View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 09:56 AM
  #479
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
It's not me not understanding, it's me not agreeing with your take.
I don't think MaxPac got paid less than he deserved. He was having an interesting season but got his head destroyed. 1.5M was more than enough for a guy that played 37 games. Based on his previous seasons, he hadn't earned that much.
He did great work and got rewarded for it. That's how it works every where. You get paid for your past experience and your future potential. It's not just about your potential.
No company will give out huge salaries to employees without them having earned experience elsewhere and proven themselves to be a valuable addition to the companies after being interviewed (on more than one occasion).
I'm not whining about Gomez making more than he deserved. You're the one that said players end up losing money because of rollbacks and a possible future other lockout. I said there's plenty of players in the NHL that don't deserve their salaries, and there's a much higher number of players undeserving of their contracts than some that are underpaid. The only underpaid players are the young stars coming in that are unproven, and that's arguable because it's either their first or second deals, no need for them to be making huge amount of cash right off the bat.
You prove your worth and potential, then get paid for it. That's how it works.
A lot more players making more than they should than players making less than they should. No question about that. If you think otherwise, we can stop talking about it as we'll never agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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.
Right, and performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendenc...profit_to_fall

see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Profit
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.
I really don't get what's so hard to understand here. You're too busy trying to sound smart that you forget the most simple things.
No, this does not guarantee a lockout. This only means that negotiations will need to happen again. A lockout means no agreement will be reached before the start of the season and they start cancelling camp+games. The only thing you have to base yourself on is that Bettman went through some before, but in no way does that guarantee a work stoppage.
You assume that the renegotiation of a future CBA six years from now automatically means work stoppage. It doesn't. Simple as that.

You can fire Bettman next year for all I care. Who knows what happens within 6 years. Time will tell.

Kriss E is offline