I really don't understand the holdup over this contract length thing. I mean, I get why it's generally a terrible idea to give players deals longer than 5 years. But, I don't get why it would hold up the CBA.
-For the NHLPA, this only affects something like 1-2% of players. And, it's not like limiting contract lengths takes money out of players' pockets. If it gets taken from one, it's going to go to another anyway.
-For the owners, do they really need to legislate their own sanity? Here's an idea. If you don't want to go past 5 years, just don't do it. Take responsibility for your own negotiating instead of requiring the league to legislate it. It's not like taking this out forces owners to give players 6+ year deals. It just provides the option.
That being said, if the rule doesn't pass, I don't trust owners/GMs to use good judgment. It won't take a year for somebody to do it, and then there will be a snowball affect.
Backes did a good job of explaining why contract length matters in the STLToday article.
Since Thursday, many fans have wondered why the union is so opposed to a five-year limit on contracts. T.J. Oshie and Roman Polak are the only Blues players currently holding a five-year deal. Backes would be in the second year of a five-year contract this season.
Backes explained: “If (Sidney) Crosby is an unrestricted free agent and signs a five-year deal for $8-12 million (per year), then everyone is slotted under there. If Crosby gets five years, I’m lucky if I get two. If he’s making $12 million and doesn’t take term to have security in exchange for lower numbers at the end, then his salary-cap hit is that high number and you end up with a basketball system where you have LeBron (James), (Dwyane) Wade and (Chris Bosh) making all the money. Hockey is not like that. You can’t play five guys the whole game.”