Kukla's Korner Hockey
Next entry: 44 Reasons to Watch the Stanley Cup Finals
Previous entry: Saving Hockey
Players Hold a Power Edge
by Alanah McGinley on 05/23/08 at 04:11 PM ET
Comments (2)
From Ken Campbell at The Hockey News,
If the player who is under contract decides he simply doesn’t feel like playing – the way Niedermayer did last fall – he can simply kick up his heels and sit out for as long as he wants. The team has no recourse except to suspend the player. But here’s where it gets really silly.
The moment the player decides he wants to come back and play, the team must lift the suspension, reactivate him and start paying him according to the terms of his contract – as long as he decides to return before the trade deadline when rosters must be set.
It’s another classic example of how the players, who were supposedly clobbered in the last round of CBA negotiations, continue to hold an inordinate amount of power. After holding a team to a commitment by signing a contract, the player then decides if and when he wants to come back.
Filed in: NHL Talk | KK Hockey | Permalink
Tags: cba, contracts,
Comments
I don’t think the problem of power is just centered around a scenario like the Niedermayer one. Or at least it isn’t in my mind. It’s more centered around a performance issue.
Players sign contracts based on past performances with an expectation that the performance will continue in the future to a reasonable degree. When the player utterly fails to live up to that contract, management’s only feasible options are to find a sucker (I mean buyer) to trade with or to buy out their contract.
I have no idea on the intricacies of player contracts in terms of the stipulations in them but they might try and look at some sort of performance clause on long-term contracts. I’m not even going to pretend I have a solution on how that would work but it seems reasonable that a long-term contract comes with a minimum performance guarantee.
“DON’T SIGN HIM LONG-TERM IN THE FIRST PLACE, STUPID!”
Unfortunately that’s not an easy option as you know one of the other 29 GMs/Owners will snatch the player up at a stupid contract length. There just aren’t enough smart GMs/Owners in the league to allow for that kind of system.
Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 05/23/08 at 04:54 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Blackhawks Play Both Sides Of The Ice
Play Until You Hear The Whistle
#14 Belongs In The JLA Rafters
Filatov Happy To Be In The KHL
Leafs Can Improve During Free Agency Period
Early Options For NHL Teams Traveling To Europe Next season
About KK Hockey
Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.
From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.
Email Paul anytime at
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
Hockey Links
I don’t have any problem with guaranteed contracts at all. The players careers are usually so incredibly short, I don’t begrudge them one dollar they make - especially when the only other place it goes is to the owners.
If they don’t think a player is going to play out his entire contract, then DON’T SIGN HIM LONG-TERM IN THE FIRST PLACE, STUPID! Same way with no-trade contracts - part of the player’s job description is not “bail out the ownership when the front office makes dumb decisions.”
Besides, most players want to play, and want to play the entire season, as well as not having sufficient talent so they would be able to sit out for a while and come back at full speed.
(Besides, why penalize all the other players because Niedermayer helped out Brian Burke with his salary cap situation?)
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/23/08 at 03:44 PM ET