View Single Post
11-25-2012, 01:40 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Charon View Post
If only most of the fans could afford the same luxury - to retire comfortably at 35 because they don't like their boss.
Well you do have that luxury. All you have to do is become an NHL'er; it's a free country, nothing is stopping you.

I really dont find anything noble about this rather common opinion that the players make so much money that their concerns in this cba should be dismissable and subordinate to our fan desire for uninterrupted tv viewing. Especially on a business board, it's pettiness seems rather out of place and misfocused.

The owners are certainly taking these collectively bargained negotiations very seriously and have hired an army of top lawyers to deal with it. We as fans, at least before, were on pace to contribute about $20 Bil over the next 5 years into a pot of money for them to split. And for Bettman this is all about being able to say:

But i got the bigger half.

The players are forced into making a business decision here, it's not fun. Just surrendering because they make so much money already, is not wise, nor I would suggest how the majority of you would see things if you had worked to put yourself in that situation.

Its definitely understandable though how many fans will feel that way, and so players should probably know that when tweeting. But its not a noble view of fans, its a petty one.

Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Given the NHL's salary structure it's actually the opposite -- if the mean increases more quickly than the median then there are more inequalities, not less.
I did get that backwards didnt i. Im trying to remember the 2004 numbers, they were posted here. The mean salary was about $1.6 or $1.8 mil or something and the median about $1.1. At that time, the top ufa's were signing in a range of Heatley's $7.5 mil to Crosbys $8.7 mil as the top salary as that was the individual player cap at the time. But as the salary cap nearly doubled, the cap hits of the top ufa contracts, often yes because of backdiving risk structures, maintained that level. The effect was to allow what we used to derisively call the Tampa model, of 3 top ufas, being unsustainable, especially without at least a third of your every day roster playing for six figure contracts. But, by maintaining the Crosby ceiling even as the cap doubled, Crosby and Malkin can get some support and the much disparaged Tampa model from the start of the last cba is again very viable. As is a potential return to at least a better chance of maintaining an elite team longer.

It never really seemed to get noticed. But it seemed quite different team building environments between the start and end of the cba because of that. What will happen to these dynamics going forward. With short term no variance contracts, top ufa's will more likely get 5 yr $14 mil contracts or whatever the individual max will be. There is little room for the security/cost trade off. The disparity would more likely return. Is it being accounted for?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote