The Rise and Fall of the Lifetime Contract?

The NHL needs to institute “Term Limits.”

No…I’m not talking about for its long lamented commissioner.  I’m not talking about for the coaches or general managers.  I’m talking about for the players.

Okay.  So maybe term limit isn’t exactly the right turn of phrase.  But the concept remains.  These “lifetime contracts” are getting absolutely ridiculous.  Sure…They’re a great way to fit your superstar players under the cap.  But, honestly, do they seem a bit shortsighted to anyone else?

Consider Chris Pronger and his $6.25M cap hit.

Not a bad deal for a superstar defenseman, right?  And look at this!  You’re going to have him for $525K per for the last two years of the contract.  Talk about a bargain!

But wait…Hold on.  If he decides to play those last two years…You’ll be paying him $525K…But be on the hook for $6.25M?  Well that doesn’t sound very good.  But, that’s Chris Pronger.  It’s a unique situation.

Okay…So Henrik Zetterberg.  There’s a good contract.  $6.083M cap hit.  That’s a great deal for a player of Hank’s caliber.  But what about when you’re paying him $1M per year in the twilight of his career, yet still on the hook for just over $6M?

Sure, these contracts look great now.  But how about when a player doesn’t have enough tread on the tires to live up to the contract?

Take Brendan Shanahan, for example.  Give him one of those front loaded contracts back in the 2000-01 season.  It looks fantastic when he’s averaging 60-70 points a season and 30-40 goals.  But after a 73 game, 46 point performance?  What about a 34 game, 14 point performance?  It begins to look a lot worse.

Or what about Sergei Fedorov?  Give him one of those contracts back in the same season and it’s looking great when he’s putting up 30-goal, 60-point seasons.  Then he dips down to average 15-goal, 40-point seasons.  Great for the beginning, pretty poor for the end.

The bottom line is that these long-term contracts will only benefit these teams for so long.  Eventually, however, the production of the majority of these players will begin to fall off.  Sure, there will be the odd player that has a career like Joe Sakic has had, whose production stays consistent right up until the end of his career, but the majority of these players?  By the end of their careers, they won’t be worth the cap hit — most of them nowhere near.  Sure…In 2013, Pavel Datsyuk will likely be as productive as he is now.  But will Henrik Zetterberg in 2020?  What about Vincent Lecavalier in 2019?  I highly doubt it.

Don’t get me wrong.  These contracts are great for the players…But they’re horrible for the NHL.  What’s more…They’re horrible for the fans.

Why?

Take a look at this.  The top free agents for 2010?  Nicklas Lidstrom, Roberto Luongo and Ilya Kovalchuk.  If you think that any of these three won’t be locked up (or in Lidstrom’s case, retired) by then, you’re crazy.  After that?  The crop is still decent…Patrick Marleau, Evgeni Nabokov, Olli Jokinen…All good players, all potential game changers…But bona fide 100% pure superstars, they aren’t.

In 2011?  You’ve got Brad Richards, Zdeno Chara and Joe Thornton…But there isn’t a UFA under the age of 31 until you get to Patrice Bergeron and, no offense to him, but I hardly think that teams will be knocking down his door.

2012?  A class headlined by Chris Drury, Ryan Smyth and Brian Rafalski.

Finally, in 2013, you get Sidney Crosby, Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf, Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Nathan Horton, all under 30…But does anyone really think that four out of the five of them will be available?

Talk about nothing for fans to get excited about.  Let me tell you that, if in 2012 I’m getting excited about the possibilities of the Minnesota Wild signing a 35 year old Chris Drury or a 36 year old Ryan Smyth, I should be committed.

The bottom line is that these long-term contracts are a plague on the NHL.  The more long-term contracts get signed, the more teams will, not only handcuff themselves, but handcuff the league’s ability to spread parity throughout.  Not only that, but it harms the fans as well.  A lack of marquee free agents during the off season can kill any momentum that the league has with the fans.

The CBA is expiring soon and it’s looking more and more like there could be another labor dispute looming.  But one thing is for certain.  In the new CBA, the NHL needs to impose some sort of limitation on the length of contracts…Not only for the entertainment of the fans, but for the long term health of the league as well.

