Even with a crystal ball, everyone's future year-to-year is still blurry - how about 17 years down the road?
You'd need some high-powered crystal ball and one heck of a gypsy to read that fortune.
There isn't a person in the world who knows where they will be and what they will be doing in 17 years, but Ilya Kovalchuk was hoping he had that 17-year security after he signed a new NHL contract.
Not so fast, the Russian superstar's contract with the New Jersey Devils was rejected by the NHL last week because it was too front loaded. The NHL ruled the contract deliberately circumvented the league's salary cap.
More and more players and teams are trying super-long term contracts and until last week they were all getting the stamp of approval.
Finally it looks like the NHL has said enough is enough.
I thought the Rick DiPietro 15-year contract worth $67.5 million was ridiculous at the time, and since 2006 he has proved how ridiculous it was playing just 13 NHL games in the past two seasons. Wow, what a buy that one was.
The chances of Kovalchuk playing all 17 years of his $102 million contract are slim to none. There is probably a better chance of Sean Avery and Dion Phaneuf playing on the same team and ending up buddies than Kovalchuk not running back to Russia and playing in New Jersey until he is 44.
In Kovalchuk's defence, if you can start a job after being with a new organization for just two months and they lock you up for 17 years most people would make that deal in a second. His agent has tried to get him the longest contract in history and the organization was willing to do so.
Kovalchuk was set to earn the majority of the dollars in the first 10 years when $95 million would be on the books. The last seven, when he'd surely be retired and cheap to buy out, were worth just $7 million and the last five seasons the Russian would be on the books for the league minimum of $550,000.
Martin Brodeur, Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman never had to sign long-term deals. Their play seemed to do the talking and warrant another contact when the time came to negotiate. So many players appear to turn their switch to on when it is a contract season or at least that is the belief with most athletes. Kovalchuk's could be locked on neutral and he wouldn't have to flick the switch ever again in his life. Besides his own sense of pride, he is set for life and really doesn't have to do anything.
A deal with the Devil often means in the end the Devil will win. Who knows if Kovalchuk would get back to his 50 goals per season form and be able to perform in the playoffs or if he'd play a trick on the Devils like Johnny did in the famous Charlie Daniels song where the Devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat.
Maybe it is time contracts include clauses regulating a player to perform or they lose money. Players can take their NHL clubs to arbitration, why can't the clubs take the players to arbitration?
Instead of performance incentives how about if you don't meet some reasonable stats set out in the contract the team simply doesn't pay you in full. Then the Kovalchuk contract would be a good one - he'd have to perform and he would still be tradable simply because everyone would like a chance to have him perform for their team. If he doesn't he doesn't, receive all his money. Demand the best of the best players instead of letting them fall by the wayside for 17 years.
