I've said a few times that the NHL should put a limit on max contracts of 3-5 years.

That way...

Owners aren't stuck with bad contracts
Players can make more if they work for it
It would make the trade deadline way more exciting
- Maverick1818

I don't see the players going for this. We don't need another lockout.

I don't see the players going for this. We don't need another lockout.
- david22

A lock out is invetiable regardless.Players already know this with teams making more then ever,they will want more.The result will be a lock out under Batmans collusion with the owners

I don't see the players going for this. We don't need another lockout.
- david22

It works both both owners and players though.

Owners don't get locked into long terrible contract if the player doesn't perform.

Players if they have a bad contract year but still get a deal at a discount have the opportunity to bring up their stats and get a bigger payday on the next one.

It works both both owners and players though.

Owners don't get locked into long terrible contract if the player doesn't perform.

Players if they have a bad contract year but still get a deal at a discount have the opportunity to bring up their stats and get a bigger payday on the next one.
- Maverick1818

I thought contract lengths were a major area of contention between the two sides?

I thought contract lengths were a major area of contention between the two sides?
- david22

Yes, but the thing is typically the conversation is the long the term the more of a discount per year.

If a player signs currently 8 year at $5M thats thats $40 Million

Why wouldn't that same player do 4 years at $6M and if he plays well then 3 years at $7M... Same 8 year term but gets $45 Million

And on top of that, the owner is happier because he knows those players are getting paid for what they do currently and isn't stuck with a big contract they can't move.

It's a win - win

I've said a few times that the NHL should put a limit on max contracts of 3-5 years.

That way...

Owners aren't stuck with bad contracts
Players can make more if they work for it
It would make the trade deadline way more exciting
- Maverick1818

I think this will be a negotiation point for next CBA.

Owners will probably ask for max contract terms of 5 years if you sign for a new team, or 7 years if you stay with your current club. This allows them a better opportunity to retain their drafted talent.

NHLPA will ask for status quo, or at most a reduction to a 6/7 split.

The only way I can see the NHLPA agreeing to a reduction is if they get more favorable escrow terms, as the players absolutely hate escrow. The NHL may or may not agree to it.

If I were a betting man, I would expect that we will see either a 5/6 or a 6/8 split. In exchange, the players will get a better escrow deal.

I think this will be a negotiation point for next CBA.

Owners will probably ask for max contract terms of 5 years if you sign for a new team, or 7 years if you stay with your current club. This allows them a better opportunity to retain their drafted talent.

NHLPA will ask for status quo, or at most a reduction to a 6/7 split.

The only way I can see the NHLPA agreeing to a reduction is if they get more favorable escrow terms, as the players absolutely hate escrow. The NHL may or may not agree to it.

If I were a betting man, I would expect that we will see either a 5/6 or a 6/8 split. In exchange, the players will get a better escrow deal.
- tkecanuck341

The no movement thing has to go to. but i think you guys are right contracts lengths will need a overhaul

.Escrow is going to be the real major decisive lock out question

I think this will be a negotiation point for next CBA.

Owners will probably ask for max contract terms of 5 years if you sign for a new team, or 7 years if you stay with your current club. This allows them a better opportunity to retain their drafted talent.

NHLPA will ask for status quo, or at most a reduction to a 6/7 split.

The only way I can see the NHLPA agreeing to a reduction is if they get more favorable escrow terms, as the players absolutely hate escrow. The NHL may or may not agree to it.

If I were a betting man, I would expect that we will see either a 5/6 or a 6/8 split. In exchange, the players will get a better escrow deal.
- tkecanuck341

I'd like to see the number lower because I think that makes it better for players and ownership and fans. Imagine how much more exciting trade deadline would be if 5 years was the max term.

Yes, but the thing is typically the conversation is the long the term the more of a discount per year.

If a player signs currently 8 year at $5M thats thats $40 Million

Why wouldn't that same player do 4 years at $6M and if he plays well then 3 years at $7M... Same 8 year term but gets $45 Million

And on top of that, the owner is happier because he knows those players are getting paid for what they do currently and isn't stuck with a big contract they can't move.

It's a win - win
- Maverick1818

Not really. It screws over players at the end of their careers.

Players are already price controlled for a significant portion of their prime through restricted free agency. Right now, most players reach UFA status at 28 or 29, as teams avoid giving quality players contracts that expire at the CBA mandated age of 27. So if you're limited to 5 years at 29, that means you're up for a new contract when you're 34. So while you might get a slightly larger payday for taking a shorter term, there's no way you're going to make up the difference when you sign what will likely be your career ending contract at age 34.

Drew Doughty is set to become a UFA at age 29. Let's assume he signs for 8 years at $12.5M. That's $100 million.

Now let's assume 5-year max contract terms are put in place and Doughty signs a max contract. He might get a $14M per because of the shorter term, which means he'll get $70M over that 5 years. In order to make up the difference, he'll have to sign a 3-year $10M AAV contract at age 34 to make up the difference. That's unlikely.

Now if you couple 5 year max contracts with reduction in UFA age, then the players might go for that. I don't see the owners wanting to allow their drafted assets access to unrestricted free agency earlier.

