The Show.

With the recent re-signing of New Jersey Devils left winger Ilya Kovalchuk, questions regarding the abnormal length of hockey contracts seem to be rising. Kovalchuk signed a record setting 17 year deal - yes, 17 years - in which he'll earn $102 million. The length of this deal surpasses the previous NHL record of 15 years, which was set when the New York Islanders signed goalie Rick DiPietro in 2006. In sports we usually see a contract signed for somewhere between 1 to 5 years, but it has become prevelent in hockey for teams to sign players for (really) long-term contracts. So why is this happening?

Ever since the NHL implemented a salary cap, teams have experienced a major limit on what they can spend on contracts. The first year of the salary cap allowed teams $39 million in cap space, and the maximum amount a player could earn in a year was $7.8 million. This past season, the cap was around $56 million per team, and a player could earn $11.36 million. The principals of the salary cap are pretty basic, but we're seeing these long-term contracts defeat the purpose of the cap. If I'm a GM within the system that's now in place, I can say to a player, "I can't give you a 3 year deal for $50 million, but I can give you a 10 year deal for $90 million." Now on the flip side, if I'm a player and I hear that, which deal sounds better? Obviously the one that offers more money. We've seen these deals take place across the league in recent years. Here's a quick list of some of the recent long-term signings:

- Marian Hossa (Blackhawks) - 12 years, $63 million
- Henrik Zetterberg (Red Wings) - 12 years, $73 million
- Vincent Lecavalier (Lightning) - 11 years, $85 million
- Alex Ovechkin (Capitals) - 13 years, $124 million
- Mike Richards (Flyers) - 12 years, $69 million
- Ilya Kovalchuk (Devils) 17 years, $102 million

A big reason we're seeing this trend is that a long-term contract is a way to beat the salary cap. One of the biggest reasons a salary cap is instituted is to keep big market teams from essentially buying the players needed to become and stay dominant, but when teams are allowed to spread their spendings out over years and years a serious flaw is exposed. Of course, there is a lot of risk when it comes to these signings. Take Rick DiPietro. He signed a 15 year contract worth $68 million with the Islanders in 2006, but the decision for the Islanders go through with this signing is not panning out for them whatsoever. In the last 2 years DiPietro has played a combined 13 games due to injury. However, despite the risk of a player not reaching his potential for any number of reasons, the strategy of utilizing these long-term contracts makes sense from a financial stand point.

As teams continue to find ways to beat the salary cap, it becomes clear that the league needs to take action if they want to have a cap in place that is actually effective. The next step for the NHL should be to limit the number of years a team can sign a player for. In the NBA a team can sign a player for a maximum of 6 years, and this has made it so teams can't beat the cap by paying a player over an abnormaly long time . With a rule like this, not only would we see a salary cap that is much more effective, but we would also see free agents more frequently, thus leading to more oppurtunities for teams to improve, and if that happens, we'll see a better league all together.