View Single Post
09-17-2004, 03:13 PM
I in the Eye
Registered User
I in the Eye's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,307
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Everybody already does that. One of the myths perpetrated by the NHL is that different teams value different players differently prior to the date the player becomes a UFA. The benchmark is the salary paid to similar players around the league.
The salary paid to another 'similar' player is just the opinion (suggestion) of the team that paid the salary - at the time the salary was agreed to... Obviously, the team that paid the salary felt that the player was worth the salary at the time- but this neglects the opinion of the other teams as a whole - It also ignores the players 'variable' worth year-to-year... Because Boston felt that Lapointe was worth $5 million at the time of the signing, IMO, this does not imply that the league as a whole feels that Lapointe is worth $5 million... Nor does this imply that Boston thinks that Lapointe is worth $5 million to them now... Therefore, IMO, Lapointe's salary (and other current similar player salaries) shouldn't be the only formal benchmark for which other similar player salaries are based... It should be included - but not the only formal consideration... IMO, in determining player salary, it would be useful for GM's and teams to know what the NHL and the other teams think (as a group) about a given player's value... It would be useful to have a formal player assessment available by the NHL - so that there is the potential for better player salary decisions...

The specific team can choose to ignore this assessment, or use this assessment to help them determine for themselves what the player is worth...

IMO, it's not surpressing wages... The individual team is free to offer the player more (or less) than what the assessment says... The assessment (suggestion) is merely an informational guide... The player agent is free to argue why the 'suggestion' is too low (or over generous - in the cases where the agent feels that the player is being over-valued in the NHL 'suggestion')...

Edit: I'm not suggesting that this type of system would solve the league's problems... I'm just trying to get an idea of what is legal or not (in the current franchisor/franchisee relationship, as currently spelled out in the CBA)... Basically, thinking about how things could possibly work for the owners assuming the 'status quo' - i.e. What could possibly work in what, IMO, is the worst case scenario...

Last edited by I in the Eye: 09-17-2004 at 04:01 PM.
I in the Eye is offline