View Single Post
09-13-2004, 06:57 PM
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,913
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by borro
I'm VERY much for performance clauses.
I have some reservations about them.

If they are individual clauses (goals, +/-, etc...), they may lead to individualistic play, and hockey is such a team game. I know it's a cliché but I really believe it. This can be disruptive in a locker room.

If they are collective ($2,00,000 bonus if you win the cup, $1,00,000 bonus if regular season champ or whatever) they could lead to more pukes like Kariya and Selanne signing up only with strong teams. Thus weak teams might become perpetually weak because who wants to sign with bonus clauses that are collective on a pathetic team?

There are a couple of individual trophies that can probably not affect chemistry much (bonus if you win the Selke for instance) but not many. And these awards are often controversial anyway, and also depend on a strong team. People can say what they want about Lidstrom being the top player in the league, I don['t believe a word of it. The guy's Norris awards are due in great part to his talent but he gets ZERO Norris if he had been on a crappy team.

In principles, clauses should be a solution, but due to hockey's nature, I find this a potential problem. For an owner, financially, I guess the clauses make sense. At the hockey level, coillectively, a coach might find them a pain in the ass.

Vlad The Impaler is offline