...because i can't, really, and i know it wouldn't work somehow, or else someone else would've thought of it. --- Put NHL players on a wage instead of a salary. This would involve putting players from different positions into different categories, but hear me out. If forwards earned a paltry(!) $75,000 for every point they scored, a 100 point scorer would earn $7.5 million / season. An 85 point scorer would earn $6.375 million / season, and so on. This would have to be adjusted somehow, because it doesn't really take into account defensive forwards, but the premise works. For defensemen, maybe the same points-dollars ratio, as well as $10,000 for every point on their +-. Therefore, a defensive defensemen who only scores 17 points in a season, but who has a +- of +35, will earn $1.625 million / season. Again, reworkings could be done, but its fair. Goaltending could be done something like this: ($5 million x the goalies SV%) - ($1 million x the goalie's GAA) + ($200,000 x the goalies number of SO's). By that formula, a goalie with a .929 SV%, with a 1.85 GAA and 8 shutouts, would earn $4.395 million / season. Bottom line: anyone who is unsatisfied with the above salaries is too greedy to be deserving of life. NHL players are not Gods, they are employees, and they make good money. They would still earn good money by this system, if they wanted it bad enough, and this would help eliminate the problem of lazy players. It would also eliminate "salary dump" trades, and it would prevent owners from having to pay injured players. Tough luck for injured players, by the way. That's how it is. The downside is that teams with lots of good players would be shelling out a fairly high amount of money in wages. But the likelihood is that a good team would sell out games, and be able to pay those wages. Whereas bad teams would correspondingly not have as high scorers, and therefore a lower payroll. ??? Anyways, tell me where I'm wrong, because this sounds pretty good to me.