Which option would you take as a player

[JTToilinginToronto]

Well sure... I was just saying for those who claim that $85 mil vs. $155 mil isn't really a big difference. OK then, take the $155 mil, donate $70 mil of it to charity and you're left with the $85 mil that you're happy with. Donating $70 mil to help fight cancer/poverty/starvation, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> winning a Stanley Cup in the grand scheme of life.

Literally it's $70M more, but in terms of quality of life, anything you could ever dream of buying, you could do regardless of whether you have $85M or $155M. You're pretty much set for anything you'd want to buy in your life with either option.

The real difference between those wealth levels is whether you value a Cup more or you value allowing your great, great, great grandchildren the option of never having to work more.

 

[Jets012]

I mean, I understand Option 1 is $70 million more. But when you got $85 f'ing million, I legitimately wouldn't care.

So give me Option 2.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Literally it's $70M more, but in terms of quality of life, anything you could ever dream of buying, you could do regardless of whether you have $85M or $155M. You're pretty much set for anything you'd want to buy in your life with either option.

The real difference between those wealth levels is whether you value a Cup more or you value allowing your great, great, great grandchildren the option of never having to work more.

What if you wanted to own a team or something like that? I know even $155 mil won’t get it done but it’s a way better starting point than $85 m

 

[garbageteam]

Yeah, people are thinking of like the house, car and vacations they will travel with 85M. No doubt it would be amazing, but the difference isn't to be discredited.

There are luxury properties that are way nicer, like beyond the scale of what you thought your life could be on the beach fronts of Malibu that go for $60M. "I'll still have $25M left over" good luck maintaining that... mind you you need this money for retirement/rest of your life from age 40-90 too, assuming you won't be taking a day job after a 20 year hockey career.

Private jet charters are in the realm of the Option 1 player, as is yachting, and serious investing. You'd be at some pretty big boy tables with that amount of money, and private banking would take you seriously. Option 2? You'd just be a high net worth individual at your bank given perhaps access to a better set of mutual funds.

Likely your NW wouldn't be either 155M or 85M as it was cumulative over a career. If you factor in taxes and expenditures (being a top hockey player is likely expensive and tough and you'll probably be too busy to clean and cook), and maybe along with compounding interest I could see one really retiring with just 100M in option 1 and 50M in option 2. So there's that.

I honestly expected the results to be a tie on a hockey forum, and the slight imbalance is probably due to not fully recognizing the value and difference between 155M and 85M earnings.

That said, a Cup is forever and you can't buy your way into one. Someone said it best, the camaraderie and memories of being with your friends and teammates in that moment could last you a lifetime to cherish that might be worth more than what you achieve with that extra 70M in retirement.

 

[snipes]

Option 2.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Lots of money and a champion baby.

 

[keglu]

If they payed fairly means that player 1 is by far best of them. I would choose to be best player and make most money.

 

[EXTRAS]

If I'm worth 155 million, it probably also means I'm good enough to play for team Canada, and thus win an Olympic gold medal.

I'd love to win a Stanley Cup, and I'd say as a kid it was one of my dreams. But so was just making the NHL. I think I'd settle for making the NHL and take the extra 70 million for a total 155 million.

There are a ton of other goals you could achieve in the last 50 years of your life with an extra 70 million. And you could also help all your family and best friends to have opportunities to achieve their goals too.

 

[inthewings]

Option 1, and I don't even have to think twice about it.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

For people choosing the $155 million over the $80 million option, you ever wonder why the elite guys leave some money on the table instead of going for league max?

If ridiculous money >>> very good money + championship, you'd think guys like Crosby, McDavid, etc. would all demand the very max under the cap instead of leaving some on the table so the team can improve the rosters of their teams.

 

[Foppberg]

For people choosing the $155 million over the $80 million option, you ever wonder why the elite guys leave some money on the table instead of going for league max?

If ridiculous money >>> very good money + championship, you'd think guys like Crosby, McDavid, etc. would all demand the very max under the cap instead of leaving some on the table so the team can improve the rosters of their teams.

Or they have a much stronger passion for hockey than I ever will.

Gimme those dolla bills.

