View Single Post
10-22-2012, 09:53 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,492
vCash: 152
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Hall doesn't need to be Ovechkin 2.0, his contract is for 6 million dollars a year for 6 years in 2012 cap dollars, not 124 million over 13 years in 2008 cap dollars, the difference is almost double.

I don't see the problem with paying on potential as they're paying on an estimate of future production. If you think their projection model is crap then that's a valid argument, but your argument is actually that they have an inept management team, in my opinion.

No let's compare Taylor Hall to Max Pacioretty in detail. They have comparable offensive performances last year, with comparable goals-to-assists ratio, both benefited from preferential minutes, both play on the left-wing. All that, and Hall is 3 years younger. That's a major advantage. I mean really, if you're a private elementary school, and you have scholarship for one extra pupil, and you have a 7 year-old and an 8 year-old who have demonstrate the same ability, are you not going to give the scholarship to the 7 year-old, on the promise of potential? Achieving the same results at an earlier age is worth a lot.

Concerning value, I'll just say something you probably already know, but I'll say it anyway just in case. Hockey players are not just paid a lot because they're very talented, but also because they're differently talented. I'll say if all hockey players had equal ability they'd probably be making $50,000/year.

Hall and Pacioretty are both left-wings who benefit from easier minutes. They play a similar role. What's the minimum cost of replacement? Let's say take an AHL offensive who only has offensive skills but is not good enough for the NHL (e.g. Nigel Dawes, Aaron Palushaj, etc), let's say he would get 40 points in 80 games in that role, and would play for $500,000. Now let's say your projection model predicts Pacioretty will get 60 points in that role over the time span, and Hall will get 80 points. If that is the case the salary differential should be approximately (80-40)/(60-40) = 100% more salary for Hall. You don't pay NHL players per point, because even a cheap replacement player could produce points in that role. You pay them for the additional production they bring above and beyond that production; value over replacement corresponds to production over replacement.

If this seems counter intuitive, keep in mind that it gives a better mapping for the actual salaries veteran offensive players are paid.


I agree that front-loading is a bigger issue, but I think we will be out of luck as fans come the next CBA.
Actually, his contract is 7 years, not 6. Also, if we're ignoring term and going by total contract then max makes 27 mil in the duration of his contract and Hall makes 42 mil with 1 year more. THAT is almost double.

Don't compare a scholarship to a 42 million dollar deal. I get it though, absolutely, but a stretch nonetheless.

I disagree with your formula. If comparing a player who makes 41 points and a player who makes 45 points the result will end up 5/1. Do you believe this makes sense?

Also, there's no doubt I'm just bored and discussing just to discuss but yes the primary issue is the front loading and backloading. If the NHL can have their way with that and split 50-50 down the middle with the 12.3% deferred as caphits for future years then yes, I'd be pretty happy.

LyricalLyricist is offline