clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

A 30-Year-Contract? Why Not?

New, comments

As players have signed monster deals. I've researched the CBA with no conclusive results. This piece of information is the only one that has been relevant to my idea: A player age 35 or older when they sign a contract, will be counted against the cap. Well okay, old guys can't sign long term deals, that makes sense? But then why can young guys sign extra long deals, that will make them old guys and retire without cap penalty to their team?

My annoyance comes two different forms. First from some arguments after the Nash contract. Look at Zetterberg's cap number 6.083, and he is SO much better than Nash. Here's the problem. Zetterberg tacked on three small years to his deal when he is 38, 39, 40 ( 3.350, 1, 1). He is still making 7 million a year, up to that point. It is not an argument about whether Zetterberg is better than Nash, today, but in 3 years, that is likely an argument.

So what is stopping, let's say Boston from signing Kessel to a 30 year deal? This is not something that the Jackets will ever have to face. We will always be a budget team, not a cap team. Boston may not be the best example because they don't exactly float in cash, but here's the scenario.

Structure the contract this way: (Let's imagine Kessel is a little better, eh?)

8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6,6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 750K,750 K, 750 K....

That's right 3 years at 8 million, 3 years at 6, 3 years at 3, 3 years at 2, 3 years at 1, and 15 years at 750K

For a total combined value of 30 years 71.25 million @ a cap hit of 2.375 a year.

 

Of course you get the point, we could easily get this contract to about a 1 million a year value. Is there anything stopping this? I know the NHL can accept or reject deal, but where will they draw the line? This leads to be second annoyance. After watching players tack on years that they will likely be retired by just to reduce the cap number. Is Hossa going to be playing when he is 42? Umm, no. Will this contract count against the cap for the Hawks when he does retire? No.

This is a loophole that needs to be closed. The contracts are getting ridiculous and particularly the Hossa, Zetterberg, and Franzen deals. If these deals are allowed to happen what is the point of the cap when they start to get ridiculous like my example. Is a 15 year deal okay? A 20? I think the NHLPA should do everyone a favor and set a max contract to 10 years and make every year after the age of 35 count against the cap regardless if the player retires. That is my solution.

Is there evidence that would smack this theory in the face? Maybe we should throw this off-sheet out there for Kessel and give up a 2nd rounder :-)

 

FIRE AWAY!