View Single Post
11-12-2012, 11:33 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,316
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
How did MaxPac get less than he deserved? 4.5M a year for 5 years was it? For scoring 30+Goals once in the NHL?
You totally missed the point, let's try again:

The reason players often get more/less than they deserved is that contracts are signed before production takes place (like in nearly all other industries), and thus pay is based on a projection of points, which can be wrong and are often wrong. Sometimes people disappoint. Sometimes people exceed all expectations.

Pacioretty will be getting 4.5 million a year (modulo rollback and future lockouts) for the seasons 2013-2014 through to 2018-2019. Who know if he will produce more or less than the value of his contract? What we do know is that this past year he scored 35 goals and made 1.5 million i.e. he made less than he deserved. Same with Desharnais, Subban, a few others. That's the way it works.

Therefore, you should not whine about Gomez getting more than he deserves, as it's due to the exact same system that causes players like Pacioretty, Subban, Desharnais, etc to get less than they deserve. You're basically saying that nobody knows how to predict the future, but we should only assign blame/contempt on one side of the error distribution.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I'd say that's more than fair, and it shows you just ridiculous some deals have become.
You have not demonstrated that you understand what sets player value.

Here's a hint, back when there was a free market system players got 72% of revenue. The reason for this is that with better players, you get higher attendance, more expensive attendance, and you get to host home playoff games that bring 2 million dollars in profit each. That's why teams play more for better players.

That is why you endorse high salaries every time you spend money on the game.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, that was their first offer, and everyone knows, you don't accept the first offer. You pitch high, bring it down a bit, little by little finding a just middle.
Right now, the numbers I said stand. Agrees to the rollback, he loses 11M over 13years. Loses the year, loses 11M. Lockout in another 5-6 years? Maybe, maybe not.
If there is one and rollbacks are yet again part of it, I'm pretty sure a clause will be in it that states how contracts that were signed prior to the last CBA (this one) would not be affected by a rollback.
A lockout in five or six years is a near-certainty in the absence of deeper revenue sharing. We're at the third work stoppage under Bettman, think about it.

It's a simple mechanism:
1) Owners get concessions from players. Woohoo millions !!!
2) Owners want to win, they invest the money into better scouting and drafting.
3) Profits go to zero in a competitive economy as is predicted by the economic law of the declining rate of profit.
4) Owners are entitled to profits, and millionaire players have no right to complain, so a new lockout happens.

This is what JUST happened. Aside from being a law of economics, it's an empirical fact. Owners have 176% more (after accounting for player salaries) than they did before the last lockout, yet half of them are losing money? Take a hint.


see also:
In contrast to a monopoly or oligopoly, it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn economic profit in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot make any more money than is necessary to cover its economic costs.

That means the owners will need new concessions from the players in five or six years (a fourth lockout), if we continue on the administrative style of the Bettman lockout cycle.

Last edited by DAChampion: 11-12-2012 at 11:42 PM.
DAChampion is offline