Five For Fighting

Let me clarify one thing right off the bat.  This will not be a long diatribe condemning fighting, nor will this be a thesis on how the NHL should let players police themselves.  Like Fox News, I will attempt to be “fair and balanced” in my views (and likely have much greater success at doing so).

I’m not going to mince words.  I enjoy fighting in the NHL.  I certainly do think it has a place and I most definitely do not think that it is a distraction from the game; at least not all of the time.  In the right context, fights can change the momentum of a game or limit the effectiveness of a player.  At the same time, however, I appreciate the fact that the Board of Governors is attempting to get a handle on fighting in the NHL.

Let’s face it.  As entertaining as the occasional “enforcer” fight may be, it adds little to nothing to the game itself.  I would imagine that seven or eight times out of ten, these fights between heavyweights involve the two bruisers lining up next to each other on the face off, chirping at one another, then dropping the gloves in an attempt to make their paltry five minutes or less of ice time memorable.  The simple fact is that the role of enforcer on an NHL team is as antiquated as players not wearing helmets. 

What exactly do these enforcers bring to the game?  It’s certainly not protection, as there are now many players on teams that are not considered to be enforcers but drop the gloves when need be.  On most teams, the enforcers are relegated to a few minutes of ice time that will likely be eclipsed by their penalty minutes in that game.

Derek Boogaard (F Min) – 50 GP, 0 G, 3 A, 87 PIM, 5:03 TOI
Donald Brashear (F Was) – 63 GP, 1 G, 3 A, 121 PIM, 8:14 TOI
Wade Belak (F Nas) – 53 GP, 0 G, 2 A, 79 PIM, 5:15 TOI
Georges Laraque (F Mon) – 28 GP, 0 G, 2 A, 52 PIM, 7:35 TOI
Eric Godard (F Pit) – 65 GP, 2 G, 1 A, 159 PIM, 4:02 TOI
David Koci (F TB) – 27 GP, 0 G, 1 A, 99 PIM, 5:31 TOI

There you have it.  Six of the more “notorious” fighters in the game today.  Not one topping ten minutes in ice time and not one topping more than four points.  Can you honestly tell me that these players have an impact on their team or on the game?  Yes, there are certainly players that can have an impact on the game in eight minutes of ice time.  Those players are also the ones that are atop the leaders in points or even in hits or even in plus/minus rating.  But the honest truth is that the majority of enforcers in the NHL are nothing more than liabilities on the ice.

But fighting does have a place in the NHL.  Looking at the new rule changes that the Board of Governors are thinking about instituting, I whole-heartedly agree with the decision to give anything that could be construed as a “staged fight” a 10-minute game misconduct.  What I do not agree with, however, is the NHL’s decision to attempt to negate fights after a big, clean hit.

Think about it.  Hockey is an emotional game and the majority of fights in hockey are spurred on by emotion.  Some of the most memorable are as well.  But what the NHL is trying to do here is nothing more than a token attempt to “clean up” fighting, and a poor one at that.  If a player gets caught by a big, clean hit, he should certainly have to answer for it.  Now I’m not talking about those big hits where the player gets knocked over the boards or gets plowed behind the net or anything where the player gets hit and pops back up.  I’m talking the Brandon Sutter type hits, where the players gets run through cleanly and, consequently, is not able to get back up immediately and return the favor.

There are players on all teams whose job description, quite frankly, is to check.  Some have talent past that, some are solely used for checking purposes.  Just like fighting, hitting is part of the game.  The problem I have with the NHL’s proposed rule change is that the team has no recourse in these situations.  The opposing player does not have to pay any price for running around, hitting anything that moves.  Clean or not, it is a dangerous precedent to allow players to run around, hitting anything and everything and not have to answer for doing so.

Look at the fights that are spurred on by emotion.  Jarome Iginla vs. Vincent Lecavalier?  The Buffalo Sabres vs. the Ottawa Senators?  Brent Burns vs. Chris Kunitz?  Emotion can make a fight, just as lack of emotion can break it…Just as with hockey.  Animosity in a fight can lead to an absolutely brilliant brawl; not two heavyweights who can barely skate holding each other up for 30 seconds.

My thought?  Take the staged stuff out of the game.  Force those players to evolve or be forced out of the NHL.  Let emotion rule the fights; not two players just trying to get their minute in the spotlight for the game.