Time to wake up

Maelmoor

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 20, 2004
6,463
1,748
Stockholm, Sweden
Im sick to death on the phrase "wow, that is way too much", in every player (almost) that has signed a new contract people are moaning about the amount of cash. Just look at other sports, how much they earn, the GM's wants to earn money and win titles, not save cents. The stars get more and that is quite logical, so get over it, don't live in the past.
 

crashlanding

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
7,605
0
Chicago
A statement like "he makes too much" or "whoa, that's an overpayment" is completely relative. Comparing NHLers to NBA players is like comparing NHLers to bus drivers or CEOs or the president. They are in different markets.

I think huge contracts hurt the overall product of the league. Buffalo, Carolina, Edmonton, and Anaheim alllll had one or two (Buffalo and Carolina had zero, one of Anaheim's didn't play) 5M+ players. People say the stars will always get paid and the third/fourth line, third pairing guys will get squeezed. This is true but if you're spending 5M+ on a guy like Kaberle, an average star at best, your team will have a harder time icing a competitive team.

I think people are more angry at the management techniques of a few GMs inflating their better players out of a more reasonable 3-4M range.
 

KL*

Guest
There are certainly players getting paid too much... I mean Richards is a great player, but $8mil, come on... Luongo and Kaberle too
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Im sick to death on the phrase "wow, that is way too much", in every player (almost) that has signed a new contract people are moaning about the amount of cash. Just look at other sports, how much they earn, the GM's wants to earn money and win titles, not save cents. The stars get more and that is quite logical, so get over it, don't live in the past.

People who say this are usually either:

A) Fans of the team who did the signing, and are worried about remaining cap spac; or

B) Want to use the signing as an excuse to ridicule a team they don't like, and point out the cap trouble that their hated rivals are now in due to overpayment.

It has little to do with relativity, except in relation to one number: 44.
 

crashlanding

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
7,605
0
Chicago
People who say this are usually either:

A) Fans of the team who did the signing, and are worried about remaining cap spac; or

B) Want to use the signing as an excuse to ridicule a team they don't like, and point out the cap trouble that their hated rivals are now in due to overpayment.

It has little to do with relativity, except in relation to one number: 44.
For me it has everything to do with relativity. Guy A plays for some team, gets overpaid, guy B plays for my team and is better than Guy A, has a contract coming up. Guy A's salary screws over my team's salary cap.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
For me it has everything to do with relativity. Guy A plays for some team, gets overpaid, guy B plays for my team and is better than Guy A, has a contract coming up. Guy A's salary screws over my team's salary cap.



Agreed, and that would be point C.

I meant, relativity in terms of other sports, fans' income (the envy factor), etc etc.
 

Fugu

Guest
Agreed, and that would be point C.

I meant, relativity in terms of other sports, fans' income (the envy factor), etc etc.

And here I thought as we introduced more letters of the alphabet, we'd end up at E=mc2... :sarcasm:
 

SlapnutsV1

Registered User
Nov 28, 2005
1,468
0
Denver, CO
There's no guarentee that players will receive their entire salaries, as the escrow money could easily go back to the owners.
 

Wheels

Registered User
Aug 22, 2004
1,668
0
Jeez...the owners fight hard for a salary cap. Then now that they have one, they put the onus on players to accept less money because the team is out of cap room? If I was someone like Briere or Gomez I would tell the team to pay them what they're worth or trade them elsewhere. They got the cap that they wanted, now they have to live with how it can negatively impact their own team.
 

vbet*

Guest
I enjoy when GM's sign dumb contracts. It just means their team is weaker depth wise and easy pick ups at the trade deadline.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
For me it has everything to do with relativity. Guy A plays for some team, gets overpaid, guy B plays for my team and is better than Guy A, has a contract coming up. Guy A's salary screws over my team's salary cap.

so wait ... Daniel Briere (as one example) should care about how it screws your team over?

it was your owners damn fault for wanting the cap to begin with. now live with it. a player is a human and he is entitled to work for as much as someone else is willing to pay him. period.

although, he thinks you are overpaid too, but somehow you will say what you are paid is none of his business.
 

