It sounds like John Madden would accept a cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Again if the increase was 10% & this year 2-3% can we say -7% compare to last year ?

You said above:
Owners will try to decrease salary like they ALREADY DID the last 2 summer.

Salaries INCREASED not DECREASED. The avg salary has been steadily increasing.

Also REVENUE did go up also ? You want the revenues to go up but salaries should never increase ?

Who said salaries should NEVER increase? The ABC contract just expired so revenue is taking a hit. They will only see money from NBC if the broadcasts are profitable. Also, are you aware that there are numerous costs other than player salaries?

4) Rookie signs for 1.24M$ for 3 years gets 10 goals and gets a guarateed minimum increase of 10% if team want to keep him.
Secondly, with easily attainable performance bonuses, Thorton, Kovalchuk, Zherdev, Ruutu, are all making 3-4 million on their first years. EASILY. Fleury for Pittsburg needed to only play a certrain amount of games to clinch 3M$ of bonuses despite a 1.24M$ base salary. After signing him, Patrick outwardly said he felt stupid for having agreed to those bonuses. I'm suprised youre not aware of this!

Already been adressed in the proposal by the NHLPA so stop talking about it. It will be fix !

Addressed? All they said was they are willing to discuss changes. What if it's the same proposal as their luxury tax %'s? The NHLPA compares itself to baseball and rookies in the majors make peanuts compared to some NHL rookies. (if anyone has the avg for each, I'd like to see the numbers). The rookie NHL max, rec'd by quite a few was about $1.2 million (?) , in baseball most rookies receive the major league minimum.

The problem I have is that everyone think someone being overpaid is WRONG but a player being underpaid is OK. There are as many case of players being underpaid as players being overpaid. Somewhere it gets even.

If you believe that then you also believe that 75 % of revenues going to the players is equitable.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Thank you Chili.

Lets clarify this for Russian Fan:

1-Salaries are still going up no matter how you put it. UP. I didnt say anything about revenues.

2-Giving 10M$ to Pronger is not smart. I'm not comparing Holik and Pronger. Giving a hockey player 10M$ is not smart. My opinion. Why? He becomes a benchmark. Every defenseman that comes close to his stats (playing more games is easy BTW) will use it as a benchmark for an arbitration hearing. Salaries go up. Not by 10%...more like 50% for the guys who went to arbitration this year. Its too easy. Go Pronger go! Have a mediocre year and every defensman in the league will be drooling.

4- I wont even try to understand youre point on this. 41 goals scoring players are rare btw. Yes they should get more money than the others. No problem. Thats not the problem. Its the bonuses, and the automatic 10% no matter what. Joe Bloe has a 41 goal season. Gets 4 M$ contrat. IM fine with that. After the contract is signed has 3 seasons of 20 goals. Next contract: 10% more, 4.4M$ please. Not down...up. That is simply not logical.

If the team doesnt agree we go to arbitration and you know some loonie in NY or Toronto is paying a 20 goal scoring player 6M$ so the arbitrator ends up giving him somthing in between...5M$!!!

Aside Brendan Witt a few years ago, no other player has had a salary decrease from arbitration and thisd year 50% increase.

Good day.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
ti-vite said:
4- I wont even try to understand youre point on this. 41 goals scoring players are rare btw. Yes they should get more money than the others. No problem. Thats not the problem. Its the bonuses, and the automatic 10% no matter what. Joe Bloe has a 41 goal season. Gets 4 M$ contrat. IM fine with that. After the contract is signed has 3 seasons of 20 goals. Next contract: 10% more, 4.4M$ please. Not down...up. That is simply not logical.

Actually, I think you only have to qualify him at a 10% raise if he is making less than the league average. If he's making more than the league average, you only need to qualify him at 100%.
 

Gary

Registered User
Craven Morehead said:
Does it??? I see your point, but many players who perform and are 'underpaid' are doing so during a contract that both parties agreed to. Should the owner rip up that contract and sign the player to a new one because he is better then what the market says he should be paid (ie. Rick Nash)??? We know the player would never ask for a paycut because he felt he didn't play well enough the previous season. For every Rick Nash's, there about 3 John Leclairs (I mean just overpaid, not grossly overpaid for like 9 million or so)
The biggest beef I have with the player/owner relationship is this...If I'm signed to a 3 year $4 million contract and I play WAY better then what was projected of me-i.e. I become a 50 goal scorer I can refuse to play until I get more money. THIS IS A CONTRACT AND SHOULD BE HONORED IMO...Otherwise, I think the reverse should hold true...Why can't the Bruins for instance turn around and say 'Sorry Lapointe...When we hired you, you were a far better player then with us so from now on instead of $5 million we're going to give you $2.5 million per year with insentives to reach the $5 million mark again if you play as we feel you should and can'??
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,621
21,958
Nova Scotia
Visit site
Gary said:
The biggest beef I have with the player/owner relationship is this...If I'm signed to a 3 year $4 million contract and I play WAY better then what was projected of me-i.e. I become a 50 goal scorer I can refuse to play until I get more money. THIS IS A CONTRACT AND SHOULD BE HONORED IMO...Otherwise, I think the reverse should hold true...Why can't the Bruins for instance turn around and say 'Sorry Lapointe...When we hired you, you were a far better player then with us so from now on instead of $5 million we're going to give you $2.5 million per year with insentives to reach the $5 million mark again if you play as we feel you should and can'??
Good point, but the Union,players, and agents all want their cake, and be able to eat it too!!!
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Gary said:
The biggest beef I have with the player/owner relationship is this...If I'm signed to a 3 year $4 million contract and I play WAY better then what was projected of me-i.e. I become a 50 goal scorer I can refuse to play until I get more money. THIS IS A CONTRACT AND SHOULD BE HONORED IMO...Otherwise, I think the reverse should hold true...Why can't the Bruins for instance turn around and say 'Sorry Lapointe...When we hired you, you were a far better player then with us so from now on instead of $5 million we're going to give you $2.5 million per year with insentives to reach the $5 million mark again if you play as we feel you should and can'??

How many players played more than their worth & holdout to get paid more ?

This example is thrown WAY TO EASY, not because a few did it that EVERY PLAYER DID IT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->