dolfanar
Registered User
Bruwinz37 said:Plus....get this....he gets to live in the US instead of Russia.....that is worth at least 2 million bucks in my mind.
Bruwinz37 said:Plus....get this....he gets to live in the US instead of Russia.....that is worth at least 2 million bucks in my mind.
Fair enough but 40 or 50 NHL goals is the same regardless of your age ..THUOT! said:Again, it`s more of the same, following Gee Wally's argument... If the bonus money counts against the cap, knowing that the PA wants to maximize the amount of money available under the cap for the current players, they'll again throw the rookies under the bus and have their bonuses capped as well.
The cap is obviously benefitting the NHL more, but I'm thinking the cap within a cap for rookies benefits the current NHL players more than it does benefit the league. I'm sure the PA pushed for this more than the NHL did, when it was made sure a salary cap would be in place, as their current members are more important than the new ones.
The Messenger said:Fair enough but 40 or 50 NHL goals is the same regardless of your age ..
Why should Brett Hull at 40 years old receive a 2 mil bonus for 40 goals and Rick Nash receive ZERO for scoring 40 goals just because he is only 19 years Old ?
NHL career are short .. People keep saying that he will get his money later on .. but what about injuries Concussions, neck injury, Berard like eye accidents etc .. No guarantees in life .. Also no guarantees that the team that owns the young player will ever offer a bonus for performance that is each teams own right .. So Nash may never get it ..
That is the situation I am wondering how the CBA can address ..
likea said:Brett Hull has done it for many years and has proven that he will do it year in and year out...
what happens when a rookie has one great year and then falls off, are you worried about that part also?????
the owners would love to have a system in which you get paid by how you do that year
the players would never, ever go for it
Yes but you are focussing on the wrong aspect .. I am not saying make his base Salary (which is guaranteed) on his performance .. I am saving the NHL needs a performance system (non guaranteed) unless you reach those levels, are you rewarded .. If its say a $1 million to score 40 goals or 60 points lets say then if you are a 1 year wonder you will only receive it in the year you had a great season .. If you are Brett hull and you can do it each year then you deserve your bonus cheque for you consistency.likea said:Brett Hull has done it for many years and has proven that he will do it year in and year out...
what happens when a rookie has one great year and then falls off, are you worried about that part also?????
the owners would love to have a system in which you get paid by how you do that year
the players would never, ever go for it
The Messenger said:That is true ..
Just to add .. Capping them within a Cap system is not a Union mandate , its an NHL request.
If players had a base Salary that is fine .. Not sure why you could not set league milestones that would reward a special play for their performance .. If Crosby wins the Calder and sets a modern day scoring record paying him the same as a an everyday player is not fair IMO .. The league benefits from his abilities in all 30 cities and TV contracts and gate receipts as fans pay to see him. In a small way that raises league revenue and the Hard Cap .. So really everyone gains by Crosby performance but Sidney himself. The league could be paying Yashin $7.5 mil for 25 goals and paying Crosby could get 850k for 40 goals..
The league should find a way to reward excellence and pay for performance and your age shouldn't be the only thing that determines your wage ..
Rick Nash was Team Canada's best player in the World Championships and leading goal scoring in the NHL yet, when he receives his next contract he will not be paid like a Star player that he is all because he is young .. Its an injustice that should really be fixed somehow in the CBA .. IMO ..
The Messenger said:Yes but you are focussing on the wrong aspect .. I am not saying make his base Salary (which is guaranteed) on his performance .. I am saving the NHL needs a performance system (non guaranteed) unless you reach those levels, are you rewarded .. If its say a $1 million to score 40 goals or 60 points lets say then if you are a 1 year wonder you will only receive it in the year you had a great season .. If you are Brett hull and you can do it each year then you deserve your bonus cheque for you consistency.
That way if a player gets injured or under performs or holds out etc then he is only hurting himself financially and not the team if he doesn't put the effort in to reach the performance bonuses..
Same for Trophies .. Each one should have a preset negotiated value attached and then if you are the Norris or Conn Smyth winner then you get your Bonus .. There can only be one per year (unless they share) and so it can be predetermined, and they shouldn't count against the cap for any one team .. Even though all 30 teams could have these types of performance clauses in contracts..
As the poster above mentioned its the older player in decline that are getting the biggest contracts while they may end up contributing the least .. Their former reputations is earning them their current rates and it skews performance .. The young and improving players are capped regardless of performance and the older players are feasting off of past success in the current NHL system..
If I am an NHL GM I would sooner be paying Crosby and Ovechkin the big $$ (based on performance bonuses and not base) then I would a washed up old player past his prime ..
It's funny how everything you ever type revolves around the idea that the players should get MORE.The Messenger said:Yes but you are focussing on the wrong aspect .. I am not saying make his base Salary (which is guaranteed) on his performance .. I am saving the NHL needs a performance system (non guaranteed) unless you reach those levels, are you rewarded .. If its say a $1 million to score 40 goals or 60 points lets say then if you are a 1 year wonder you will only receive it in the year you had a great season .. If you are Brett hull and you can do it each year then you deserve your bonus cheque for you consistency.
That might be good (the NHL has even suggested it), but for the fact that players often demand premium trophy-winning salary as their BASE.Same for Trophies .. Each one should have a preset negotiated value attached and then if you are the Norris or Conn Smyth winner then you get your Bonus .. There can only be one per year (unless they share) and so it can be predetermined, and they shouldn't count against the cap for any one team .. Even though all 30 teams could have these types of performance clauses in contracts..
As the poster above mentioned its the older player in decline that are getting the biggest contracts while they may end up contributing the least .. Their former reputations is earning them their current rates and it skews performance .. The young and improving players are capped regardless of performance and the older players are feasting off of past success in the current NHL system..
The system ultimately rewards consistent high level performance. High level performers are undercompensated at the beginning and overcompensated at the end.
gscarpenter2002 said:The second there is a mechanism for players to return salary when they UNDERperform, you will see your ideas implemented. Which is about three days after "never".
Gee Wally said:That is a good point. Give to get. If the bonuses are there for *Overachievers* then the teams should have the right to cancel contracts for *Underachievers* ala the NFL.
thinkwild said:Cancel the contracts of underachievers? Like dont qualify them? I dont get the feeling fans here are in favour of that.
The NHL must be talking about this though .. In earlier CBA proposals there was talk of 2 way (reverse) arbitration .. No longer could the player only take his team to arbitration if he thought he was getting under paid / or and offer below his level .. But they had the ability for a team to take a max of two players/year to arbitration to have there contracts lowered if they were not performing up to owners standards ..Gee Wally said:That is a good point. Give to get. If the bonuses are there for *Overachievers* then the teams should have the right to cancel contracts for *Underachievers* ala the NFL.
From the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal5. Salary Arbitration
Your proposal -- both with respect to its salary rollback element and the additional Club salary arbitration "tools" that it contemplates -- does nothing to address or even impact the salary inflation that the salary arbitration system necessarily fosters. The fact that a Player utilizing salary arbitration under the proposed system may initially have lower comparables to argue from than previously is totally irrelevant. The principal focus in salary arbitration is to determine a Player's present value by looking at the contracts of comparable Players. The fact that your proposal will have reduced the Player's salary, as well as the salaries of all of his comparables by 24%, will have no effect whatsoever on the percentage increases Players will request and have historically received through the arbitration process.
Similarly, the very limited rights proposed by the NHLPA for Club-initiated arbitration will in no way limit inflationary increases. Prior history clearly demonstrates that it will take only one "bad" signing to lead to a number of "bad" arbitration settlements and awards, causing League-wide salary inflation similar to our experience under the expired CBA.
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html
Future Salary Restraints (Entry Level System, Qualified Offers and Arbitration)
A new set of system deflators that will reduce spending on the individual contracts executed in the new, rolled-back marketplace. These system deflators include substantial restraints in the ELS; reduced qualifying offers; the use of rolled-back and new contracts as the only comparables available in salary arbitration and in negotiations for new contracts; and the use of arbitration at the election of the club for two new purposes identified by the NHL as important.
Conservatively these system benefits to owners will pull $400M out of the ELS system over the next six years, reduce the aggregate qualifying offers due to Group II Players by $285M over three years and provide other benefits.
http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3398
See above post ......for "three days after never" mechanism being currently discussed in the CBA negotiating process ..gscarpenter2002 said:The second there is a mechanism for players to return salary when they UNDERperform, you will see your ideas implemented. Which is about three days after "never".
snafu said:And this is exactly the problem with the old salary structure in the NHL. Paying someone for past performance. Hull was not worth the money he got his last year in Detroit.
No one knows when a guy's career might end, so paying a top-rated rookie or 1-year veteran (I'll admit a rookie is completely unproven) because a team believes he'll be an awesome contributor is the same as paying Hull a lot of money because a team believes he will be an awesome contributor. The risk is what the buyer is willing to bet on...and since it is his money, shouldn't he be allowed to place his bets according to his own perceptions and needs?
For the same money, would you take Hull or Nash?
likea said:come on now, thats a loaded question if I have ever seen one
Hull was worth the money all but one or two years, but he deserved the money he got by putting up the numbers he did every year he played
I'll take a player that has constantly put up points over a player that did it for just one year any day of the week
Um, not quite there, skipper. What I was clearly referring to was a mechanism where players RETURN money under their EXISTING contract where they play poorly (similar to your idea where players get bonuses on their EXISTING contracts). Your post references players getting their salaries reduced for SUBSEQUENT YEARS via arbitration. Not the same thing.The Messenger said:See above post ......for "three days after never" mechanism being currently discussed in the CBA negotiating process ..
gscarpenter2002 said:Um, not quite there, skipper. What I was clearly referring to was a mechanism where players RETURN money under their EXISTING contract where they play poorly (similar to your idea where players get bonuses on their EXISTING contracts). Your post references players getting their salaries reduced for SUBSEQUENT YEARS via arbitration. Not the same thing.
Excellent example of lawyer doubletalk on your part ..gscarpenter2002 said:Um, not quite there, skipper. What I was clearly referring to was a mechanism where players RETURN money under their EXISTING contract where they play poorly (similar to your idea where players get bonuses on their EXISTING contracts). Your post references players getting their salaries reduced for SUBSEQUENT YEARS via arbitration. Not the same thing.
The Messenger said:The NHL must be talking about this though .. In earlier CBA proposals there was talk of 2 way (reverse) arbitration .. No longer could the player only take his team to arbitration if he thought he was getting under paid / or and offer below his level .. But they had the ability for a team to take a max of two players/year to arbitration to have there contracts lowered if they were not performing up to owners standards ..
So that was basically intended to re-adjust contracts of underachievers as you call them.
Isn't it ??
From the NHL counter proposal Dec 14th
From the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal
heshootshescores said:I thought the players "won" in the latest discussions over the Feb NHL proposal cause the above arbintration was removed????
You can't say that the above doesn't exist in one thread and then use it as a point in another...
Why, thank you (?).The Messenger said:Excellent example of lawyer doubletalk on your part ..
Certainly. Not the point of my original post, which was responding to a rather convoluted attempt at something on your part, but ...In REAL life do you know of any REALISTIC example where salaried employees would give back money if their employer was not happy with their effort at years end.. NOPE ..
However bonuses are a part of life all the time for managers or commission sales people for milestones reached and rewards for performance.
I gave and example of PERFORMANCE BONUSES which are in addition to base salary that would be paid out if achieved .. You don't have to give back a Bonus THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED. So not sure what you are going on about ..
All I can say is this: what are you talking about? You are having your own conversation...
In addition I gave you links to CBA proposals released to the public as an example that show a Team can take a player to Arbitration and have his GUARANTEED contract reduced (almost like giving back money in future years) if he is considered to be under-performing or overpaid ..
Oh my, this is just a little too rich to pass up. "Almost like"! Except for the fact that it is nothing like it. The players going to arbitration have no guaranteed contract going forward at any particular level of compensation. To the extent arbitration is a term of the contract - which it is - there is no guarantee in that scenario. That is so far off, you have me doubting again the credentials you supposedly passe doff to other posters here. Did you tell them the straight goods about what you are, or what? Come on, big fella, come clean ...
Well, in the business world, compensation in deals is "reneged" as you put it all the time. In mergers and acquisitions, which I did for a while, you often have deals where, if certain "bogies" for business performance is not met after the acquirer buys the business, the purchase price (a portion of which was placed in escrow) is returned to the acquirer. It's called a buy-down. In the construction of large infrastructure projects (where I practice now), if a contractor does not meet certain criteria (i.e., performacne of equipment, schedule), the owner "reneges" as you put it and is entitled to a return of a prtion fo the contract price. This is called liquidated damages.Its almost like making a deal and then reneging and saying you are not happy with what you agreed to in a legal binding contract. You are a so called lawyer, you try to get that reversed..
Of course, neither of these things are actually "reneging". They are contractually agreed-upon arrangements. I am just using your language to better communicate with you.
I guess i am blissfully unaware of this sticky situation. What I don't know won't hurt me, I suppose ...Kind of like the reneging you are doing here to get out of a very sticky situation for you..
You don't go buy a car and then a year later decide that its not getting the gas mileage you hoped for and so you are going to go to the dealership and get some money back now, or stop payment on your financing ..
When did I ever say club induced arbitration was not a part ..heshootshescores said:And by playing both sides you say earlier that the arbitration will be as the NHLPA wants it w/o club induced arbitration and 100% QO (105%, 110%, etc)... therefore the NHLPA won over the NHL Feb proposal..