I don't mind the 5 yr ELC to me it would allow a team more time to evaluate a player before handing out a big money deal for some players on a limited body of work & will keep salaries down for a little bit instead of getting out of control.

I'd go as far as 5 yr ELC with only 1 more restricted year beyond that as a compromise for the players instead of the 3 yr ELC and 4 more years of being resticted now.
- ob18

I agree. One of the biggest issues with escalating player salaries is the middle contract has been eliminated for most good players. They're going right from EL contracts, to big money deals. Look at the past with a player like Simon Gagne. He had to have some years making 2-3M if I remember correctly, after his EL deal to even get to the 5M salary level.

I agree. One of the biggest issues with escalating player salaries is the middle contract has been eliminated for most good players. They're going right from EL contracts, to big money deals. Look at the past with a player like Simon Gagne. He had to have some years making 2-3M if I remember correctly, after his EL deal to even get to the 5M salary level.
- MJL

If the big dollars weren't being paid out in the "2nd contract" they'd be going to UFA's. Dollars wouldn't be getting saved in the process - they'd still be spent, but just on older guys. Garrison's 6/26 would be more like 6/40, Wideman's 5/25 would be more like 5/40, and a lot of guys who got locked up before UFA would be hitting the market and getting even bigger contracts.

Besides, teams aren't lobbing $5 million and $6 million on those post-ELC deals at unproven players. They're lobbing that money at guys who put up great stats, possibly won a major award, and appear to have more of the same in their future. The guys who management isn't sure of are getting offers of $600K, 1-way or $800K, 2-way.

If the big dollars weren't being paid out in the "2nd contract" they'd be going to UFA's. Dollars wouldn't be getting saved in the process - they'd still be spent, but just on older guys. Garrison's 6/26 would be more like 6/40, Wideman's 5/25 would be more like 5/40, and a lot of guys who got locked up before UFA would be hitting the market and getting even bigger contracts.


- Irish Blues

I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said previously, but I don't agree here. I think your assuming that. Garrison and Wideman aren't going to get more because the League is saving on 2nd contracts. The GM's simply have to control themselves and help contain the market. Which they haven't been able to do so far. Free Agency will still be Free Agency.

Besides, teams aren't lobbing $5 million and $6 million on those post-ELC deals at unproven players. They're lobbing that money at guys who put up great stats, possibly won a major award, and appear to have more of the same in their future. The guys who management isn't sure of are getting offers of $600K, 1-way or $800K, 2-way.
- Irish Blues

I didn't say it was being lobbed at unproven players. The issue is that even top players, using Kane and Toews as examples, shouldn't go from EL deals to top Cap hit deals, regardless of their accomplishments. There needs to be a better contract structure in place. Having 5 year EL deals will help do that.

I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said previously, but I don't agree here. I think your assuming that. Garrison and Wideman aren't going to get more because the League is saving on 2nd contracts. The GM's simply have to control themselves and help contain the market. Which they haven't been able to do so far. Free Agency will still be Free Agency.
- MJL

I think we've seen that teams who are bound and determined to spend to the cap are going to do so no matter what you try to do to keep them from doing it. Thus, limiting the 2nd contract isn't going to suddenly get them to rein in spending; they'll just spend those "saved" dollars on other players - and given the other options, it's likely to go to UFA's or older players.

Similarly, if teams trying to stay close to the cap floor don't spend on the younger players - the ones they plan to build around - they're going to have to spend money elsewhere to get to the cap floor and above. Again, who's going to get that money? It's going to be the UFA's and the older guys, who are more likely to now be overpaid relative to what they do while the younger guys are underpaid.

There's not going to be any net savings. Even for teams in the middle, if they say "our budget is $60 million" they're very unlikely to pocket this savings from suddenly not having to pay the younger players - they're going to plow it back into player salaries, but on older players. All you're going to do is shift dollars from one group of players to another. And again, in aggregate the players are only getting 57% of HRR; if someone gets overpaid, the entire group of players has to pay that much more back via escrow.

