HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2012, 12:17 AM
  #926
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
So? Who guaranteed profits for the owners? No one, ever. The owners know they sign guaranteed contracts. Your argument has no bearing on this discussion.



His point is actually not true.

Owners are guaranteed 43% of revenue, just like the players are guaranteed 57% of revenue. They get exactly the same guarantee, and the same responsibility to grow the game.



You won't need 30 billion any more either, because no one will watch the NHL. You win both ways.



If you value the strength, skill and beauty of hockey so little, why bother getting frustrated here?



The market value of new excellent young players will rise to match the market value of current players, thus creating the same problem in ten years that we have now, and we'll have to watch a bad league for 7 years while they develop. Otherwise, good solution.



As well they should.



I buy this. Which is why I prefer option 1 of the 2 options I suggested above: Much higher revenue sharing.

The option I do not buy is lowering the natural market value of players in order to help badly run teams, or teams in bad markets.

This is in fact what this entire thread, and the lockout, is really about.

And I should add: The natural market value of players cannot be lowered artificially over time, and the NHL is idiotic to think they can achieve this. If the NHL becomes a league that does not pay market value for its talent, it will inevitably fail, and another league will provide the talent, and pay it accordingly.
Thanks again to the Mods for summarizing my Hong Kong based replies. Sorry guys, I was at a lunch party and distracted, multi quote was difficult. You guys are stars, as are all the posters here. GO. HABS. I hope we see them this year guys and girls.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 12:32 AM
  #927
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I disagree, we're seeing too many young players demand UFA type contracts when they have only 1 year sample of success. I don't like it. You pay on potential and not actual ability.

As an RFA subban should get 3.5-4 I guess. As a UFA he gets 5.5. Do you think he should get 5.5 now? Seems off IMO.
I agree with LL on this one. Evident superior performance, over at least 3 seasons, should be the minimum requirement for generous contracts.

Though I believe DA is correct as well. A 22 year old who scores 40 goals should not be penalized because of his young age.

And another troubling fact: In almost all other professions, the trend is to over reward young guns,and torch anyone over 50. Ageism is a serious problem in Law, Advertising, Media, Architecture, Engineering, Insurance, and Finance. There is a dangerous trust in youth, and a disrespect and undervaluing of experience.

I'm torn on this question.

The conclusion might be that the NHL is increasingly a young, very young, man's game. Fine, if that's what the fans want. I'm not so sure...

Watching Mark Messier at 33 carry the Rags to the cup, or Nick L at age 39 laugh at stupid rookies while playing beautiful hockey, or Bo Gainey and Big bird, well into their 'dark thirties' virtually coach the team, and play superb hockey, to win the cup in 86, tells me the NHL should be careful about over rewarding the young guns.


Last edited by bsl: 10-22-2012 at 12:40 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 12:58 AM
  #928
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Good post LL. And no, I disagree entirely with players receiving a share of money for any revenue or rebates from governments, or from other teams in revenue sharing. Players should only receive money from:

1: Team owners, paid directly to the player.

2: Fans, by way of TV, radio, internet, gate, food and beverage, and merchandise revenues and:

3. Corporations that pay the player, or the NHLPA, to promote their products or services.
Funny enough, someone linked me to the CBA where it is actually part of the CBA. You believe that? The NHL and NHLPA negotiated that if a government or public entity gives a subsidy for 'operational costs' and not 'building costs' it counts as HRR. I find it very strange, but it counts as operational revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I agree with LL on this one. Evident superior performance, over at least 3 seasons, should be the minimum requirement for generous contracts.

Though I believe DA is correct as well. A 22 year old who scores 40 goals should not be penalized because of his young age.

And another troubling fact: In almost all other professions, the trend is to over reward young guns,and torch anyone over 50. Ageism is a serious problem in Law, Advertising, Media, Architecture, Engineering, Insurance, and Finance. There is a dangerous trust in youth, and a disrespect and undervaluing of experience.

I'm torn on this question.

The conclusion might be that the NHL is increasingly a young, very young, man's game. Fine, if that's what the fans want. I'm not so sure...

