Quote
dzrams
The players would probably like to have either shorter deals or opt out clauses anyway. The long term deals really serve the teams more since salaries aren't guaranteed anyway. Why would a player want to be locked up for 6 years when, at best, 3 of those years are guaranteed? This is especially true when due to inflation, the player is severely underpaid in the latter years of the long contract.
Shorter contracts also mean lower signing bonuses and players like the signing bonus. Players are free to determine the length of their contracts now and they can try to include opt out clause if they can get the team to agree. As far as being underpaid in the latter years, well that is true in one respect due to inflation, assuming their level of play doesn't decline. If their play declines, they are getting overpaid at the end of a longer contract. For instance we see players kept on a year or more longer than their production would justify because their cap hits would be too high to trade or cut. So longer contracts have some benefits to the players. In the end though, I don't think mandating a maximum contract length would be an option as neither side would want to give up that flexibility. Perhaps some adjustment to the way cap implications are determined when trading a player or cutting him would be an option. Cut players are basically free agents.