Long term contracts....what do you think?

[KJ555]

I was just thinking about the offseasons signings (5 yrs, 6 yrs, 7 yrs, 12 yrs etc) and anybody think this will kill the fun in the future? I mean, if players are locked in for 10+ years...they won't be free agents anytime soon and they'll be unmovable in a trade.

When I think of the offseason it's always nice to see which big name players change teams via free agency. But now thinking about it, it definitely won't be as exciting as can be.

 

[JoeyStorm]

i kind of have to agree that the best thing about Canada Day was the madness that is free agent frenzy

 

[chadsexington]

I've always claimed to be a bit of a traditionalist hockey fan who yearns for franchise cornerstones, and tend to enjoy seeing players sign long term deals, especially to teams that drafted them in the first place. I like the fact that it gives the team an identifiable face, and a springboard in which to conduct their future business around. I like that the Flyers identify themselves with Mike Richards, the Caps identify themselves with Ovechkin, the Red Wings identify themselves with Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Franzen, and so on. People are safe to buy that player's jersey knowing they'll be around for a while.

It also becomes an observation of success for these franchises knowing they've drafted and developed this cornerstone that can proudly showcase as a key piece of their franchise.

That's for a select few of course. 100 people tops in a league of 600. That still leaves you with 85-ish% of the population free to move about. Retailers still won't know which jersey of Bill Guerin's they should be stocking, or why someone's buying a Mike Sillinger jersey knowing he'll be somewhere else next season.

 

[habsheaven]

I agree there is alot of excitement on "free agency" day; but personally I prefer my team to NOT have a revolving door on the locker room.

 

[ginx86]

or why someone's buying a Mike Sillinger jersey knowing he'll be somewhere else next season.

I think that's one of the funniest things I've ever read on here.

 

[JohnnyDrama]

I'm fine with them. As Matt said, the cornerstones stay where they made their name and you'll get more guys who play for one team ala Sakic, Yzerman, etc.

 

[timber09]

So what you are asking for is more player movement and less loyalty...no thanks

Personally I will gladly cheer for the same guys year after year - isn't that one of the most admirable traits of guys like Yzerman and Sakic?

 

[SkyFire47]

Glen Sather can move anybody...

 

[quincy]

The long term contracts amount to nothing more than a new way for the big spending franchises to continue to do as they please under the cap.

 

[FrankToronto]

I'm OK with long term deals so long as the weighting of salary paid is during the first few years and tapers off during the last few years. Of course, the cap hit is the same each year.

 

[MGiuseffi1969]

To me, every situaltion is different... If I were a GM would I try to lock in Crosby, AO, etc to long-term deals. Hell yes!!! Rick DiPietro? Not so much....

 

[pssteve]

The long term contracts amount to nothing more than a new way for the big spending franchises to continue to do as they please under the cap.

Exactly...dead on.

 

[RGM81]

I am personally not a fan of the mega-long-term contract. There are maybe 10 players in the NHL that deserve anything more than a 5-year contract because they are true "Franchise Players" in every sense of the word. If Ray Shero wants to lock up Crosby & Malkin for their entire careers, that's one thing, but giving Marian Hossa a 12-year deal is insane to me. I think that in some cases these big deals are a disincentive for guys to produce at a high level - they can't be bought out, they can't have the contract voided, they're set for life. How often do you see a guy in a contract season have a career year? The reason: it's motivation to get the next deal. Without that little bit of a kick in the pants, you see a lot of guys trail off in their productivity. I can see why the players are big fans, I can see why the GMs would do them in certain circumstances (who doesn't want to have a marquee guy that will lead the team for a generation?), but I simply do not get the mentality behind signing 34-year old Chris Pronger to a 7-year extension.

 

[jmatchett]

I like it, but only if the guy has made his name in the city he's signed to (Ovechkin, Richards, etc.) The Hossa thing just makes no sense. I like the Pronger deal because the Flyers gave up a lot, so they'd prefer to have him around for more than 1 year, and this was the cheapest way to do it.

 

[fly4apuckguy]

It really depends on the player. If indeed he is a cornerstone guy, like Mike Richards, it's a beautiful thing. But that does not seem to be the reason these contracts are being done. It seems more like a way to circumvent cap issues, and that's just bad business (putting off pain today for pain down the road).