View Single Post
12-03-2003, 01:43 AM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by
a salary cap won't do much of anything, if it's a hard cap then the players making the big bucks now would just laugh at being 'forced' to take a paycut so such and such a team could keep under tha cap, the RFA rule as it stands now is what's killing finances, most rfa's you have to add 10 % to re-sign? ... gimme a break, i can think of a few players who wouldn't be making what they are now, but thanks to that GM's hands' are tied in the sense that they've gotta pay em to field a team
as for ideas, i brought one up awhile back, still think a variation of it could work, but the basic idea is for a base salary type of system, salaries could either be based upon the players age or the number of years they've been in the league
18 - 24 yrs old or 1 - 6 seasons: $400k - 950k base
24 - 33 yrs old or 7 - 15 seasons: $ 950k - 1.85 mil base
34 yrs and up or 15 + seasons: $400k - 3 mil base
add on bonuses/incentives and you've got a financially healthier league, a player doesn't meet his incentives too bad, but he still gets paid his base salary, i would put a cap on bonuses at around 4 or 5 mil if a vetran player thinks he's worth 8 mil then let him prove it, as for the last $$ stat i have, my reasoning is this: a vetran player who's been in the league a decade or more has a full spectrum of $ so as a team wouldn't have to overpay mind you the numbers on either side can be tweaked a little, but i pretty much feel the numbers are fine the way they are, the nhlpa probably wouldn't go for anything like this, but i'd bet the owners would eat it up in a heartbeat
just out of curiousity, say you're the arbitrator for the nhlpa, what would you do to tweak this idea so it would work from both sides, when i first put this up i got some flak for it, but IMO it's a reasonable solution, if a player don't play up to what he says he can play then it's his issue to deal with,
i like your idea, and i think its definitely worth discussion, but if incentives are the engine driving players' take home earnings, then you're basing an awful lot on statistics. i mean, what if joe schmoe knows he gets another million if he can net that 30th goal, and he's nearly got it, so starting around game 75 his passing disappears? and how do you pay for intangibles? pretty tough to have a "lockerroom presence" clause. team goals could be good, though, like if the winner of the stanley cup wins a cash prize to split among the team.
bottom line, however, is that the guys who put up the best numbers aren't necessarily the ones who should be earning the most.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by agentfouser