Jonjmc

Registered User
Feb 7, 2006
1,498
1
Im sick to death on the phrase "wow, that is way too much", in every player (almost) that has signed a new contract people are moaning about the amount of cash. Just look at other sports, how much they earn, the GM's wants to earn money and win titles, not save cents. The stars get more and that is quite logical, so get over it, don't live in the past.


They are getting paid too much, its not the fans but the owners and GMs that are living in the past.

You are correct in that the stars will always get more, what seems to be in doubt is how much more and who are the stars. Look no further than Chara as an example here. I dont think many would rate him as one of the 3 best dman in the league, yet his salary is in the top 3. Richards would be the same example for a forward.

This isnt the NFL, NBA or MLB.... there are no huge television contracts so its not like the NFL where the cap goes up every year. Large market, small market.... doesnt matter. Having half your cap wrapped up in 4 players is not a winning formula.

The players already mentioned in this thread are good examples of overpaid players, there are probably 2 dozen more.... with the number climbing every day with the arbitration awards. Yes, this is market driven, its just that those spending the money dont really understand the market and the new rules yet, but give them time.... they will. It will become evident to all the GMs at some point.... when player x is now 32, has slowed down a step or two, and is relegated to third line duty.... all while still being paid 6 million a year.

They will "get it" then.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
They are getting paid too much, its not the fans but the owners and GMs that are living in the past.

You are correct in that the stars will always get more, what seems to be in doubt is how much more and who are the stars. Look no further than Chara as an example here. I dont think many would rate him as one of the 3 best dman in the league, yet his salary is in the top 3. Richards would be the same example for a forward.

This isnt the NFL, NBA or MLB.... there are no huge television contracts so its not like the NFL where the cap goes up every year. Large market, small market.... doesnt matter. Having half your cap wrapped up in 4 players is not a winning formula.

The players already mentioned in this thread are good examples of overpaid players, there are probably 2 dozen more.... with the number climbing every day with the arbitration awards. Yes, this is market driven, its just that those spending the money dont really understand the market and the new rules yet, but give them time.... they will. It will become evident to all the GMs at some point.... when player x is now 32, has slowed down a step or two, and is relegated to third line duty.... all while still being paid 6 million a year.

They will "get it" then.

:clap:
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
For all of the complaints about how Buffalo is being screwed over now, the team could have solved all of this before July 1 if they had nailed down some of these guys to long-term deals, even if that meant (gasp!) negotiating during the season. It's not like the team didn't know they had 18 RFA's and 14 of them were arbitration eligible until the league released the free agent lists, they just (for whatever reason) didn't get serious about getting long-term deals done until after teams had overpaid for UFA's, thus driving up the prices of their own players.
 

Fugu

Guest
For all of the complaints about how Buffalo is being screwed over now, the team could have solved all of this before July 1 if they had nailed down some of these guys to long-term deals, even if that meant (gasp!) negotiating during the season. It's not like the team didn't know they had 18 RFA's and 14 of them were arbitration eligible until the league released the free agent lists, they just (for whatever reason) didn't get serious about getting long-term deals done until after teams had overpaid for UFA's, thus driving up the prices of their own players.


I think like many GMs, they did not believe player prices would go up as quickly as they did. Hey, there was an individual cap AND a league cap. That was going to get rid of the laws of supply/demand and outlaw GM stupidity all in one!!
 

vbet*

Guest
I think like many GMs, they did not believe player prices would go up as quickly as they did. Hey, there was an individual cap AND a league cap. That was going to get rid of the laws of supply/demand and outlaw GM stupidity all in one!!

If they would have raised teh cap to 41 or so million these dumb contracts wouldnt have happend.
 

Fugu

Guest
If they would have raised teh cap to 41 or so million these dumb contracts wouldnt have happend.