Watching Mark Messier at 33 carry the Rags to the cup, or Nick L at age 39 laugh at stupid rookies while playing beautiful hockey, or Bo Gainey and Big bird, well into their 'dark thirties' virtually coach the team, and play superb hockey, to win the cup in 86, tells me the NHL should be careful about over rewarding the young guns.
See it depends entirely on who we're talking about. Sidney Crosby? Alright. Malkin? Sure. However, even our very own Carey Price got a premium. Granted, he has more than 1 year of success and this is his 3rd contract but even some feel he hasn't truly 3established himself at that pay rate just yet. I personally don't mind the contract given the market but just saying he's borderline to some.

When we look at guys like pacioretty, 4.5 is fair to me. When I look at someone like Hall, who pacioretty out scored goals and points wise, we see a nice 6 mil per for 7 years where this is even less taxes(Alberta). This is normal because....? Sure he has value to that 'market' and this is not about players should be making less or more as in the end you still gotta surpass the floor. It just seems strange to pay up so soon. Making ELCs longer or other slight tweaks only helps that player prove his worth and actually earn the contract.

Does it mean no young player deserves the money? Hell no, that's not it at all. For instance, Matt Duchene was excellent but had a bad year, he got 3.5 mil per year for 2 years. Seems fair to me, they say prove yourself over next 2 years and you get your payday. Other guys get 6 mil after 1 good year. It's too much. I don't blame NHL for saying let's control this a bit but we'll shell out same amount per year total.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:34 AM
  #929
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
I estimated 2 or 3 years for the majority of fans, not 7. And the market for young studs is regulated with entry level contracts and RFA status, so no it would not cost the same.

Yes the same problem would rise in 8 years but the players would probably be smarter by then and take the 50/50 deal. Why? Because they would get cut again.

The fact that the players reject the current deal by saying it is LIKE a cut in current salaries... Well it isn't since the contracts are GARENTEED, even if the paiement can be done over a few years. (they still get the money)

How in hell can the players say the want the league to work, understand that some teams lose money, get a deal that garantees the current salaries and still say no???

I also agree that transfer fees and expansion fees should not be in HRR. Those fees are related to franchising, not hockey. And they aren't a regular source of income. I see it as a small bonus owners can get. The players get the bonus of NEW jobs when a new team comes in.
Your argument and logic are good. Let me suggest however that with your model you are asking for a league that renews itself every eight years by eliminating older and experienced players, and their deserved big contracts, in order for the owners to save money.

If we think about it, with your model, and exaggerating of course, in the last 60 years would never have had:

Johnnie Bower in his thirties, and forties.
Jaques Plante in his thirties.
Larry Robinson in his thirties.
Bob Gainey in his thirties.
Gordie Howe in his thirties, forties or 50's.
Mark Messier in his thirties.
Nick Lidstrom in his thirties.
Mark Recchi in his thirties, and forties.
Guy Carbonneau in his thirties.
Doug Harvey in his thirties.
Jean Beliveau in his thirties.
Yvan Cournoyer in his thirties.
Jaques Lemaire in his thirties.
Chris Chelios in his thirties.
Mike Modano in his thirties.
Joe Sakic in his thirties.
Brett Hull in his thirties.
Ray Bourque in his thirties.
Brad Park in his thirties.
Gump Worsely in his thirties.
Jean Ratelle in his thirties.
Johnny Bucyk in his thirties.
Wayne Gretzky in his thirties.
Edit: ****, forgot my favorite: Stevie Y.

Many of these payers were not compensated properly for the wonderful hockey they played. That is in the past as it should be.

Of course, these are all stars, and you could argue that lesser players over thirty could be replaced by cheaper younger players. But how do you know that players such as those above would not also be replaced, in a model of cheap and young NHL players? I'm not gonna bet my house on it.

Further, I think the NHL is a superb league in large part because the 'older' players have so much to teach the younger ones. The quality of play that I pay to watch is superb by all players, because of this teaching. I gladly pay for this experience also, becuse I get the best hockey I can ever see due to it.

What will we miss in the future of Hockey if we allow owners to eliminate older players because their experience and age call for the high compensation they deserve?

We'll miss the very best of Hockey.

NHL hockey players are expensive. It is a fact, and there is no use denying it. If you want to see hockey played at the highest and most intelligent levels, and you cannot, look to the owners in this lockout, not the players.


Last edited by bsl: 10-22-2012 at 01:49 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:38 AM
  #930
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
I agree with LL on this one. Evident superior performance, over at least 3 seasons, should be the minimum requirement for generous contracts.

