Lecavalier signs 11-year, $85-million extension with Lightning : Owner Oren Koules was ecstatic. "It's a huge day for this organization and this ownership group," he said Saturday night.
posted by tommytrump to hockey at 05:20 PM - 10 comments
ELEVEN years??? Whoa.
posted by captaincavegirl at 08:53 PM on July 13
11 Years is ridiculous.
posted by Punkrockrat at 07:33 AM on July 14
The average career isn't 11 years. No wonder these idiot owners are whining they don't can't make money. On top of that ticket prices will increase and with gas going up as well, I will put my money in the gas tank & watch a game at home where I can drink 6 beers for $5 instead of 1 & relieve myself in a much cleaner bathroom
posted by m8nsman at 07:52 AM on July 14
What happened to the salary cap that was so importnt to the owners they blew off a season for it?
posted by billsaysthis at 09:46 AM on July 14
This is only about $7.7 million/year against the cap for 11 years. For a superstar, that's not bad. And they're probably banking on the fact that with inflation and the cap increasing every year so far, $7.7 million won't seem like such a big hit for an old man in 2019. (And/or that he'll probably retire before then.) I think all of these ultra-long term deals suck, but mainly because they preclude the possibility of stars every being traded to other teams. But in terms of salary cap, I don't see how this is a big deal.
posted by fabulon7 at 10:09 AM on July 14
I think all of these ultra-long term deals suck, but mainly because they preclude the possibility of stars every being traded to other teams. I'm kinda with you on that but kinda not too. Of course, I'd love to see some top players get traded to my team in a deadline deal or off-season move. I was able to see #99 don a Blues jersey for a short time, and that wouldn't have happened if he had signed a 11 year deal with LA, so that's where I'm kinda with you. But I've always liked a "franchise" player who spends their whole career with one team. They usually live in the city, raise their families and become active in the community. Maybe it's the commitment to the team and not the "got to get as much money as I can" attitude that I like. So that's where I'm kinda not with you. Great deal for Vinnie and the Lightning. But will he play for 11 more years? We'll have to wait and see.
posted by BoKnows at 01:00 PM on July 14
The owners got their 'linkage' in the CBA so if revenues drop for some reason, so will Vinny's paycheck. Cost certainty remains. All is well. Except now the media thinks the owners are idiots rather than thinking the players are greedy. All is indeed well.
posted by garfield at 02:37 PM on July 14
fabulon7 has it right. Lecavalier is 28-years-old, making him 39 when the deal is done. Assuming he can still play at the age of 35, you are looking at a 7-year deal for $12 million a year, with a limited (<$8M) cap hit. The question is whether or not you want to tolerate the dead money over the last 4 years or so. I would expect that TB has insured themselves in case of injury, so they really wouldn't be out that much if Lecavalier suffers a career-ending injury.
posted by Howard_T at 03:01 PM on July 14
But I've always liked a "franchise" player who spends their whole career with one team. Yeah, I like that too. Yzerman being the best example, I think. But it seems kind of forced when you lock it in with a decade-long no-trade contract. (Is Lecavalier's deal no-trade? I assume so. Even if it isn't, I imagine it's hard to deal that contract.) It seems more genuine when the team and player have to renew their vows every few years, you know? Plus, this is rife for backfiring (not Lecavalier, probably, but these kinds of deals.) Imagine if Vancouver had have done this with Bertuzzi the year before the infamous neck-snapping. At the time, it was looking like he was going to be a superstar for a long, long time.
posted by fabulon7 at 08:13 PM on July 14
It seems more genuine when the team and player have to renew their vows every few years, you know? Except that player may be coming off of a career year and could demand twice as much as originally offered. So there is risk in doing the deal both ways. Plus, this is rife for backfiring (not Lecavalier, probably, but these kinds of deals.) No doubt. Lecavalier will probably only be sidelined due to injury, if at all. And he's already spent 11-12 years in TB, so I think both parties know what they will be getting in return for the investment. But Bertuzzi, yeeesh, you're right, "Hockey is like a box of chocolates.....".
posted by BoKnows at 08:38 PM on July 14
You're not logged in. Please log in or register.
Copyright © 2016 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.