• Print

THN.com Playoff Blog: Guaranteed contracts should be abolished

Scott Niedermayer recorded 25 points in 48 games after sitting out the start of the season. (Photo by Victor Decolongon/Getty Images)

Zoom Image

Scott Niedermayer recorded 25 points in 48 games after sitting out the start of the season. (Photo by Victor Decolongon/Getty Images)

It’s all well and good for Anaheim Ducks GM Brian Burke to tell Scott Niedermayer he needs to know what Niedermayer’s plans are for next season by the time the draft comes in June, but the reality is Burke has absolutely no leverage in this situation.

And that’s something – among a myriad of other things – that needs to be addressed during the next round of collective bargaining negotiations, when it will be crucial for the league to act on guaranteed contracts.

That’s because, despite Burke’s demands, there is absolutely nothing in the CBA that would prevent Niedermayer from doing precisely the same thing next season as he did this season. If there were, there’s a pretty good chance Niedermayer wouldn’t have got away with it in the first place.

Here’s how goofy things are right now. If the team signs a player and decides it doesn’t want him anymore, its recourse is to buy him out of the remaining years on his contract at two-thirds of his salary and have that amount count against the cap over double the number of years left on his deal.

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.

And there is no repercussion for the player aside from not being paid while suspended. The team cannot force a player to file retirement papers or do anything to get him back in the lineup until the player is good and ready.

All that could be resolved in the next CBA negotiations if the league comes in with one deal-breaker; guaranteed contracts immediately be abolished for all players regardless of age and experience.

Related Links

And there is no doubt the league is looking seriously at doing just that. If Niedermayer’s contract were not guaranteed, the Ducks would simply be able to cancel it if he did not give them an answer in the time frame they’ve set.

By abolishing the guaranteed contract, it would also prevent teams from circumventing the CBA. For example, right now there is nothing preventing a team from signing a veteran player and encouraging him to do what Niedermayer did. That way, the player would be happy because he wouldn’t have to endure the rigors of a full regular season and the team keeps his salary off the books by simply suspending him.

This, of course, should not be confused with Teemu Selanne, who is a free agent and, thus, free to work out any kind of deal he wants. The Ducks can simply refuse to sign him if he doesn’t inform them of his intentions by July 1.

When it comes down to it, Niedermayer’s actions this season are no different than those of players of the past who held out on valid contracts in order to force a renegotiation. The motivation was different, but the act was the same.

Well, that isn’t allowed in the NHL anymore and it’s time the league did something about the Niedermayer-type end-around in the future.

THN.com's Playoff Blogs, featuring analysis and opinion on the action from the night before, with insight on what happened and what it all means going forward, will appear daily throughout the NHL playoffs. Read more entries HERE.

Ken Campbell is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog appears Tuesdays and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (9)

Sort: Oldest | Newest    Filter: All | Videos


Steve Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:35)



I could see the NHL wanting buyout options tweaked down in cost (to 1/2 or 1/3, maybe), but I sure hope the NHL doesn't take this advice, since it will lead to a strike as long as, or longer than, the last lockout. I don't like what Niedermayer did, but there has to be a solution besides the abolition of guaranteed contracts.
    0



James Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:20)



Actually, George, guaranteed contracts are more socialist/communist than non-guaranteed contracts. Under a true "free-market" system, owners would be free to cut players and their contracts and time they pleased. If you think it's the owners looking for a more socialized system (except when it applies to them), think again...
    0



George Malik Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:19)



What kind of communist plot is this? There's no way in hell that the NHLPA will agree to the abolishment of guaranteed contracts after it agreed to a hard salary cap linked to revenues. If the NHL wants another year-long lockout, Mr. Campbell's theory will give them their wish.
    0



Jim Goodwin Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:13)



And what would the owners give up to get this concession. 15 mill per team on the cap perhaps.
    0



Kris Smith Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:07)



I hope the owners do scrap guaranteed contracts. The players and agents have become a group of spoiled and rich greedmongers who feel entitled to millions, and it makes me sick. If they keep pushing for every last dollar they can get, they will wreck the NHL. You know what? My job is not guaranteed. If I don't do a good job at work in the oilfields, I simply lose my job. Because I like to make a good living, I try to do a good job, and keep my employer happy, and on the payroll. Shame on Dan Cloutier and Denis Gauthier, their agents, and the NHLPA, as these guys don't cut it, they aren't good enough, but they have a free ride. GO OWNERS GO, THROW OUT GUARANTEED CONTRACTS.
    0



jan Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:07)



How many more times will the Ducks allow Scott Niedermeyer to decide that he doesn't want to play a full season? I feel bad for the player who comes to training camp, goes to practices, plays in games, then gets traded or sent to the minors when Scott decides he's ready to play again and the team has to make salary cap room for him. How many other players (and teams) will pull this stunt? If Scott can't handle playing a full season of hockey anymore, maybe it's time to hang up the skates. How many more Cups does he need to win-- four isn't enough?!?
    0



Brian P Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:06)



I would be absolutely shocked to see the PA agree to abolishing guaranteed contracts in the next CBA. Just stunned. You could give them unrestricted free agency as soon as entry-level contracts expire and I still couldn't see them accepting a CBA that didn't have guaranteed contracts anymore.
    0



Fred Bartsch Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:06)



This idea of abolishing guaranteed contracts is an interesting idea, BUT! Isn't this just another way of telling the owners what they should be doing and how to run THEIR BUSINESS? Common sense would tell me that if I were an owner and I was opposed to these guaranteed contracts then I would NOT sign players who would pull what Neidermeyer did last year. These owners (if they wanted to) could stop this business tomorrow, by just agreeing that whom ever refuses to sign a player, then another team will NOT sign that player. When will both fans and sports writers STOP trying to tell businessmen how to run their business. This is the same thing as some sports writers/fans being opposed to teams signing players to HUGH/LONG multi-year contracts, ie (DiPietro and Ovechkin) WHO CARES! It is these owners who are their own worst enemies. These are the same owners who CRIED poverty which created the lock-out, and started the next NHL season with a 39 million cap. Well here we are 3 plus years later and the cap is now projected to be 56 million. Am I missing something here? Let these owners drown in their stupidity! I really don't see the Owners pushing this issue with the players, as it could backfire in their (owners) face. If this did happen, people might think that players would be cutting their own throats, but NOT really. What with the possible (and I mean possible) build up of the Russian Super league and the NHL having problems getting countries to sign player agreements, the NHL just might see a bleedoff of players to the Russian Super League and other countries if and when it ever gets off the ground. Could it ever compete against the NHL, who knows, Anything could happen over time. Again lets let the owners run their own business into the ground without our help.
    0



Fred Bartsch Posted
(2009-04-30 06:21:06)



Sorry- That's Huge/Long multi-year contracts
    0



1

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Register or Login to submit a comment
Player/Injury News - Up to the Minute NHL Updates This Week - Subscribe Now

Which team has been hit worst by injuries this season?










THN Newsletter - Sign Up Now

“I don’t know if I’ll ever feel 100 percent this year.”

- New Jersey's Patrik Elias, who is recovering from hip and groin surgeries and has two points in five games this season.

Our Partners