I didn't say it was being lobbed at unproven players. The issue is that even top players, using Kane and Toews as examples, shouldn't go from EL deals to top Cap hit deals, regardless of their accomplishments. There needs to be a better contract structure in place. Having 5 year EL deals will help do that.
- MJL

In your opinion, they shouldn't make that kind of jump. So, what kind of jump would be acceptable? Those guys are roughly getting paid in line with what they're expected to do, and so they're going to get more when they're younger and more likely to be in their prime instead of waiting until 31-33 and are definitely on the backside of their careers with declining stats and then getting paid huge dollars [which pays them for what they did 5-6 years ago, but overpays them for current performance].

I think we've seen that teams who are bound and determined to spend to the cap are going to do so no matter what you try to do to keep them from doing it. Thus, limiting the 2nd contract isn't going to suddenly get them to rein in spending; they'll just spend those "saved" dollars on other players - and given the other options, it's likely to go to UFA's or older players.

Similarly, if teams trying to stay close to the cap floor don't spend on the younger players - the ones they plan to build around - they're going to have to spend money elsewhere to get to the cap floor and above. Again, who's going to get that money? It's going to be the UFA's and the older guys, who are more likely to now be overpaid relative to what they do while the younger guys are underpaid.

There's not going to be any net savings. Even for teams in the middle, if they say "our budget is $60 million" they're very unlikely to pocket this savings from suddenly not having to pay the younger players - they're going to plow it back into player salaries, but on older players. All you're going to do is shift dollars from one group of players to another. And again, in aggregate the players are only getting 57% of HRR; if someone gets overpaid, the entire group of players has to pay that much more back via escrow.


In your opinion, they shouldn't make that kind of jump. So, what kind of jump would be acceptable? Those guys are roughly getting paid in line with what they're expected to do, and so they're going to get more when they're younger and more likely to be in their prime instead of waiting until 31-33 and are definitely on the backside of their careers with declining stats and then getting paid huge dollars
- Irish Blues[which pays them for what they did 5-6 years ago, but overpays them for current performance].

totally agreed. especially with the last paragraph

I would like to see Giroux spend far less time on the PK. Not at all a fan of Sestito. And I personally would never have both Sestito and Rinaldo in the lineup in a game , on the same line. Or any line for that matter.
- MJL

I disagree with this opinion. I don't think there is clarity here in addressing the future violent battles our team of warriors will endure. Rinaldo and Sestito are a necessity, not a convenience.

I think we've seen that teams who are bound and determined to spend to the cap are going to do so no matter what you try to do to keep them from doing it. Thus, limiting the 2nd contract isn't going to suddenly get them to rein in spending; they'll just spend those "saved" dollars on other players - and given the other options, it's likely to go to UFA's or older players.

Similarly, if teams trying to stay close to the cap floor don't spend on the younger players - the ones they plan to build around - they're going to have to spend money elsewhere to get to the cap floor and above. Again, who's going to get that money? It's going to be the UFA's and the older guys, who are more likely to now be overpaid relative to what they do while the younger guys are underpaid.

There's not going to be any net savings. Even for teams in the middle, if they say "our budget is $60 million" they're very unlikely to pocket this savings from suddenly not having to pay the younger players - they're going to plow it back into player salaries, but on older players. All you're going to do is shift dollars from one group of players to another. And again, in aggregate the players are only getting 57% of HRR; if someone gets overpaid, the entire group of players has to pay that much more back via escrow.


- Irish Blues

I agree completely that the richer teams are going to spend to the Cap regardless. But there absolutely will be savings. Especially if they make the Cap floor lower. The poorer teams absolutely will save money. What it's likely to do, is lesson parity around the League. Because the richer teams will have to pay out less to their young stars, and therefore be able to assign more Cap space dollars to Free Agency and outbidding the lesser teams. But making EL deals 5 years instead of 3 years will absolutely save teams money.

In your opinion, they shouldn't make that kind of jump. So, what kind of jump would be acceptable? Those guys are roughly getting paid in line with what they're expected to do, and so they're going to get more when they're younger and more likely to be in their prime instead of waiting until 31-33 and are definitely on the backside of their careers with declining stats and then getting paid huge dollars
- Irish Blues[which pays them for what they did 5-6 years ago, but overpays them for current performance].

Years of service should come into play. Players shouldn't be in the top cap hit range in the League until they reach eligibility for UFA status. That is one of the biggest problems in the League.

Years of service should come into play. Players shouldn't be in the top cap hit range in the League until they reach eligibility for UFA status. That is one of the biggest problems in the League.
- MJL

its a tough arguement tho. players are likely to be the most productive between the ages of 25 and 29 i'd bet.

I agree completely that the richer teams are going to spend to the Cap regardless. But there absolutely will be savings. Especially if they make the Cap floor lower. The poorer teams absolutely will save money. What it's likely to do, is lesson parity around the League. Because the richer teams will have to pay out less to their young stars, and therefore be able to assign more Cap space dollars to Free Agency and outbidding the lesser teams. But making EL deals 5 years instead of 3 years will absolutely save teams money.



Years of service should come into play. Players shouldn't be in the top cap hit range in the League until they reach eligibility for UFA status. That is one of the biggest problems in the League.
- MJL

I think parity is more of a function of the expansion of teams and the accompanying talent dilution for each team.

its a tough arguement tho. players are likely to be the most productive between the ages of 25 and 29 i'd bet.
- Crimsoninja

While not all will those who do come in to the league at 18 you will still get a big payday early in their career.

its a tough arguement tho. players are likely to be the most productive between the ages of 25 and 29 i'd bet.
- Crimsoninja

That's definitely true. But there has to be some mechanism to keep salaries down.

While not all will those who do come in to the league at 18 you will still get a big payday early in their career.
- ob18

ya but realistically what percentage of players come into the league at 18?

That's definitely true. But there has to be some mechanism to keep salaries down.
- MJL

Agreed, something has to be done.

ya but realistically what percentage of players come into the league at 18?
- Crimsoninja

I do not have that data but even if they go to the AHL they are still only going to be restricted for the same amount of years (I could be wrong on this) & can have some success and get paid. It's just an idea to stop it from happening so soon to help curb the over spending.

It's that or they keep over spending while raising ticket prices so high they continue to price people out of the game that they are already doing.

I do not have that data but even if they go to the AHL they are still only going to be restricted for the same amount of years (I could be wrong on this) & can have some success and get paid. It's just an idea to stop it from happening so soon to help curb the over spending so soon.

It's that or they keep over spending while raising ticket prices so high they continue to price people out of the game that they are already doing.
- ob18

just so frustrating that all this stems from weak teams in bad markets that never shouldve been formed in the first place. and no matter what happens this year, it'll only be a bandaid and the same problems will still be there when the next CBA expires.

I disagree with this opinion. I don't think there is clarity here in addressing the future violent battles our team of warriors will endure. Rinaldo and Sestito are a necessity, not a convenience.
- Daman

Rinaldo can bring great energy to the team with his play but he has to walk a thin line to be effective. Evidenced from last season referees will often times toss 10 minute misconducts at him or over penalize him for borderline plays which bring on a negative impact to the squad. The difference IMO between Sestito and Rinaldo is Rinaldo seems to have a better natural athletic ability which allows him to skate, shoot, pass and generally keep up with 1st line players in the league. Sestito has great size but his skating, agility and control make me very nervous. He's rough around the edges IMO. Having these 2 skaters on the same unit or spread throughout the bottom 2 units is a stretch until Sestito really shows that he is indeed of NHL pedigree.

just so frustrating that all this stems from weak teams in bad markets that never shouldve been formed in the first place. and no matter what happens this year, it'll only be a bandaid and the same problems will still be there when the next CBA expires.
- Crimsoninja

Well I'm sure we know who to blame for adding all these teams & in markets that should have never had one.

