Expensive, long-term contracts hinder player movement

With the NHL trade deadline only two weeks away, general managers are analyzing their rosters in hopes of either making a playoff run this season or rebuilding for the next. It is undoubtedly one of the most exciting days in the NHL calendar, but will it live up to the hype this season?

Following the implementation of the salary cap for the 2005-06 season, parity in the NHL standings has been a common theme since the 2004-05 lockout. More teams are staying in the playoff hunt longer, and even more teams are unwilling to deal away their season in hopes of partaking in the National Hockey League's 'second season'. The standings in both the Eastern and Western Conference couldn't be any closer, specifically in the West. Only 9 points separate teams seeded 5 through 15, which should make for an exciting conclusion to the regular season. But could this parity be having a negative effect on the amount of movement at the trade deadline? Despite the 75 deadline day trades that have taken place since the lockout, very few have been blockbuster moves involving big name players...and even fewer have involved long-term contracts.

With the playoffs a realistic goal for many teams this season, most general managers will be apprehensive about dealing away big name players. Despite the rumors involving Vincent Lecavalier, Jason Spezza and Jay Bouwmeester, the field of potential trade prospects is extremely limited. Besides the fact that most teams are in the playoff hunt, the abundance of long term deals handed out over the past three seasons is proving detrimental to player movement. In these tough economic times, general managers and owners are hesitant to accept long-term deals that may prove to be a burden years down the road.

Take for example Vincent Lecavalier. In the off-season, Lecavalier signed an 11-year $85 million contract. Trade talk involving Lecavalier has heated up during the past few months, but realistically very few teams are considering adding an 11-year contract. Not only do many teams not want to have anything to do with Lecavalier's long-term deal, but many cannot even afford him. No general manager is going to give up too much for a player who - no matter how good - will seriously damage their roster flexibility. Thus, it is easy to see that the long-term deals, not the salary cap, are handcuffing teams in the post-lockout era.

It is now very common for teams to dish out long-term contracts; if a team has a superstar on their hands, a new long-term deal is inevitable. Mike Richards (12 years, $69-million), Rick DiPietro (15 years, $67.5-million), Alex Ovechkin (13 years, $124-million) and Henrik Zetterberg (12-year, $73-million) are just a handful of players with lengthy contracts, but that's just scratching the surface. From five year deals to fifteen year deals, the lengthy contracts that are becoming a staple in the NHL are limiting a general manager's flexibility. Glen Sather of the New York Rangers knows all too well the consequences of long-term contracts. With the salary cap at $56.7 million and likely to decrease next season, the New York Rangers have only 9 players signed through next season at a whopping $41,158,810. That leaves Glen Sather less than $15 million to sign 13 players. And unless Sather plans on finding 13 players willing to accept no more than $1 million contracts, Sather has mere months to reconfigure his roster. So how did Sather find himself in this situation? Simple- he signed Chris Drury (5 years, $35.25 million), Scott Gomez (7 years, $51.5 million) Henrik Lundqvist (6 years, $41.25 million, and Wade Redden (6 years, $39 million) to monstrous deals.

No one really knows what the result of long-term deals will be down the road, or whether the NHL plans on stepping in to rectify the situation. However, the short-term consequences are inevitable. Some teams will be scrambling to dump salary, but finding no takers. Others will lose free agents through long-term contract demands from players, and others such as the Rangers might not even be able to fill their roster come the 2009-2010 season. And all of these problems are directly related to the epidemic of long-term contracts.

Less than two weeks away and the hoopla and excitement surrounding deadline day is just as prominent as in years past. Yet a big question mark with regards to how many deals will actually be made looms over March 4th. Whether or not blockbuster deals are made, the NHL has certainly caused unnecessary frustration in general managers and less excitement for the fans on what should always be the most exciting day of the regular season. If the National Hockey League wants to increase player movement throughout the regular season and bring excitement back to deadline day (not just the weeks leading up to it), then it is about time the NHL implement a cap on long-term deals.