View Single Post
Old
08-29-2004, 01:31 PM
  #116
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners.
Well, that's the proposal that I support

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.
Not so much a player stock option... but tying 'player compensation' more to a variable cost (as actual player output is 'variable' from season to season) than to a fixed cost... IMO, a variable 'compensation' is more fair and reasonable - given that players cannot guarantee their output from year to year - because the player output is not guaranteed, IMO, neither should their compensation be guaranteed... For example, Naslund cannot absolutely guarantee that he will score 40 goals next season... If he only scores 15 goals next season - IMO, he shouldn't be compensated as if he did score 40 goals... Naslund gets paid a guaranteed high fixed salary (because of his contributions in the past, and his potential to score 40 goals) but the 'variable' compensation he receives is lower because he didn't actually produce the results for the season...

IMO, one of the most frustrating parts of being a business owner is having to pay employees a lot of money when they are not getting the results - or doing the job that they are paid to do... this frustration is compounded when there is another employee who is generating the results, yet he is not being compensated for it...

For example, say Cooke scores 40 goals next season... Because of his contributions in the past he does not have a very high fixed salary (when compared to Naslund's fixed salary)... Yet, he produced over and above expectations and scored 40 goals... IMO, Cooke should be rewarded for this actual output - for the season he scored the 40 goals in - Cooke should receive the compensation that a 40 goal scorer should receive... If from then on out, Cooke proves to be a 40 goal scorer, then the next time his contract is negotiated, his fixed cost salary goes up significantly... If that one 40 goal season was a fluke, not much changes as far as his fixed salary goes - yet he is still compensated fairly and recognized financially for the one 40 goal season that he did achieve...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?
IMO, the premise is that the owner has no idea what the player output will be like from season to season... Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk - and thus pay high quality players high fixed compensation - with the potential to pay the player high variable compensation... IMO, the players also have to absorb some of the risk - after all, the owner is putting faith in him (the individual player) to perform... IMO, it is only fair for the individual players to stand behind the quality of their talent... and thus, absorb some of the risk by accepting (in addition to a fixed compensation) a 'variable' compensation based on actual performance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.
First, I don't consider this an 'incentive based bonus'... but rather a 'variable compensation that rewards what the player accomplished for the season'... and I see the 'fixed' salary as a compensation that rewards what the player has accomplished in the past - and has the potential to accomplish before the season starts...

Performance bonuses would include more than just stats... For example, those three players you mentioned are captains... Team captains (and alternate captains) are team leaders - and thus would be subject to higher compensation - Also, if the player has been a captain for several years with the same team, this would reflect in his 'fixed' compensation - and a higher variable compensation (for example, team captains receive x% of revenue more for the same output that a regular player would receive)- as his importance to the team is presumably higher - given that he is a captain... Things like years with the team, roles the player plays in (i.e. penalty kill, shutdown center, etc.) would play into compensation more than just stats... IMO, it is necessary and imparative to reward 'roles' not just stats... and even with stats - things like '# of times on ice during a game winning goal' are very telling - and IMO, should also count when determining player compensation...


Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team.
Agreed... In fact, I would make 'team achievements' very high variable costs - that apply to all players on the team... After all, the higher the achievements, the more money the franchise makes, and thus, the more money available to pay to the players...

For example,

Assume Todd Bertuzzi's base salary is $5 million (fixed cost - just for being alive and a member of the Vancouver Canucks)... After the season, the Canucks achieved a hundred point season, made the 3rd round of the playoffs, and Bert scored 100 points while being a leader on the team... Bert's compensation for the year - $10 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - as the Canucks generated a lot of money...

Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...

I in the Eye is offline