But because they do and are part of the league they have to have a economic system that works for them all not just big spending teams because as we see with just trying to find Phoenix an owner & not moving them the NHL will fight tooth and nail to make it work before they move them or retract teams.

Problem right now is both sides don't seem to be on the same page in fixing the problem for the game going forward. Until they can get on it, it might be a while & I may just fold and pay the $300 to watch the OHL online.

just so frustrating that all this stems from weak teams in bad markets that never shouldve been formed in the first place. and no matter what happens this year, it'll only be a bandaid and the same problems will still be there when the next CBA expires.
- Crimsoninja

My experience in dealing with attorneys is that they are great with law and negotiating (being stubborn and relentless) but lack economic fundamentals.

There are many ways to skin a cat, but I think the league and the players lack creativity. With good financial information, this could be solved in a rational manner.

I agree completely that the richer teams are going to spend to the Cap regardless. But there absolutely will be savings. Especially if they make the Cap floor lower. The poorer teams absolutely will save money. What it's likely to do, is lesson parity around the League. Because the richer teams will have to pay out less to their young stars, and therefore be able to assign more Cap space dollars to Free Agency and outbidding the lesser teams. But making EL deals 5 years instead of 3 years will absolutely save teams money.
- MJL

I should qualify my statements above on no savings to have the caveat "all things being equal," because if the floor is lower / ceiling is lower because of a change in the HRR split, that causes immediate savings. From there, all other things being equal there's not going to be much if any net savings because money "saved" will just be re-allocated to other players in the form of higher contracts.

Your argument relies on the owners having enough discipline to take the money saved from longer ELC's and not spend it. I'm pointing out that the owners have continually shown they lack such discipline and will spend to whatever target they want to reach. Even right now, no one forces the owners to spend $7 million per on a guy coming off his ELC or spend to the cap and beyond; they choose to, for a variety of reasons - some real, some imaginary. Let's pretend though that the owners [contrary to history] actually showed discipline in handing out contracts; since the players are guaranteed 57% of HRR [change that to 50% if you wish], if the owners collectively fail to spend that much they'd have to cut a check at the end to the players to make up the difference, and that could easily negate the "savings" they realized.

I'd attach a spreadsheet to illustrate this, but sadly I can't. In theory the owners would save money; in practice, there would be no savings - just dollars shifted between groups of players.

Crimsonninja gave the response to your point on cap hits and age; by the time a player has hit UFA, he's more often than not had his peak season and performance either holds steady at a level well under that peak or slowly declines for several years after. Ovechkin is unlikely to score 65 again, and 50 will be pushing it in another year or two; Stamkos has another couple shots to top 60, and Crosby probably has a few more years [I'd say no more than 3] to hit his peak season. If you wait until they're UFA-eligible to pay them big, chances are you're going to overpay for what they end up doing because they've passed their peak season. If your desire is to have players paid in relationship to what they actually do, the current status quo probably isn't too far off [because you're not going to come up with strict stats-based salary grid that the players accept].

I should qualify my statements above on no savings to have the caveat "all things being equal," because if the floor is lower / ceiling is lower because of a change in the HRR split, that causes immediate savings. From there, all other things being equal there's not going to be much if any net savings because money "saved" will just be re-allocated to other players in the form of higher contracts.

Your argument relies on the owners having enough discipline to take the money saved from longer ELC's and not spend it. I'm pointing out that the owners have continually shown they lack such discipline and will spend to whatever target they want to reach. Even right now, no one forces the owners to spend $7 million per on a guy coming off his ELC or spend to the cap and beyond; they choose to, for a variety of reasons - some real, some imaginary. Let's pretend though that the owners
- Irish Blues[contrary to history] actually showed discipline in handing out contracts; since the players are guaranteed 57% of HRR [change that to 50% if you wish], if the owners collectively fail to spend that much they'd have to cut a check at the end to the players to make up the difference, and that could easily negate the "savings" they realized.

I'd attach a spreadsheet to illustrate this, but sadly I can't. In theory the owners would save money; in practice, there would be no savings - just dollars shifted between groups of players.