Though I believe DA is correct as well. A 22 year old who scores 40 goals should not be penalized because of his young age.

And another troubling fact: In almost all other professions, the trend is to over reward young guns,and torch anyone over 50. Ageism is a serious problem in Law, Advertising, Media, Architecture, Engineering, Insurance, and Finance. There is a dangerous trust in youth, and a disrespect and undervaluing of experience.

I'm torn on this question.

The conclusion might be that the NHL is increasingly a young, very young, man's game. Fine, if that's what the fans want. I'm not so sure...

Watching Mark Messier at 33 carry the Rags to the cup, or Nick L at age 39 laugh at stupid rookies while playing beautiful hockey, or Bo Gainey and Big bird, well into their 'dark thirties' virtually coach the team, and play superb hockey, to win the cup in 86, tells me the NHL should be careful about over rewarding the young guns.
As much as the NHL discriminates against young players with the ridiculous offer sheet compensations, it also discriminates against older players with the age 35 retirement rule.

Both are foolish. The priority should be to give comparable compensation for comparable performance.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-22-2012 at 01:47 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 01:44 AM
  #931
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
When we look at guys like pacioretty, 4.5 is fair to me. When I look at someone like Hall, who pacioretty out scored goals and points wise, we see a nice 6 mil per for 7 years where this is even less taxes(Alberta).
Honestly, would you not trade Pacioretty for Hall straight up?

Hall's points per game is already higher than Pacioretty's, though they agree within the margin of error, however Hall is 3 years younger. That gives a higher projection for Hall's performance over the next six or seven years. I'll note that all salaries are based on potential as salaries are determined before the work is done.

Taxes should not be relevant. Hall's salary is not going to be adjusted downward or upward if he gets traded to another jurisdiction, and for that matter, the salary cap is not adjusted by jurisdiction for income tax purposes.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:00 AM
  #932
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Honestly, would you not trade Pacioretty for Hall straight up?

Hall's points per game is already higher than Pacioretty's, though they agree within the margin of error, however Hall is 3 years younger. That gives a higher projection for Hall's performance over the next six or seven years. I'll note that all salaries are based on potential as salaries are determined before the work is done.

Taxes should not be relevant. Hall's salary is not going to be adjusted downward or upward if he gets traded to another jurisdiction, and for that matter, the salary cap is not adjusted by jurisdiction for income tax purposes.
I don't think Hall would turn into ovechkin 2.0 as oil fans would like to believe. His style leaves me to believe he'll be injured more often than people in edmonton would admit.

That being said, I probably would, but they aren't getting paid the same either. I don't think Hall is 33% better(6/4.5) than Pacioretty at this point although it's realistic to think he will be. Am I willing to put in that assumption on a 7 year deal? Given the market I guess I would have no choice but I've openly stated if someone would give Subban enough to warrant 4 1st round picks I would say goodbye to subban and his now inflated salary and/or term.

The argument isn't whether Hall will be worth that much or not. The argument is whether he is. Is Hall a 6 million a year player? Yes or no. The answer is no IMO. They paid on potential. James neal hit 40 goals and ppg and got 5 mil per. Hall who hasn't hit 30 goals or 55 points is worth 6 mil per year and a term of 7 years? nah.

Take for instance, Logan Couture, similar output to Hall but not the same potential. 2 time 30 goal scorer making 2.875 mil on a 2 year deal after his first 30 goal season. Matt Duchene making 3.5 per for 2 years after 3 years in the league. Taylor hall, somewhat close to PPG over 75% of the season(25% missed due to injuries). Not significantly better than Couture but making more than double and a contract 3.5 times as long. Makes sense. Know why? Paid on potential. Paid on the buzz of being a 1st overall pick. Its not to say he won't make edmonton money but that's the market and it needs to be slowed down just a tiny bit.

Some players are taking more than fair deals, pacioretty, couture, duchene, etc... Others are cashing in after 1 good year.

Besides, this isn't really my biggest issue. I'm more against front loading as it's an unfair advantage to those who have more money and can circumvent the cap. Things like fixing 2nd contracts are really not do or die for me. It's so hard to fix to begin with because someone's gonna pay. I figure as long as the contract structure doesn't circumvent the cap I can live with it.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:48 AM
  #933
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I don't think Hall would turn into ovechkin 2.0 as oil fans would like to believe. His style leaves me to believe he'll be injured more often than people in edmonton would admit.

