National defense and capitalism are strange bedfellows.
 

Skkorpion

Grey haired old Bird
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
11,026
Reaction score
5
Location
Sun City, AZ
The players would never go for it. Players get injured so they will not base their pay on mostly incentives when they might not get to earn those incentives. Upfront gauranteed money is still vastly the better idea in terms of the players.

Plus if you gaurantee the base salaries it will then just make the base salaries higher for the good players meaning you are in the same boat of "I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential."

Everything is always based on past and potential perfromances. Its the same for every sport.

joe, every other sport has guaranteed contracts. If I was a player, I'd want that. And if the base salaries are higher for proven players, good. That makes sense. Incentives would then still be attractive.

In my opinion, until the owners and players somehow work out a way to have guaranteed contracts, labor peace will not be achievable.

Players need better economic security against injury. The owners need an incentive to make character an issue when considering to lock in a player at higher guarantee for an long number of years.

Guaranteeing a long term offer to a Chad Johnson then becomes unlikely. Risky players would generate shorter length contract offers.

The game changed the last 5 years when some owners gorged illogically in free agency. They created this mess of unhappy stars unwilling to honor their contracts.

They began the fix by opting out of the CBA. Now I hope they are wise enough to consider guaranteeing contracts as part of the new CBA they wish to negotiate.
 

black

ASFN Lifer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
3,124
Reaction score
1
Location
girard,Il.
There is too much lee-way in players' actions in the league. Criminal, Drug use and holdouts are too common.

I would kick a player out of the league for life if he did not honor his contract. But on the other hand have some sort of arbitration settlement. I would end all this baby bullcrap pissyness.
 

Urubu Rei

Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
117
Reaction score
0
Location
Rio de Janeiro
I see where you are coming from and all but SCREW THAT.

Anyone one of us can be fired at a moments notice. What makes they guys any different? Because they are pro-atheletes? That is B.S. They are being given a golden oppourtunity, in a highly competitive enviroment. If you can't cut then you get fired (just like any other job). If you get hurt too much you get fired (just like any other job). If you don't put the work in and you lose your effectiveness then you get fired (just like any other job).

And if these players don't have back up plans? Well, then maybe they should have hit the books (just like any other person that goes to college).

The players should be happy and appreciative for the oppourtunity, and work hard to keep thier job. It is no different than any other job. They are all pampered enough as far as I am concerned.

Well said!
 

Capital Card

The Kobayashi of Kool-Aid
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
3,131
Reaction score
288
Location
Pigskin Slaughter House-Smithfield, VA
I see where you are coming from and all but SCREW THAT.

Anyone one of us can be fired at a moments notice. What makes they guys any different? Because they are pro-atheletes? That is B.S. They are being given a golden oppourtunity, in a highly competitive enviroment. If you can't cut then you get fired (just like any other job). If you get hurt too much you get fired (just like any other job). If you don't put the work in and you lose your effectiveness then you get fired (just like any other job).

And if these players don't have back up plans? Well, then maybe they should have hit the books (just like any other person that goes to college).

The players should be happy and appreciative for the oppourtunity, and work hard to keep thier job. It is no different than any other job. They are all pampered enough as far as I am concerned.



"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way..." - Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron"
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
0
They began the fix by opting out of the CBA. Now I hope they are wise enough to consider guaranteeing contracts as part of the new CBA they wish to negotiate.

You cannot gaurantee contracts in the NFL. Its nice to say that if the NBA can do it the NFL should as well. But NBA teams only have to deal with 12-13 gauranteed contracts. The NFL would have to deal with 53 gauranteed contracts. That just is not financially responsible on that level. It would lead to dynasties and one sided football towards the richer teams, because only the richer teams are able to shell out the money for the buyouts in order to cut their bad players and get new ones. Smaller market teams would just have to live with it until their contract ends taking the roster spot of someone who could help their team.

When trying to come up with an idea for how the NFL should do contracts you cannot use the NBA, MLB, or NHL as an example because none of those sports even come close to carrying the same amount of 53 players on an active roster.
 
OP
OP
SuperSpck

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way..." - Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron"

My favorite Vonnegut story!
 

lobo

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Posts
3,310
Reaction score
229
Location
Inverness, Il
The play matching is the problem. A player (take dockett for example) who has one good year and demands a huge increase is silly in my opinion.


I totally agree. I am at the point with these guys as much as I have been a Cardinal fan since the Chicago days, that if they don't like what they are making and a deal can be made...go and good luck. The team does not need any distractions regardless how good a guy is. Practically speaking the team cannot afford, nor can any team, two supersized salaries at WR. That's business. If the deals that Mitch mentioned are the real deal, the team should make their final offer (or non offer in the case of Dockett) and so be it. Nobody had a gun to Dockett's head when he signed a long term deal....go talk to Horace Grant before you sign your next deal.
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,316
Reaction score
3,871
lol at K. Winslow

Isn't he still a rookie via playing time?

He gets I believe the richest TE contract in the history of rookie te's, basically sits out 2 years because he's a silly Willy, has a good season, and wants an extension.

I'd say sure, here's a two year extension for the league minimum. You got 2 years paid for free, now it's your turn to pay it back. But you'll have the security of, 'we want you', and 'you'll know where you'll be', and 'getting paid hundreds of thousands a year'.

Sarcastically, is there any way to slip into a contract that if a player asks for a contract extension before his current contracts is, and I'll be lenient, half way done, that you can take back 2 million per season? Just make it part of the contract about being a good citizen, etc (can't remember the term for it).
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
The players would never go for it. Players get injured so they will not base their pay on mostly incentives when they might not get to earn those incentives. Upfront gauranteed money is still vastly the better idea in terms of the players.

Plus if you gaurantee the base salaries it will then just make the base salaries higher for the good players meaning you are in the same boat of "I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential."

Everything is always based on past and potential perfromances. Its the same for every sport.

I wonder why the NHL model is not considered, in some modified form, by all parties in the NFL.

Under their Collective Agreement, there is a

1. CAP ($56 million this season for 25 players-relatively half of the NFL CAP);
2. Entry level (draft) salaries are set;
3. Contracts are guaranteed (Incentives are negotiable);
4. Buy-out provisions are as follows: 0ne-third of remaining deal if player is under 26 years of age; two-thirds if older;.
5. Teams may spread the CAP hit over 4 years.

*** If they can manage this in the NHL, they certainly can in the NFL.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
SuperSpck

SuperSpck

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Posts
7,977
Reaction score
15
Location
Iowa
I wonder why the NHL model is not considered, in some modified form, by all parties in the NFL.

Under their Collective Agreement, there is a

1. CAP ($56 million this season for 25 players-relatively half of the NFL CAP);
2. Entry level (draft) salaries are set;
3. Contracts are guaranteed (Incentives are negotiable);
4. Buy-out provisions are as follows: 0ne-third of remaining deal if player is under 26 years of age; two-thirds if older;.
5. Teams may spread the CAP hit over 4 years.

*** If they can manage this in the NHL, they certainly can in the NFL.

Joe, as resident expert, what do you think?
 

Skkorpion

Grey haired old Bird
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
11,026
Reaction score
5
Location
Sun City, AZ
I wonder why the NHL model is not considered, in some modified form, by all parties in the NFL.

Under their Collective Agreement, there is a

1. CAP ($56 million this season for 25 players-relatively half of the NFL CAP);
2. Entry level (draft) salaries are set;
3. Contracts are guaranteed (Incentives are negotiable);
4. Buy-out provisions are as follows: 0ne-third of remaining deal if player is under 26 years of age; two-thirds if older;.
5. Teams may spread the CAP hit over 4 years.

*** If they can manage this in the NHL, they certainly can in the NFL.

Sounds like a sound framework to me. The NHL was in danger of going out of existence and that forced both sides to forge a rational agreement.

To hope for similar rational behavior by ownership and labor in the NFL may be futile.
 

cardsfanmd

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Posts
13,900
Reaction score
3,939
Location
annapolis, md
I'll never side with the "It's a dangerous sport, and our shelf-life is limited BS.

