8-year deals can be good for your young prospects, but risky as well if you are not certain they can perform.
8-year deals are terrible for guys over 25 you could push it to 27 for a few players, but the majority of 8-year contracts signed to anyone over 25 are typically bad contracts for the last 2-4 years.
You can start to see the shift in mentality, but it is taking a long time to get there. The guys in there 30s now played in a time that you got paid for what you did in the past and still expect to get paid like that. Since they didn't get to cash in at 22 or 23.
The biggest problem with the 8-year deals, especially with the ones that end in the mid to late 30's is they are retirement contracts, and it no longer matters how they perform. Pro athletes are wired differently, and I am sure almost all of them sign the deals and do try to compete as hard as they can, just gets tougher as they get older and slower, and the game gets younger and faster.
I know if my boss came to me and said this is how much you are going to make for the next 8 years, I can't fire you and you won't get a raise before you retire. I would put in enough effort to get the job done, but I wouldn't be putting in extra hours or effort.
As for GM's helping themselves, they get paid for their team to compete/win now for the most part. None of them care about anchor contracts ending in 4-8 years as there is a good chance they are gone and will never need to worry about it. If they are not gone, then it is likely they have been super close if not already won a cup. I doubt Tre even gives a second thought to the Huberdeau contract anymore.
In a perfect world as a fan all deals are 1-3 years so players have to compete every year, or 8-year deals, but if you sign it as a point per game player, and are no longer a point per game player, then the contract can be voided at seasons end. Unfortunately the NHLPA will not go for that anytime soon.
|