Crimsonninja gave the response to your point on cap hits and age; by the time a player has hit UFA, he's more often than not had his peak season and performance either holds steady at a level well under that peak or slowly declines for several years after. Ovechkin is unlikely to score 65 again, and 50 will be pushing it in another year or two; Stamkos has another couple shots to top 60, and Crosby probably has a few more years [I'd say no more than 3] to hit his peak season. If you wait until they're UFA-eligible to pay them big, chances are you're going to overpay for what they end up doing because they've passed their peak season. If your desire is to have players paid in relationship to what they actually do, the current status quo probably isn't too far off [because you're not going to come up with strict stats-based salary grid that the players accept].

I'll simply say this. There absolutely would be savings. If there wouldn't be, the League wouldn't be interested in 5 year EL deals. It's really that simple. Not for every team, as the richer teams such as the Flyers aren't really interested in lower player costs.

Rinaldo can bring great energy to the team with his play but he has to walk a thin line to be effective. Evidenced from last season referees will often times toss 10 minute misconducts at him or over penalize him for borderline plays which bring on a negative impact to the squad. The difference IMO between Sestito and Rinaldo is Rinaldo seems to have a better natural athletic ability which allows him to skate, shoot, pass and generally keep up with 1st line players in the league. Sestito has great size but his skating, agility and control make me very nervous. He's rough around the edges IMO. Having these 2 skaters on the same unit or spread throughout the bottom 2 units is a stretch until Sestito really shows that he is indeed of NHL pedigree.
- Pixote Andolini

If rinaldo and crosby commit the exact same penalty, it is omly fair that Rinaldo get called more often for the infraction. A ref has to consider past history of the player when making all calls.

If rinaldo and crosby commit the eact same penalty, it is omly fair that Rinaldo get called more often for the infraction. A ref has to consider past history of the player when making all calls.
- Daman

I disagree with this, the only thought process for the ref should be.. Was that a penalty? Yes- raise arm, No- let play continue. The only time reputation should enter the equation should be for diving calls. It's complete B.S. when rinaldo gets the gate for a clean hit but guys like malkin and crosby can slash and rabbit punch people in the head at will.

I'll simply say this. There absolutely would be savings. If there wouldn't be, the League wouldn't be interested in 5 year EL deals. It's really that simple. Not for every team, as the richer teams such as the Flyers aren't really interested in lower player costs.
- MJL

The league is interested in 5-year EL contracts because

1. It will exert more control over the players, and
2. It will avoid having to potentially give raises to those players for 2 more years.

That's it. If it really thinks it's going to save money in this, I've explained quite clearly above why that's not going to happen. Thinking the owners will suddenly pocket the alleged savings from not having to pay EL guys for 2 more years is dubious at best, and incredibly unlikely given their behavior to date when they've had the ability to limit spending themselves.

And again, this will eventually eat up contract slots on the 50-contract limit so that guys coming off an ELC who aren't NHL regulars but are wanted for the AHL are squeezed into fewer available spots. The better a job you do drafting, the fewer spots you're going to have available for those guys.

The league is interested in 5-year EL contracts because

1. It will exert more control over the players, and
2. It will avoid having to potentially give raises to those players for 2 more years.

That's it. If it really thinks it's going to save money in this, I've explained quite clearly above why that's not going to happen. Thinking the owners will suddenly pocket the alleged savings from not having to pay EL guys for 2 more years is dubious at best, and incredibly unlikely given their behavior to date when they've had the ability to limit spending themselves.

And again, this will eventually eat up contract slots on the 50-contract limit so that guys coming off an ELC who aren't NHL regulars but are wanted for the AHL are squeezed into fewer available spots. The better a job you do drafting, the fewer spots you're going to have available for those guys.
- Irish Blues

It absolutely will save money in player costs. Your approaching it in a vacuum, as if it will be the only cost cutting move. It's everything together including changing how the cap is calculated together.The 50 contract limit is a minor issue.