View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 09:11 PM
  #17
Haj
Registered User
 
Haj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,569
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
I'd like to see that... 'bonus' implies reward for performance that is 'special' - i.e. over and above what is expected.

My 'basic' system would have:

(1) a cap of fixed cost salary... The individual team and the individual player agent negotiate the fixed cost portion of salary... Like they do now, except under a cap system...

(2) a variable cost salary... Each CBA, the NHL and the NHLPA negotiate what percentage of revenue will be allocated to the players when certain team and performance milestones are reached... For example, for a 100 point team, the players get equal share of x% of revenue. For a team that makes the playoffs, the players get equal share of y% of revenue... For a team that wins the Stanley Cup, the players get equal share of z% of revenue... And this is regardless of individual performance... and this is the same percentage across the league...

If an individual player reaches personal milestones, his variable compensation also increases. For example, a 35-40 goal scorer during the season receives an additional a% of revenue generated for the year... a 100-point scorer during the season receives an additional b% of revenue generated for the year...

And personal milestones wouldn't only include individual stats - but roles as well... For example, team captains for the season receive c% of revenue generated...

A lower fixed compensation (which the player is guaranteed)... and a high variable compensation (which is directly dependent on personal and team performance)...

Assume under my system, Todd Bertuzzi has a fixed salary of $5 million... He'll get $5 million regardless of what he does or doesn't do on the ice... However, if he scores 50 goals, 100 points, 10 regular season game winners, the Canucks reach the Stanley Cup final, and Bert wins the playoff MVP reward, while being an assistant captain - he gets $10 million... Next season, he floats, scores 40 points, the Canucks suck, come last in the league - Bert gets $5.3 million... $5 million for his base salary, and $300,000 for being an assistant captain...

IMO, the beauty of this type of system is that the fixed portion of salaries are guaranteed (for both the owners and the players), yet it doesn't 'cap' what the player can earn... The more success and money the team makes, the more money the player makes... The bigger role the individual player has for the success of the team, the more money the player makes...

It rewards performance... and it ensures that if Matt Cooke has an anomoly and scores 40 goals next year - 10 game winners, he gets compensated fairly for his contribution (say $3.5 million instead of $1.2 million)... while NOT disrupting his fixed 'salary'... If Cooke shows that he is a consistent 40 goal scorer, THEN his fixed base salary is adjusted accordingly when his contract is next up for renewal... If this 40 goal season was just a 'one off thing', then his compensation for the following year is back to $1.2 million - assuming other personal and team milestones were not reached)...

This is cost certainty without limiting what the players can earn... when the players deserve to earn it...

An additional benefit is that UFAs (and players in general) will want to go to (or stay with) teams that generate lots of hockey-related revenue and have success... The good teams get a much better chance to get and keep the best players - and IMO, that's how it should be... I'd also have a 'drafted player' individual milestone percentage of revenue... If a drafted player plays with the team that drafted him, he gets d% of revenue... If that player leaves as a free agent, or is traded, he no longer - throughout his career - receives this %... For good teams that draft and grow their own good players, this will help these teams keep their drafted players...

Under this system, players will likely not want to play for poor teams... For the good player on the poor team, sure the base salary and individual performance compensation is nice... However, the base salary, individual performance, and team performance compensation is a lot nicer...

This type of system incorporates a cap, but it DOES NOT limit what the players earn... In fact, it would, for good teams that generate a significant amount of revenue, pay the players significantly more than a guaranteed contract would - IF players perform and ESPECIALLY IF players perform beyond expectations...

IMO, this is an absolute fair system for both sides...

I think this system is brilliant...but I am no accountant-business type guy. Anyone see any potential flaws ?

Haj is offline