That is the beauty of the linkage the NHL wanted. This is their deal and their number. 54% of revenues approaching $2.1 billion yield a cap with the range we will get this season.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
If they would have raised teh cap to 41 or so million these dumb contracts wouldnt have happend.

true true

and if they lowered it to 4million, the contracts would be much less as well..

whats your point? the owners nuked the league to have this system. boo hoo that some guys are getting good contracts, not a single player is overpaid. in fact, many are underpaid now. Mike Peca would have gotten a contract for close to 25million under the old CBA, but instead is working for dimes on the dollar. Anson Carter would have gotten his 3million dollar contract, but now will play for probably 2m or less. I cant think of one guy who is getting more than he should, the owners have the option of finding a cheaper player, but hte player doesnt have the option of finding another league (if he wants to play in the NHL, he plays for not a penny more than an owner is willing to pay him, whereas the owner certainly has many players playing for many pennies less then the player would like).

hey, the cap is here, you got what you wished for. i am sure you would have liked to the players to give up UFA until they hit 55 years old and played for a max contract of $45,000, but somehow the owners i guess admited that some of us actually pay good money to see the players and they actually have some leverage and rights.
 

vbet*

Guest
For all of the complaints about how Buffalo is being screwed over now, the team could have solved all of this before July 1 if they had nailed down some of these guys to long-term deals, even if that meant (gasp!) negotiating during the season. It's not like the team didn't know they had 18 RFA's and 14 of them were arbitration eligible until the league released the free agent lists, they just (for whatever reason) didn't get serious about getting long-term deals done until after teams had overpaid for UFA's, thus driving up the prices of their own players.

Look at Colorado for next year. They are in a horrible position as far as UFA's go next year.

http://members.shaw.ca/cdelosreyes/

They have a very aged group of forwards. I sure hope they have some prospects ready to jump in next year.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
true true

and if they lowered it to 4million, the contracts would be much less as well..

whats your point? the owners nuked the league to have this system. boo hoo that some guys are getting good contracts, not a single player is overpaid. in fact, many are underpaid now. Mike Peca would have gotten a contract for close to 25million under the old CBA, but instead is working for dimes on the dollar. Anson Carter would have gotten his 3million dollar contract, but now will play for probably 2m or less. I cant think of one guy who is getting more than he should, the owners have the option of finding a cheaper player, but hte player doesnt have the option of finding another league (if he wants to play in the NHL, he plays for not a penny more than an owner is willing to pay him, whereas the owner certainly has many players playing for many pennies less then the player would like).

hey, the cap is here, you got what you wished for. i am sure you would have liked to the players to give up UFA until they hit 55 years old and played for a max contract of $45,000, but somehow the owners i guess admited that some of us actually pay good money to see the players and they actually have some leverage and rights.
No arguments (gasp) from me, DR.

"[X] is making too much" is idiotic in this day and age. It is the refuge of the simple-minded who simply spit out the same reflexive response, IMO.

Salaries never have and never will be about a "fair" vallue relative to production. They are about what the market (now redefined by the inclusion of a cap) deems the player to be worth, based on their own unique talents. The more unique, the more dollars. That was not even supposed to be corrected by the CBA. Where did anyone ever get the idea otherwise?

Some people I guess would like to have one year contracts all around and players get a raise based on how well they did last year (much like all of us). Guess what? EVEN THAT would result in guys being overpaid, based on the routine fluctuation of athletic performance - just not for as long.

I woiuld like to add that people who often blurt out "[X] is getting too much" are only voicing their OPINION about that player's skills, often as if theirs is the last word. AS an example, the Chara reference above. In fact, you could probably find a great many people who would have argued at times last year that yes, he is a top 3 defenceman. Your statement does not make their opinion go away, no matter how fervently you may express it. More importantly, the real question is whether he was arguably the best defenceman available at the time he was signed.
 

Wisent

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
3,667
2
Mannheim
Visit site
For me it is as simple as that. Team stays under the cap=no player is overpayed.
If the cap doesn`t increase, we will have a weird contract situation in two or three years. Just a feeling.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->