 

[Thenameless]

What if you wanted to own a team or something like that? I know even $155 mil won’t get it done but it’s a way better starting point than $85 m

It's an interesting point. But, Mario Lemieux has been on both sides, and he says there's no feeling like winning as a player.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Option 1 - Joe Thornton
Option 2 - Steven Stamkos
Option 3 - combine Patrick Maroon with Colin Fraser

Call me Steve !!

 

[SotasicA]

Literally it's $70M more, but in terms of quality of life, anything you could ever dream of buying, you could do regardless of whether you have $85M or $155M. You're pretty much set for anything you'd want to buy in your life with either option.

You'd be surprised.

Like if you want this, it's 19 million dollars:

And of course you want this.

And then you want to buy the exact mansion your wife wants. Damn right you wish you had those extra 70 million dollars. The money goes pretty fast. Just ask Evander Kane.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

You'd be surprised.

Like if you want this, it's 19 million dollars:

And of course you want this.

And then you want to buy the exact mansion your wife wants. Damn right you wish you had those extra 70 million dollars. The money goes pretty fast. Just ask Evander Kane.

If it goes fast at 80 million, it's also going to go fast at 155. At that point, there is no difference. You'll then want a yacht, a plane, your own private island, etc... that's what happens when you are a materialistic person, never happy with what you've got. If you can't control yourself, you'll never have enough money. That's why you have morons like Kane.

 

[Albatros]

It's an interesting point. But, Mario Lemieux has been on both sides, and he says there's no feeling like winning as a player.

Winning it as a player only made him more money though, enabling him to become an owner later on. I'm fairly certain plenty of guys in that roster, too, would have taken extra millions over a cup ring if that was the proposition.

 

[Machinehead]

Option 3 for me.

I don't even know what I would do with 85 or 155 million. I have no desire whatsoever to buy anything that expensive.

15 million is so much more than I'll ever make in my life and more than enough to have everything I want.

 

[Machinehead]

You'd be surprised.

Like if you want this, it's 19 million dollars:

And of course you want this.

And then you want to buy the exact mansion your wife wants. Damn right you wish you had those extra 70 million dollars. The money goes pretty fast. Just ask Evander Kane.

What would I even do with this thing? Am I going to spend $19 million on a car and drive it to the grocery store or to pick up my kids every day?

No, it's going to sit in my garage so I can impress my friends when they come over. If I want to impress my friends, I'll show them my four Stanley Cup rings.

 

[SotasicA]

What would I even do with this thing?

Obviously you need it because your friend, who is also a hockey player, has one. He bought the nicer mansion up the hill, too. He never was the better hockey player, but he always wants to make it seem he was. Proof is that you can't afford the nice things he can.

 

[Connor McConnor]

So to summarize with less words: Make $70 million or win 1 cup? I'll take the $70m

 

[Machinehead]

Obviously you need it because your friend, who is also a hockey player, has one. He bought the nicer mansion up the hill, too. He never was the better hockey player, but he always wants to make it seem he was. Proof is that you can't afford the nice things he can.

This doesn't sound like my friend. It sounds like a competitor.

I'm interested in competing in hockey. I'm not interested in competing in stuff-having.

 

[McFlash97]

1 + 85.

Easy choice.

 

[Kreider Typical]

option 2 and put it all on $gme

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

For people choosing the $155 million over the $80 million option, you ever wonder why the elite guys leave some money on the table instead of going for league max?

If ridiculous money >>> very good money + championship, you'd think guys like Crosby, McDavid, etc. would all demand the very max under the cap instead of leaving some on the table so the team can improve the rosters of their teams.

Family I'd presume.

 

[Thenameless]

Winning it as a player only made him more money though, enabling him to become an owner later on. I'm fairly certain plenty of guys in that roster, too, would have taken extra millions over a cup ring if that was the proposition.

I can agree with that. However, that's not how the original question is presented. It's 85 Million AND a Cup. You kind of win both ways here.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How big of a difference is 1 Stanley cup and 0, let's say you play for 10 years, 1 Stanley cup means you still failed 9 years. The 4 cup option, no thanks. This is a career after all and 15 million is huge downgrade from the other 2 options. I choose option 1.