Your opinions on long term contracts

[The Top Shelfer]

The general consensus when reviewing contracts here on the forums is usually a distaste for long term deals like Ilya Kovalchuk, Rick DiPietro, Roberto Luongo, Alexander Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, and Vincent Lecavalier to name a few.

What is your opinion on long term deals for certain players? Keep in mind that I am well aware of the risk factor regarding length of deals and potential injuries and financial repercussions.

Do you like deals that are long term for certain players specifically? Or do you feel that no contract should exceed a specific salary figure and term.

After giving me your opinions on these types of deals and the effect they have on the league. I would like to know if your opinion is changed in reference to both Tyler Seguin and Tuukka Rask. These players are the future of an already youth infused Boston Bruins team.

If they live up to the expectations set upon them by the organization, media, and fan-base would you like to see them locked up long term like say Anze Kopitar or Mike Richards? Or would you rather the Bruins played it safe and gave them 3-4 year deals?

I personally would like to see both players (this is of course based on them rising to expectations and breaking out in the upcoming season) locked up to long term deals like a 5-7 year type thing.

What do you think? DO you want them locked up for 10+ years? Or the organization to play it safe and test the possibility of these players eventually leaving via free agency?

[dupell6]

5-7 for seguin

probabaly 3-4 for rask goalies are to risky

[Hockeyras]

I'm torn honestly.

I see why we want a long-term deal with Seguin, but if we give him a long-term deal, we would probably over pay up front and then hopefully get a deal later in the contract...

I honestly think no deal over 3-4 years makes sense, but it really depends how badly you want that player.

I don't know honestly, I like them for some players and not others, I guess the older the player is the more I like a longer contract, like Chara and Savard if he didn't get hurt.

[OneManIsNoMan]

I'd like to see a cap on the number of years you can sign a player for. I mean these 8-12 years contracts are ridiculous. A player who is 26 years old is now signed till he's 38. I would guess majority of those players by 35-36 are no longer worth their cap hit. I understand why the players like them (job security) but it just seems pointless to me (for the game). I'd rather see 5-6 year max length for a contract, maybe and I stress maybe 7 years but that seems like a lot.

As far as Seguin goes I'd sign him to a 4 year deal (depending on how he performs) I'd give him Krejci money ($5.25 million per) maybe just under Skinner money ($5.7 million per). This will leave Seguin as an RFA when his contract end and give us the opportunity to sign him to a 5-7 year deal. The following year Chara's contract is up and he'll be 41 years old. At that point the Bruins would be considered Tyler's team and you slap the C on him (potentially) as part of his new contract.

With Tuukka it really depends on how he does this season. If he blossoms into that goalie that most think he will, you give him a 7+ year deal. If Rask shows he good but wont be the goalie we thought, you sign him to a 3-4 years (while Subban develops).

[NeelyforPres]

I don't mind long term deals for players that exhibit a track record of durability and commitment to their health/fitness to sustain that durability i.e. Chara. That said I don't like anything that goes beyond 7 years, and an under 30 player should get no more than 4-5 years IMO.

[B'sCeltsPatsSox]

I don't mind long term deals for players that exhibit a track record of durability and commitment to their health/fitness to sustain that durability i.e. Chara. That said I don't like anything that goes beyond 7 years, and an under 30 player should get no more than 4-5 years IMO.

I agree with this for the most part. I pray to God that the new CBA puts in a limit on years for a new contract. I would like to see something like 7 years max for your own players and 6 years max for players on the market that weren't on your team the previous season.

[OneManIsNoMan]

I agree with this for the most part. I pray to God that the new CBA puts in a limit on years for a new contract. I would like to see something like 7 years max for your own players and 6 years max for players on the market that weren't on your team the previous season.

I like that idea. They'd have to go detailed in a CBA though. If that was the rule, I already can think of one loop hole for GM. The summer the player becomes a UFA, you trade for his rights (technically he's on your team) and you can get that extra year for them.

[tonyd3b54]

id like to see a cap on the amount of money per year just to protect owners from themselves. i really have no problem with 10 year contracts theyre just handed out way too loosely. a contract that long should be reserved for possible top 50 players.

[ccugrad1]

I agree with those that 7 years should be the max. This crap of 13, 14, and 15 year deals is ludicrous

[BostonSports96]

I think 10-year deals should be max, not anymore though.

14-year deal for Weber? 15-years for Kovalchuk? WTF?

I also think there should be a limit to front-loading long-term deals. Weber is goon make close to $30 million his first year, and it will get reduced to around $5 million a year near the end of the deal. That should definitely be fixed in the new CBA.

[B'sCeltsPatsSox]

Hall just got 7 years 6 million per. First off lockout here we come. Secondly, this definitely ****s us with Seguin.