The only scenario where a contract like this isn't crippling to a team before the term is even half over, is in the case of super young, generational talents like McDavid, Matthews etc, who sign when they are 21. Doughty/Karlsson at 12.5M in 4-5 years will look as bad as Phaneuf's does right now at $7m. (And this is coming from a Sens fan who wants karlsson to stay, but I know deep down it will be ugly one day!)
- wilkobecks

That's entirely possible, but someone out there is going to pay Doughty and Karlsson $12M+ per season. I agree it is in the owners' best interest to reduce contract terms, but it is absolutely terrible for players, as it will cost them millions of dollars over the term of their career.

You can argue that you want players to make the most money when they are most effective, but then you have to give them a mechanism to sign big money contracts when they are their early-to-mid 20s. Currently, they're forced to sign team-friendly deals until their late 20s, unless their name is McDavid. Karlsson, arguably one of the best defensemen in the game right now, is stuck making $6.5M until he's 29 years old. That's absurd.

So if you want contracts down to 4/5 years max, that's fine. Make players UFAs when they're 24 years old, but allow them to sign 6 year max contracts with their current club, but only 4 with others. That will allow them their bigger payday while they're actually paying their best hockey, rather than trying to get their big payday in their 30s. Teams still have the opportunity to retain their drafted players, but they have to compete against the open market.

The trade gives Ottawa much needed flexibility for negotiating the Stone, Karlsson, and Duchene contracts. Phaneuf was a good teammate and had a decent season last year, but he won't really be missed. Thompson is a dime a dozen.

I don't get why LA felt this was a good deal. Doughty is up for a similar contract to Karlsson soon. Phaneuf isn't going to make much of a difference on the blueline and they may not even make the playoffs. Why take on a bigger cap hit for a minimal chance at success this year and your superstar defenseman is up for negotiation soon?

The trade gives Ottawa much needed flexibility for negotiating the Stone, Karlsson, and Duchene contracts. Phaneuf was a good teammate and had a decent season last year, but he won't really be missed. Thompson is a dime a dozen.

I don't get why LA felt this was a good deal. Doughty is up for a similar contract to Karlsson soon. Phaneuf isn't going to make much of a difference on the blueline and they may not even make the playoffs. Why take on a bigger cap hit for a minimal chance at success this year and your superstar defenseman is up for negotiation soon?
- AlfieFever

Kings aren't in cap trouble. They are notoriously inexperienced on defense, and were looking to bring in someone that can handle top-four minutes effectively. They've been through four rookie defensemen this season, none of which have really proven to be the answer. As a result, they've had to play their top 3 (Doughty, Muzzin, & Martinez) more mintues than they are comfortable playing them to give the rookies more time to develop. Additionally, they've been without a physical presence since Regehr retired and McNabb got snatched by Vegas in the expansion draft.

Gaborik was pretty much dead weight for the Kings. They gave him numerous chances and he wasn't able to do anything with them. He has been a healthy scratch for most of this month. For an additional $375k cap hit, they were able to drop dead weight in exchange for someone who is still an effective player, even if he is overpaid.

Shore was having a quality season in LA this year and is a RFA this summer, so although he makes less than Thompson does now, he likely will not next season. That one will be a wash next year, and it will be off the books before Doughty's extension goes into effect anyway.

Think of it this way. The Kings essentially stashed Gaborik in the AHL for the next four years, getting the $1.025M maximum cap relief, and brought up a decent experienced defenseman making $1.4M in his place. Is Phaneuf worth $1.4M? As long as he is able to fill the 4/5 role on the Kings, then this trade was successful.

Regardless, they have plenty of money to sign Doughty to an extension in 2019.

On behalf of the Vancouver Canucks, we would like to extend our thanks and friendship to Ottawa for sending this Goomba back to the West.

Look Sens stole Phaneuf from Leafs and dumped a bunch of salaries at same time. No way Sens have the playoff run of last year without Phaneuf in their lineup. Kings will be serious contenders by adding Phaneuf to their top four.

Gaborik and Shore are bodies that help the Sens get through the remainder of the season. If other deals bring picks and prospects they will still need to ice a lineup. Assume both Gaborik and Shore are gone next year. Harpur has already been signed to a new deal.

If you have ever been on a construction site you know that a tear down can appear pretty messy and uncoordinated. But this deal does not stand alone. It will make a lot more sense when we see to next few moves.

The cutting loose of substantial money is always a key part of a rebuild.
- spatso

youre a franking idiot

Trade a serviceable player in Phaneuf for 2 useless players all to save a few million bucks over 3 years

What a pathetic state the Sens are in and what a joke of an owner

Fans should boycott this team (more than they already are)

Trade a serviceable player in Phaneuf for 2 useless players all to save a few million bucks over 3 years

What a pathetic state the Sens are in and what a joke of an owner

Fans should boycott this team (more than they already are)
- TheGame316

On what planet is phaneuf a serviceable player but gaborik is useless? Phaneuf is among the worst possession players in the league. He's a skating pylon who's signature move is now dishing sick feeds to the opposition in front of his own net. If he's "servicrable" then gaborik is a legit top six forward.

