Agree completely on the mega contracts. If you're going to sign a guy to $10 million/year... you don't sign them to anything beyond 2 years I don't think.
It's a question of risk management... and the team takes on all the risk in those instances that a superstar will be that good for that long, which virtually never happens. I just don't see the value in those contracts.
Deals like Parise and Suter, you're going to regret those deals, and you're better off developing from within, and if you're guys turn out to be superstars, let them walk if they won't sign reasonable deals.
Pittsburgh made it work, because they have Crosby. But that's a rarity... not many players make that kind of money but continually put in that dedication / commitment. Look at Boston... none of their contracts look terrible but they still have a great team. Chicago too, managed to get good deals on their star players. Detroit, same thing. It's part of the reason I think Edmonton is bad... they have guys like Horcoff chewing up big salaries... Calgary paying Stajan 3.5 when he only earned it one season?
If I was GM there'd be basically an internal max of 3 year deals and zero no trade clauses... when a guy is making a billion a year I think they can take the risk of being traded or having to earn their next deal.
|