inflationary system

[vanlady]

Because they are unrealistic. YOU don't get to cash-in after one year of success. Only through many years of success do you get a chance to make big big dollars like these clowns, er NHL players do. Also, when you screw up, and have a bad year, you lose your job and a lot of the money and benefits that go with it. The NHL players don't have to worry about this. One good year is all it takes then they can coast through the rest of their career, knowing it is very unlikely they will every have to take a backward step in earning potential. Its an unrealistic market that needs to be fixed.

The difference between NHL players and the rest of us is there careers begin when they are in grade school. By the age of 15 these kids have agents, nutritionists and personal trainers. By the time these guys are 25 and making good money they have been in there career for over 10 years.

 

[YellHockey*]

Because they are unrealistic. YOU don't get to cash-in after one year of success.

And how many NHL players get to where they are with one year of success? They need to have many years of success just to make it to the NHL.

Only through many years of success do you get a chance to make big big dollars like these clowns, er NHL players do. Also, when you screw up, and have a bad year, you lose your job and a lot of the money and benefits that go with it. The NHL players don't have to worry about this.

You mean like Pavol Demitra or Roman Turek or Tommy Salo or Felix Potvin or Cory Stillman or countless other players who have either not been sent qualifying offers or seen their job taken by a better player?

One good year is all it takes then they can coast through the rest of their career, knowing it is very unlikely they will every have to take a backward step in earning potential.

Like Alex Daigle before he hit Minnesota? Or Denis Pederson? Or Daniel Cleary? Or Paul Kariya?

 

[YellHockey*]

I think we should be against the players proposal because it does nothing to address the fact that once a player is arbitration eligible, he can peg his salary to the dumbest one out there.

As we saw when the NHLPA submitted their last proposal, in arbitration there are usually four or five comparables listed for each player. One outlier will not radically change that award. As well, the dumbest salary could be in the owner's favour as well.

 

[vanlady]

Everyone talks about players salary inflation so I decided to do a little checking. What I found was very surprising.

Below is the percentage increases in salaries from year to year since 1990.

90/91 - 91/92 - 25%
91/92 - 92/93 - 21%
92/93 - 93/94 - 17%
93/94 - 94/95 - 24%
94/95 - 95/96 - 18%
95/96 - 96/97 - 9%
96/97 - 97/98 - 16%
97/98 - 98/99 - 9%
98/99 - 99/00 - 5%
99/00 - 00/01 - 5%
00/01 - 01/02 - 12%
01/02 - 02/03 - 8%

What was going on in the early 90's to drive up salaries?? Expansion maybe? As a matter of fact most of the double digit increases in salaries come around major expansion in the NHL. If the trend that started in the late 90's were to continue today salary inflation in the NHL should be held in the 5-7% range which in the world of business is a little high but acceptable labour cost increases.

 

[YellHockey*]

First of all, your affirmation ain't all true. Many businesses have fixed salary ranges for positions (result of internal policies or unions). If you do job "X", then you earn from $Y to $Z. $Z is the most you'll ever get, and it's usually more or less based on a scale that greatly depends on experience. So I wouldn't say that "our wages are allowed to inflate" to anything. I doubt you'll hardly see anyone get a raise of 200%+ in one year.

Many business in the NHL probably have a similiar range for positions. They won't pay any more then $X for a third line winger or any more then $W for a third pairing defenceman.

Second, the system is inflationary because the NHL pays wages well above any other competitor. Why would they if the salary system used by the NHL wasn't inflationnary from the inside? While the teams compete on the ice, the NHL as a whole is one big business, one league, where all franchises depend on the others.

No it isn't. The NHL is a cartel comprised of 30 seperate businesses. And the franchises don't depend on all the others. If so, why do so many people think contraction is a great idea? The NHL survived just fine with 6 franchises for decades.

The NHL pays those salaries because they believe that paying it will see them bring in additional revenues because of the player's talent.

Third, even for the *best* workers in different fields, their salary ain't going to be equal everywhere they work. The salary for the best worker in a field in Calgary ain't going to be the same as the guy doing the same job in San Francisco. The Calgary worker would be laughed at if he asked for San Francisco's type of money, because the two markets are different. However, the NHL works like that. The smaller market has to pay bigger market salaries to their players, something which would never happen to "us monkeys". If it worked like that, salaries around the world would inflate around the highest market's paid salaries, and the whole economy would be in trouble.

Do you think a CEO of a Fortune 500 company is going to take less money because of which market they reside in? Heck, the CEO's usually get to pick whichever market they want to live in and the company accomodates them. They aren't forced to reside where the company wants them to.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

I'd ask, how come the rest of us monkey work in a system where the owner ties our salaries to his revenues and ability to pay, whereas the NHL owners dont/wont/cant..

the reason is, the rest of us monkey work in a system where if the owner dont ties salaries to his revenue, they go out of business, and you never hear from them again and you assume they never existed.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

however, if one of my staff feel that they are worth more than we pay them, they are free to walk into my office and demand a raise.
dr

i think nhl players can still do that under a cap. for example, if ohlund feels hes worth $5M and the canucks are over the cap already, he can demand a trade or his team can free up payroll (by trades/dumping salary) to sign him. either way he'll still get his money.

 

[Pepper]

How many threads you need to start before you realize the problem NHL is facing DR??

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How many threads you need to start before you realize the problem NHL is facing DR??

how many replies to threads are you going to start before you realize we dont all share the same opinions on the solutions to the problems the NHL is facing.

dr