View Single Post
11-14-2012, 04:13 AM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
A number of things skew results to less, most notably fringe NHLers, AHL call ups, and prospects who don't make it but are test driven in the NHL. Most of these players would be earning the same, no matter what happens with the negotiations. When these statistics were collected is a major factor as well.

Most players who will share this pie being fought over have a career that lasts double that, or more.

Scientific research has been done to prove that hockey players hit their prime at the age of 27, and their prime lasts until 32. How that corresponds to points is a side matter, but they don't start declining at 27. Not to mention many players don't take until 27 to hit UFA, and it doesn't matter anyway, because paying on past production is exactly what owners have proven to do and the contracts are guaranteed.

Of course the RFA years hold a benefit. It is years that you get your player and your development money pays off.

That doesn't mean the players don't get paid. Right now, the owners get a 3-year ELC for cheap, and then a lot of players ask for bigger longer-term contracts. They are overpaid in the beginning and underpaid in the end. If we push the ELC back to two years, the owners only get two-years cheap, and the players are separated into two groups.

The first group, the stars, that excel in the first two years, get that big contract one year sooner. They end up making more money overall. The second group, good players that the teams want to re-sign, but did not produce as stars, get a bridge contract for a couple years at a price in between the ELC and what would have been their big contract. And then their 3rd contract would likely be bigger than the big contract they would get under the current system. They end up making the same money overall.

The only thing this does is allow owners to more accurately match production with salaries in any given year. It doesn't hurt the players. It can actually help them if they play well.

I don't know anything about owner options. This change has never really been presented as a non-negotiable part anyway.

No, it would still be 20% of the cap. It would just change with whatever the cap is, as it always has.

Nevertheless, the max has never been hit, so it is irrelevant.

So we have an irrelevant individual cap, and a collective cap that gives the players more jobs and arguably has increased their salaries too.

Obviously there are reasons to further restrict contracts. There are cap-circumvention issues, insurance issues, and just general flexibility that owners need to have when they are handing out guaranteed contracts.
You are overall correct about age 27, but there is a dividing line to which Fugu has directed you. I am aware of the research that you are citing. I have also gone over the numbers personally which supports Fugu's and my position. Defensemen peak later, forwards earlier, goalies later. A team isn't doing itself many favors by grabbing a 27 year old forward as a headliner. He is good for attendance, but performance is very, very rare.

I am also aware of research on males in general that would indicate that reaction times start declining for males after age 18. It isn't extremely noticeable until into the 30s. Males generally don't hit their strength peak until well into their 20s. I was very skeptical of the initial research on hockey players because of this other info. And I also recognize that part of the issue is the learning curve that goes along with the game.

There have been max contracts handed out. Iginla got one, I am not sure about others. Others have received max numbers for some of the years on circumvention type contracts.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote