NHL may be prepared to eat its young
- Thread starter RangerBoy
- Start date
- Status
Mess
Global Moderator
Fair enough but 40 or 50 NHL goals is the same regardless of your age ..THUOT! said:
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 ..
The Messenger 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
likea 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?
Mess
Global Moderator
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:
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 ..
Last edited:
Marconius
Registered User
Marconius
Registered User
The Messenger said:
This type of incentive systems leads to problems though. When focus begins to be on individual stats instead of tema performance, the teams overall game will suffer. If it's near the end of the season and I know I have to score 5 more goals to qualify for my big bonus, how often do you think I'll be passing the puck?
This can also lead to one dimensional players. If I know I'm going to get my payday on 35 goals, i will not make a huge effort to play defence until I know I'm going to score my 35.
As well, what about more intangible qualitites like defence, hitting, leadership, heart? how can those qualities possible by measured?
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".
gscarpenter2002 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:
no...more like non guaranteed contracts.
I'm a big believer in pay for performance. The bitter and the sweet.
Kind of like *real* life.
All players get the minimum contract. Then their performance determines their bonus after the fact. That would be a good way to even out the talent. A player like Havlat would say, well I would sure get more points and ice time on Columbus than Ottawa. I'll go there next year for a one year contract. And then the next year, leave for somewhere else.
The other advantage of pay for performance, is you dont need to own a players rights.
Since contracts arent guaranteed, they can leave at any time.
The other advantage of pay for performance, is you dont need to own a players rights.
Since contracts arent guaranteed, they can leave at any time.
Mess
Global Moderator
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:
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
Last edited:
Mess
Global Moderator
See above post ......for "three days after never" mechanism being currently discussed in the CBA negotiating process ..gscarpenter2002 said:
snafu 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
likea said:
Yeah, okay. I just don't like Hull very much and disagree that he really was worth all the money...but that's just my opinion.
I suppose I don't like tying the GM's hands completely and caps within caps seem to go one step too far.
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:
Culture shock will not be as big of an issue for Malkin as it will be for AO.
Malkin was taught English at an early age by his mother so the language barrier will be lessened considerably.
AO has been interviewed in English a number of times, even in ‘basic’ English he does not sound like an ass such as many of the English born NHL players(Chelios ect) do when they are interviewed.
The Great One sounds slooooooooooooooow even by redneck standards
Great Communication is not necessary as long as the player thinks before he speaks and tries his best to say it.
No one has brought up an article about AO that says he is not considering coming over to NA because he could only make X dollars under a rookie salary cap.
If the NHL was really going to ‘eat their young’ player endorsements would be included in a teams salary cap figure.
CBA rookie cap year one $850K max, if the player proves he is worth far more then $850K after his rookie year allow the # to increase up to $2M.
Put in a 1:1 rookie salary luxury cap for a team that pays a rookie over 850K(tax would not be included in total cap figure)
EX
$2,000,000-$850,000 = $1,150,000(tax)
$2,000,000 rookie salary will cost a team $3,150,000
If teams are stupid enough to sign untested prospects at millions of dollars a piece then surly paying additional millions of dollars by way of tax should not deter it from happening.
Signing a untested rookie to the maximum amount before he has even played one NHL game is like putting all of your eggs in the one basket.
Malkin was taught English at an early age by his mother so the language barrier will be lessened considerably.
AO has been interviewed in English a number of times, even in ‘basic’ English he does not sound like an ass such as many of the English born NHL players(Chelios ect) do when they are interviewed.
The Great One sounds slooooooooooooooow even by redneck standards
Great Communication is not necessary as long as the player thinks before he speaks and tries his best to say it.
No one has brought up an article about AO that says he is not considering coming over to NA because he could only make X dollars under a rookie salary cap.
If the NHL was really going to ‘eat their young’ player endorsements would be included in a teams salary cap figure.
CBA rookie cap year one $850K max, if the player proves he is worth far more then $850K after his rookie year allow the # to increase up to $2M.
Put in a 1:1 rookie salary luxury cap for a team that pays a rookie over 850K(tax would not be included in total cap figure)
EX
$2,000,000-$850,000 = $1,150,000(tax)
$2,000,000 rookie salary will cost a team $3,150,000
If teams are stupid enough to sign untested prospects at millions of dollars a piece then surly paying additional millions of dollars by way of tax should not deter it from happening.
Signing a untested rookie to the maximum amount before he has even played one NHL game is like putting all of your eggs in the one basket.
Mess
Global Moderator
Excellent example of lawyer doubletalk on your part ..gscarpenter2002 said:
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 ..
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 ..
Something again that is almost unheard of real life, but addresses your post "when that happens, never" post
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..
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 ..
HSHS
Losing is a disease
The Messenger said:
I thought the players "won" in the latest discussions over the Feb NHL proposal cause the above arbitration was removed????
You can't say that the above doesn't exist in one thread and then use it as a point in another...
Mess
Global Moderator
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...
The CBA is not final yet ... How do you know what will or will not be included in the final agreed version.??.
However that is not even the main point.
That was in a thread discussing the merits of an article written by a professional on details coming out .. and if you stop and think for a second ..
The article you are using here that said Arbitration was as the NHLPA had suggested in its Dec 9th proposal, that says Arbitration, UFA, and Qualifying offers are as the PA proposed. If you look at the link I provided it quotes FROM the NHLPA Dec 9th proposal. That is the same thing...
There isn't even a contradiction in the first place as you are making out there is.
Both articles support each other..
Why, thank you (?).The Messenger said:
Certainly. Not the point of my original post, which was responding to a rather convoluted attempt at something on your part, but ...
All I can say is this: what are you talking about? You are having your own conversation...
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.
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 ...
Wonderful. Another most useful analogy, expertly conceived and applied.
HSHS
Losing is a disease
M: But you have to take a position on what you think is going to happen. You seem to be playing both sides... perhaps even better than your "normal lawyer opponent" on this board.
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.
Then you go on here arguing that you believe there will be an option for the club to reduce salaries and those are comparable to player give-backs for underperformance.... therefore justifying you bonus option.
To me... not sure of others... that sounds like SPIN! And I thought you were an accountant or something like that.
True we don't know what will be the final results. So we are just speculating. I argue by being consistent in what I think should happen and what I think will happen (those two things not being the same). Perhaps you don't.
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.
Then you go on here arguing that you believe there will be an option for the club to reduce salaries and those are comparable to player give-backs for underperformance.... therefore justifying you bonus option.
To me... not sure of others... that sounds like SPIN! And I thought you were an accountant or something like that.
True we don't know what will be the final results. So we are just speculating. I argue by being consistent in what I think should happen and what I think will happen (those two things not being the same). Perhaps you don't.
Mess
Global Moderator
When did I ever say club induced arbitration was not a part ..heshootshescores said:
The article that you are referring to said that if the NHLPA accepted a Hard Cap and linkage that they would likely get their way as they suggested in their Dec 9th proposal ..
From the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal:
Quote:
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
So the point was that the PA got what they offered .. I didn't say it would be any different .. You made those assumptions on your own..
I have also said many times that I am pro-fan in this dispute .. There are things that I support in fact on either side .. but as pro-fan who wants to see the players I pay and my team not ripped a part then it tends to align more often then not with the players and higher cap and better players is better for FANS ..
I think their should be a Hard Cap for parity purposes, but not for survival purposes .. I say the league is watered down as a result of two many teams in bad markets to boot should be contacted.. Well promoting lost jobs, you can certainly guess the PA would not support me in that opinion.
We are all fans .. I don't care what players get paid, its none of my business and it doesn't effect me .. It would effect me if the Owners came out and said they are taking the money from the players and reducing ticket costs to the fans. But they are saying ticket prices are going to stay the same and we are going to put your money in our pockets and oh and by the way, the CBA is going to force the team to get rid of some of the better players that I pay to see in order to do it. We need to do that so the other team has a better chance to win each game on the ice .. As I fan that is the reason I go to a game to hope the other team wins ..right .. good one ..
I am not a player nor an owner so I have no vested interest in who wins and who losses .. I lose because hockey is in lockout and I can't watch my favourite sport.
What ever it takes to get it back is fine with me ..
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Series Winner Carolina Hurricanes vs NY IslandersWagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes - 3 days from now- Updated:
-