That being said, I probably would, but they aren't getting paid the same either. I don't think Hall is 33% better(6/4.5) than Pacioretty at this point although it's realistic to think he will be. Am I willing to put in that assumption on a 7 year deal? Given the market I guess I would have no choice but I've openly stated if someone would give Subban enough to warrant 4 1st round picks I would say goodbye to subban and his now inflated salary and/or term.

The argument isn't whether Hall will be worth that much or not. The argument is whether he is. Is Hall a 6 million a year player? Yes or no. The answer is no IMO. They paid on potential. James neal hit 40 goals and ppg and got 5 mil per. Hall who hasn't hit 30 goals or 55 points is worth 6 mil per year and a term of 7 years? nah.

Take for instance, Logan Couture, similar output to Hall but not the same potential. 2 time 30 goal scorer making 2.875 mil on a 2 year deal after his first 30 goal season. Matt Duchene making 3.5 per for 2 years after 3 years in the league. Taylor hall, somewhat close to PPG over 75% of the season(25% missed due to injuries). Not significantly better than Couture but making more than double and a contract 3.5 times as long. Makes sense. Know why? Paid on potential. Paid on the buzz of being a 1st overall pick. Its not to say he won't make edmonton money but that's the market and it needs to be slowed down just a tiny bit.

Some players are taking more than fair deals, pacioretty, couture, duchene, etc... Others are cashing in after 1 good year.

Besides, this isn't really my biggest issue. I'm more against front loading as it's an unfair advantage to those who have more money and can circumvent the cap. Things like fixing 2nd contracts are really not do or die for me. It's so hard to fix to begin with because someone's gonna pay. I figure as long as the contract structure doesn't circumvent the cap I can live with it.
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.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 04:08 AM
  #934
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
I'll rephrase what I wrote with a series of questions (to be followed by an answer in a few posts), in order to simplify the mathematical argument I put down before.

1) Do you agree that 4.5 milion per for six years is approximately fair value for Pacioretty going forward? (Yes/No)
2) Do you agree that given their roles, Hall and Pacioretty are natural comparables in terms of production/salary? (Yes/No)
3) If an AHL offensive player (e.g. Corey Locke, Aaron Palushaj, etc) were given that privileged offensive role for $500,000, how many points do you think he would produce over 82 games? Let's ignore goals-to-assists ratio for the sake of simplification.
4) What's your projection for what you think Pacioretty will average per 82 games over that time frame?
5) What's your projection for what you think Hall will average per 82 games over that time frame?

Answering yes to the first two questions, and giving a number to questions 3,4,5 is enough to derive a salary for Hall, ignoring injuries.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-22-2012 at 04:14 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 08:16 AM
  #935
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'll rephrase what I wrote with a series of questions (to be followed by an answer in a few posts), in order to simplify the mathematical argument I put down before.

1) Do you agree that 4.5 milion per for six years is approximately fair value for Pacioretty going forward? (Yes/No)
YES.
Quote:
2) Do you agree that given their roles, Hall and Pacioretty are natural comparables in terms of production/salary? (Yes/No)
Hmm. Not really. I think Pacioretty is a good player and top line winger on a team level, but the Oilers will be hoping expecting that Hall is more of league-level star.
Quote:
3) If an AHL offensive player (e.g. Corey Locke, Aaron Palushaj, etc) were given that privileged offensive role for $500,000, how many points do you think he would produce over 82 games? Let's ignore goals-to-assists ratio for the sake of simplification.
Not so sure about Palushaj, say, but others like Locke, Aucoin, Conacher, whatnot, would probably be point-per-game NHLers in the league where they were given such privileged offensive roles.
Quote:
4) What's your projection for what you think Pacioretty will average per 82 games over that time frame?
65.
Quote:
5) What's your projection for what you think Hall will average per 82 games over that time frame?
81.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 09:53 AM
  #936
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
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  
Old
10-22-2012, 10:15 AM
  #937
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'll rephrase what I wrote with a series of questions (to be followed by an answer in a few posts), in order to simplify the mathematical argument I put down before.