If you think this is anything but a bad player/contract for bad player/contract deal the you know nothing about hockey

On what planet is phaneuf a serviceable player but gaborik is useless? Phaneuf is among the worst possession players in the league. He's a skating pylon who's signature move is now dishing sick feeds to the opposition in front of his own net. If he's "servicrable" then gaborik is a legit top six forward.

If you think this is anything but a bad player/contract for bad player/contract deal the you know nothing about hockey
- sensarmy_11

Phaneuf has been a "bad" defenseman because he plays on a team that is notoriously bad at team defense. This season, Ottawa is 30th in GA/G. The last time they had a respectable GA/G was in the lockout shortened season, when they finished 2nd in the NHL.

The Kings have been an elite defensive team every season since 2011-2012. Even in the past couple seasons when they've been relatively depleted on defense, they've finished in the top 5 of the league in GA/G. Everyone on the team, forwards included, is defensively responsible. It's part of the reason why they struggle to score goals every year, despite having premier talent in the lineup.

Phaneuf will likely do well in LA, simply because the team's system supports his style of play. They only need him to fill in a 4/5 position, not play on the top pair.

On what planet is phaneuf a serviceable player but gaborik is useless? Phaneuf is among the worst possession players in the league. He's a skating pylon who's signature move is now dishing sick feeds to the opposition in front of his own net. If he's "servicrable" then gaborik is a legit top six forward.

If you think this is anything but a bad player/contract for bad player/contract deal the you know nothing about hockey
- sensarmy_11

Dion is capable of being a serviceable #3/4 dman and Gaborik is probably going to spend his time in the bottom 6 if he cracks the line-up, come on. I do disagree with the fact that Shore is useless, he has much more potential than Thompson did

So, now we just need to retain some salary to get Ryan out the door.

What's the over under on how much that would take.
- david22

If you retain 35%, maybe Columbus trades you David Clarkson.

Dion is an ok 3/4/5 guy. He can even play the PP in a crunch. He's not worth his salary, for sure, but Kings get him for 1.6 mill less than the Sens and Leafs did. I don't think Dion will thrive, but he won't crash and burn. He'll just does what he does. He's a good guy as well. Genuinely seemed happy with his time in Ottawa and payed his respects to the media that bash him constantly. Will be interesting to see him in a non-traditional hockey market.

The move to get rid of his contract was a tall, but necessary task. It's just one move of many to try and get this team back on the right course.

Look Sens stole Phaneuf from Leafs and dumped a bunch of salaries at same time. No way Sens have the playoff run of last year without Phaneuf in their lineup. Kings will be serious contenders by adding Phaneuf to their top four.

Gaborik and Shore are bodies that help the Sens get through the remainder of the season. If other deals bring picks and prospects they will still need to ice a lineup. Assume both Gaborik and Shore are gone next year. Harpur has already been signed to a new deal.

If you have ever been on a construction site you know that a tear down can appear pretty messy and uncoordinated. But this deal does not stand alone. It will make a lot more sense when we see to next few moves.

The cutting loose of substantial money is always a key part of a rebuild.
- spatso

It is truly incredible how you come up with the most stupid perspective on every topic.

Dion is an ok 3/4/5 guy. He can even play the PP in a crunch. He's not worth his salary, for sure, but Kings get him for 1.6 mill less than the Sens and Leafs did. I don't think Dion will thrive, but he won't crash and burn. He'll just does what he does. He's a good guy as well. Genuinely seemed happy with his time in Ottawa and payed his respects to the media that bash him constantly. Will be interesting to see him in a non-traditional hockey market.

The move to get rid of his contract was a tall, but necessary task. It's just one move of many to try and get this team back on the right course.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

yes, The hockey player is a marginal NHL'er at this point but tough to criticize the person

On what planet is phaneuf a serviceable player but gaborik is useless? Phaneuf is among the worst possession players in the league. He's a skating pylon who's signature move is now dishing sick feeds to the opposition in front of his own net. If he's "servicrable" then gaborik is a legit top six forward.

If you think this is anything but a bad player/contract for bad player/contract deal the you know nothing about hockey
- sensarmy_11

I am not quite sure I understand it.

So next he's gonna re-sign Cowen, Michalek, and Greening? And then trade Anderson for Conacher?

Wtf Dorion? WTF?!

I'd rather pay Dion 7 to be a 3-4 D than pay a 36yo Gaborik 4.875 To be a 3rd line has been. WTFFFFF????!!!! Better have a HUGE trick up his sleeve.

So next he's gonna re-sign Cowen, Michalek, and Greening? And then trade Anderson for Conacher?

Wtf Dorion? WTF?!

I'd rather pay Dion 7 to be a 3-4 D than pay a 36yo Gaborik 4.875 To be a 3rd line has been. WTFFFFF????!!!! Better have a HUGE trick up his sleeve.
- PavohnDatsvares

Technically Gaborik is costing you guys $6.625M since you guys retained 25% of Phaneuf's salary.