Someone find a hole in this idea...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sanderson

Registered User
Sep 10, 2002
5,676
237
Hamburg, Germany
If you want an incentive-based system, you could try something like this:

The numbers could be higher, they are pretty low now.

base salary:

either
· all players the same ($250,000)
· based on experience (Rookie $0,1, 5-year pro $0,25, 10-year pro $0,5 Mio)
· based on years on the team (new $0,1; 5-years $0,25 and so on)


incentives:

awards:
0,5 Million: Hart, Vezina, Selke, Pearson, Richard, Conn Smythe, Art Ross, Norris, Calder
0,25 Mio: Clancy, Byng, Masterton, +/-

Allstarteams (season end):
1st: 0,25 Mio
2nd: 0,1 Mio
Rookie: 0,1 Mio

player of the month (Off & Def): 0,1 Mio
player of the week: 0,025 Mio

team of the month: 0,025 Mio per player


stats:

players

games: 15= 0,1 ; 25= 0,25 ; 40= 0,4 ; 60= 0,6 ; 80= 0,8
goals: 5= 0,1 ; 10= 0,2 ; 20= 0,4 ; 30= 0,6 ; 40=0,8 ; 50= 1 ; 60=1,2
assists: 5= 0,1 ; 10= 0,2 ; 20= 0,4 ; 30= 0,6 ; 40=0,8 ; 50= 1 ; 60=1,2
points: -----
icetime per game (without sh-icetime): 10min= 0,1 ; 15min= 0,2 ; 20min= 0,4 ; 25min= 0,6
shorthanded icetime per game: 2min= 0,1 ; 3min= 0,2 ; 4min= 0,4 ; 5min= 0,6
shot percentage (25 games): 10%=0,1 ; 12,5%=0,2 ; 15%=0,3 ; 17,5%=0,4 ; 20%=0,5

-----
goalies:

games: 15= 0,25 ; 25= 0,5 ; 40= 0,75 ; 65= 1
wins: 10=0,25 ; 20=0,5 ; 30= 0,75 ; 40= 1
shut outs: 2= 0,1 ; 4= 0,2 ; 6= 0,3 ; 8= 0,4 ; 10= 0,5
save percentage: 89%= 0,2 ; 90%= 0,4 ; 91%= 0,6 ; 92%= 0,8 ; 93%= 1
goals against average: 3,00= 0,1 ; 2,75= 0,2 ; 2,50= 0,4 ; 2,25= 0,6 ; 2,00= 0,8 ; 1,75= 1


This way, every player has a base salary, so no one will leave empty handed.
To reward players who aren't scorers, they will get money for games, icetime and shorthanded icetime.
Awards bring money, maybe you could add incentives for the 2nd and 3rd placed, too.
The best team of the months award gives players to play for something when they don't have anything else left to play for. Take Pittsburgh for example. They finished last season with lots of wins, but were already out of the competition.

As I said, the numbers might be a bit too low, but I had to scale them down, because they were way to high before...
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
AvsGuy said:
...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.

There are so many holes in this proposal that it's hard to figure out where to start, so I won't bother. A terrible, terrible idea.
 

AvsGuy

Hired the wrong DJ again
Sep 13, 2002
10,594
2,738
Regina, SK
Crazy Lunatic said:
There are so many holes in this proposal that it's hard to figure out where to start, so I won't bother. A terrible, terrible idea.

thanks Mr. Constructive Criticism. for leaving well enough alone.

thanks really though, to everyone who explained their side. i can basically see now why this wouldn't work, although i still the idea is more fair to both sides than a salary-based system, but heck, what am i going to do about it.
 

ChemiseBleuHonnete

Registered User
Oct 28, 2002
9,674
0
AvsGuy said:
...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.

flawed logic
 

Strazzobosco

Registered User
Dec 6, 2004
344
1
Fairfax, VA
hmmm. so Darren Langdon would end up making a total of 300,000$ over his career...
it seems you want fighting out of the game, don't you. can't work. not one player would play defense. You'll end up with a team of Pavel Bure's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->