They are making an obscene amount of money to play a GAME, How much money do they pay out to one of our brave men or woman in uniform, after they lose both legs? I'm guessing not quite as much as your average injury settlement. :sarcasm:

These A-holes all got a free ride to college, god forbid they should have to use their brain to make a living after their limited "shelf-life" of making millions is up.



That being said... A precedent has been set, and if I was in their shoes, I'm sure I would pull this crap too if it meant millions more.
:soapbox:
could not have said that any better:thumbup:
 

Bobcat

Registered User
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
1,969
Reaction score
2
Location
Glendale, Arizona
you know, in business, most of the time there's a base pay, and then an incentive pay for outstanding performance. I still for the life of me cannot understand why in pro sports players are paid large sums in the future for past performance or potential.

Take the median salary of players in the NFL and that becomes the base pay.

Rank incentives based first on team performance and secondly on individual performance. Better teams and better players = more money. This increases loyalty of player to team, team to player, fan to player, and fan to team. Win/win. The only catch? Nothing is guaranteed but the base pay.

This will never happen, but damn it'd make for a better league.

Like Skorp. I am also with you.

BOBCAT
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
0
I wonder why the NHL model is not considered, in some modified form, by all parties in the NFL.

Under their Collective Agreement, there is a

1. CAP ($56 million this season for 25 players-relatively half of the NFL CAP);
2. Entry level (draft) salaries are set;
3. Contracts are guaranteed (Incentives are negotiable);
4. Buy-out provisions are as follows: 0ne-third of remaining deal if player is under 26 years of age; two-thirds if older;.
5. Teams may spread the CAP hit over 4 years.

*** If they can manage this in the NHL, they certainly can in the NFL.

That is about as good a place to start as any. But I would change a few things. One, there has to be a way to work with the Negotiable incentives so that the richer teams cant just offer more incentives thus working there way around the whole system. Such as if a player reaches an incentive it counts toward the following years cap and has to be added to the total salary for buy out purposes. Plus what is to stop the richer teams from just shelling out the buyouts and getting more players. A part of the buyout has to be included in the salary cap somehow as a penalty so that rich teams cant just recycle through players as they see fit while the poorer teams cannot.

Plus the NFL has got to have a larger practice squad or some sort of development league like the NHL has. Have to give teams a better ability of home growing their own talent more so then today so they dont have to shell out as many buyouts then they would in todays current setting.
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
That is about as good a place to start as any. But I would change a few things. One, there has to be a way to work with the Negotiable incentives so that the richer teams cant just offer more incentives thus working there way around the whole system. Such as if a player reaches an incentive it counts toward the following years cap and has to be added to the total salary for buy out purposes. Plus what is to stop the richer teams from just shelling out the buyouts and getting more players. A part of the buyout has to be included in the salary cap somehow as a penalty so that rich teams cant just recycle through players as they see fit while the poorer teams cannot.

Plus the NFL has got to have a larger practice squad or some sort of development league like the NHL has. Have to give teams a better ability of home growing their own talent more so then today so they dont have to shell out as many buyouts then they would in todays current setting.

1.) I haven't heard that the incentives in the NHL are distorting the market. I'm inclined to believe that there are limits and are based on performance, otherwise - Detroit, Toronto, New York, Denver... and a few others, would have a distinct advantage.

2) The buyouts do count against the cap; as said - they have 4 years to amortize the "dead" money.

3) Developmental League? NHL players are drafted at 18, and the vast, vast majority haven't yet reached the physical maturity to play with the big boys. Normally, they stay in Major Junior Hockey until age 20, and then spend a couple of years, or more, in the minor pro leagues where almost all teams have NHL affiliations. College hockey players are usually available at age 22, 23... and are physically more prepared, although, they too may spend time in the minors. That's the league's reasoning for minor pro hockey.

College football at its highest level seems to adequately prepare players for the next step, so - unless I'm missing the point; why the need for a developmental league?
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
537,308
Posts
5,268,919
Members
6,275
Latest member
Beagleperson
Top