1977-78 NHL Salaries

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by STLBlueshistory, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. Johnny Engine

    Johnny Engine Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,389
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Especially interesting given that the last 3 work stoppages have been lockouts and not strikes.
     
  2. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    26,570
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    229
    Both have been a disgrace to the game in their dealings with the lockout. Let's call a spade a spade, it takes two to fight. The owners back in the original 6 were even bigger scoundrels than today if you can believe it. At least today you are fighting with someone where you can't come to an agreement between $7 or 8 million. 60 years ago you may have been fighting to get $10,000 from a tightwad owner. We're talking apples and oranges here. The union Ted Lindsay was fighting for and the one we see today are different. I don't back the owners or the players in the work stoppages. Both deserve a Bobby Hull slapshot in a disclosed area the way they dealt with the lockouts.
     
  3. The Panther

    The Panther Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    8,307
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    I agree. And actually I haven't been to an NHL game since the Lock-out (of course, I mostly live in E. Asia so that's difficult).

    The NHLPA were big-headed. The leaders, I think, misguided the players into a poor understanding of their bargaining position (which, as workers, was weak). Then, for its part, the NHL/owners waited and waited until the last possible minute to engage in meaningful bargaining talks, which of course the NHLPA exploited to make the League look back and justify their hardline. Result, cancelled season.
     
  4. Wingsfan 4 life

    Wingsfan 4 life Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    181
    Trophy Points:
    66
    FWIW, considering its 5 years after the poster asked why no Bobby Orr.....

    Orr sat out the whole 1977-78 season. When he went to Chicago, he signed a 5 year/$3M contract with payments spread out over 30 years to minimize taxes.

    Orr famously never cashed a Chicago pay check, saying he was paid to play hockey and would not accept a salary if he was not playing.
     
  5. Nino33

    Nino33 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    56
    For myself it's not that "interesting" at all - the first players strike guaranteed the owners would never again trust the players to negotiate and play
     
  6. Ralph Spoilsport

    Ralph Spoilsport Rookie Mistake

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Wayne Dillon, take a bow. You had a good agent.

    Any info on NHL revenues from back then?
     
  7. Uncle Rotter

    Uncle Rotter Registered User

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kelowna, B.C.
    I remember what a big story it was back then when it was published. It made Joe Contini famous.
     
  8. wetcoast

    wetcoast Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, Dionne was the better player after all.
     
  9. Iron Mike Sharpe

    Iron Mike Sharpe Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Yikes! Eye opener! I don't recall the contracts being published back in 78, but it's interesting that the Canucks were carrying some bad contracts at the time. They've got six guys at $100,000+, but for other guys in the league in the same pay class at the time, these bums look a little overpaid. Pit Martin really stands out, & makes the initial trade - Canucks giving up Murray Bannerman, who would be heir to Tony O's starter job in Chi-Town, for the 33-year old Martin - who would play out the season & retire - look even worse than it did at the time with this albatross of a contract. I'm guessing they inherited the Graves & Maniago contracts from their respective trades with Atlanta & Minnesota, but neither was worth it at the time - Maniago packed it in like Martin at the end of the season, & Graves was a soft, lazy player who couldn't crack 50 points. Not as much of a problem with them giving The Clever a little extra, & I'm guessing Shakey's salary is what they paid to get him to jump from the WHA, & he earned it by being basically our best player, so I have less qualms about those two. Ververgaert likely negotiated a good contract coming off his 37-goal performance in the 75-76 season, but that turned out to be his peak season & an outlier, he was basically a soft second liner. Overall, they probably overpaid by about $100,000 to this group collectively.

    What an awful team, thanks for the bad memories.
     
  10. Iron Mike Sharpe

    Iron Mike Sharpe Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Mike Bossy $50,000 = best bargain in the league
     
  11. The Panther

    The Panther Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    8,307
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Rookie's contract.


    But that has to be the last time an NHL-er scored 50+ goals and made less than 100 grand...?
     
  12. alko

    alko Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    4,923
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Slovakia
    Home Page:
    Wow - time machine. I saw my post after 6 years!
     
  13. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    26,570
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    229
    Big question..............is the NHL a better place with salary disclosure or without it? My wallet says the second one.
     
  14. Nick Hansen

    Nick Hansen Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Gender:
    Male
    With the cap, some players are hounded for being overpaid while still actually being pretty decent and nowhere near the disasters they're made out to be just because they're overpaid relative to the cap and taking up a bigger chunk than perceived to be worthy of.
     
  15. Johnny Engine

    Johnny Engine Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,389
    Likes Received:
    460
    Trophy Points:
    94
    If there must be a cap, then salary disclosure needs to come with it. Otherwise, every team in the league would be making baffling, frustrating moves with no explanation on the regular. At least now if you see a team dump a second liner for a 4th round pick or something, you can at least have a pretty good idea why.
     
  16. Doctor No

    Doctor No Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Home Page:
    If your wallet thinks that ticket prices would be meaningfully lower without salary disclosure, I'd recommend that it looks at college football, where players are (ostensibly) not paid and ticket prices have increased similarly.

    Economics says that tickets will cost what the market will bear.
     
    Mike Farkas likes this.
  17. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    26,570
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    229
    Well sure, now. But in 1978? By 2019 even College Football has figured out that fans will pay anything regardless. In 1978 that wasn't the case. Tickets were a lot cheaper, and I mean in relative to inflation and such.
     
  18. AmericanDream

    AmericanDream Adopted Canadian

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    23,721
    Likes Received:
    8,915
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Occupation:
    #NoImprovement
    Location:
    Winnipeg Texas
    lol at Dale Tallon being in the top 3 paid Hawks players..he was decent, but wtf??????
     
  19. Thenameless

    Thenameless Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    94
    For us, the fans, the NHL was a better place in the 1970's. The players played more for pride, for each other, for their teams, and for their fans. But, the owners also made an inordinate amount of money compared to the players. It's more of a business now, and it strikes a fairer balance between the players and the owners. For us fans, we now get/have to watch mercenaries move from team to team, while chasing the almighty buck. You'll still get the odd Tavares that wants to play for a certain team, or a Cup-chasing veteran on his last legs willing to take a discount, but I agree that it's not the same as it once was.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
    Big Phil and Mike Farkas like this.
  20. streitz

    streitz Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Terry O'Rielly and half the Habs roster should of been getting paid more. Just what stood out at a cursory glance.
     
  21. streitz

    streitz Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    66

    Just curious what's wrong with Owners making money? They put down the big bucks and they should get a return on investment.


    Not that I'm advocating for 1950's salaries. Realistically the most a PRO athlete should make is 10-20x an average working mans salary given what they put their bodies through. The saving imo should trickle down to the fans in terms of cheaper tickets.
     
  22. Thenameless

    Thenameless Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    94
    I actually believe that the owners should make money, and good money at that. They are the ones after all who take the financial risk. In the symbiotic relationship, I think the players should also be well paid, since they are the star attraction. Like you say, we don't want players making 1950's salaries in comparison. It's a money world that we live in now. The owners should make as much as they can, and so should the players. It's up to the fans to determine what the market will bear.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"