1) Do you agree that 4.5 milion per for six years is approximately fair value for Pacioretty going forward? (Yes/No)
2) Do you agree that given their roles, Hall and Pacioretty are natural comparables in terms of production/salary? (Yes/No)
3) If an AHL offensive player (e.g. Corey Locke, Aaron Palushaj, etc) were given that privileged offensive role for $500,000, how many points do you think he would produce over 82 games? Let's ignore goals-to-assists ratio for the sake of simplification.
4) What's your projection for what you think Pacioretty will average per 82 games over that time frame?
5) What's your projection for what you think Hall will average per 82 games over that time frame?

Answering yes to the first two questions, and giving a number to questions 3,4,5 is enough to derive a salary for Hall, ignoring injuries.
1) Yes

2) Somewhat, Hall being better

3) Depends who. An offensive AHL player named Desharnais did better than that. Unless we're referring to AHL fixtures but even then it is kind of a loaded argument. "Let's look at guys who aren't NHL likely, but if they make it, lets remove them off the sample". Guys like Ryder make 30+ goals usually and we're supposed to make it so it entirely depends.

4) 60-65 points

5) 70-75 over a full season

Now, this is ignoring injuries that may occur to both. Difference is, max hit that total and I'm assuming he won't improve and he's capped. In the case of Hall(and reasonably so) we're assuming he'll continue to improve and he hasn't earned that money just yet. So the comparison is very much loaded in conservatism in regards to max and he's worth the cash. In regards to Hall it's assumptions, forecasting and potential which are the driving force for such a deal. Otherwise hall is worth 4.5 mil.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 10:52 AM
  #938
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'll rephrase what I wrote with a series of questions (to be followed by an answer in a few posts), in order to simplify the mathematical argument I put down before.

1) Do you agree that 4.5 milion per for six years is approximately fair value for Pacioretty going forward? (Yes/No)
2) Do you agree that given their roles, Hall and Pacioretty are natural comparables in terms of production/salary? (Yes/No)
3) If an AHL offensive player (e.g. Corey Locke, Aaron Palushaj, etc) were given that privileged offensive role for $500,000, how many points do you think he would produce over 82 games? Let's ignore goals-to-assists ratio for the sake of simplification.
4) What's your projection for what you think Pacioretty will average per 82 games over that time frame?
5) What's your projection for what you think Hall will average per 82 games over that time frame?

Answering yes to the first two questions, and giving a number to questions 3,4,5 is enough to derive a salary for Hall, ignoring injuries.
#6) will Hall ever play 80 games in a season?
#7) do you think that, whatever you project him to be, he'll become than within two or three years?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 02:24 PM
  #939
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I'll rephrase what I wrote with a series of questions (to be followed by an answer in a few posts), in order to simplify the mathematical argument I put down before.

1) Do you agree that 4.5 milion per for six years is approximately fair value for Pacioretty going forward? (Yes/No)YES
2) Do you agree that given their roles, Hall and Pacioretty are natural comparables in terms of production/salary? (Yes/No)YES
3) If an AHL offensive player (e.g. Corey Locke, Aaron Palushaj, etc) were given that privileged offensive role for $500,000, how many points do you think he would produce over 82 games? Let's ignore goals-to-assists ratio for the sake of simplification.Depends upon the player. Too hard to honestly say. Far too many AHL guys looked like gold and didn't do well at the NHL level, while others looked like brass and overachieved.
4) What's your projection for what you think Pacioretty will average per 82 games over that time frame?I actually believe Pacioretty CAN get better and hit 70-75 points. Overall, I see him being a 65-75 point per 82 game season player through the peak years of his career.
5) What's your projection for what you think Hall will average per 82 games over that time frame? If healthy, I can see him doing 70-85 points per season, to be fair.

Answering yes to the first two questions, and giving a number to questions 3,4,5 is enough to derive a salary for Hall, ignoring injuries. You should not ignore them.
I would also answer the following 2 questions:

#6) will Hall ever play 80 games in a season? I don't think so. He is going to have to change his body or the way he plays if he wants to avoid recurring injuries. He can be great, but he seems to be the kind of guy who will get hurt because he will push his body past its limits to try and succeed at a play that leaves him vulnerable.
#7) do you think that, whatever you project him to be, he'll become than within two or three years? I don't see him hitting 70+ points in the next couple of seasons. Depending upon the kinds of injuries he sustains during that time, he may or may not achieve those point totals in later seasons of his career.


I honestly do not think Hall should have gotten the kind of money the Oilers tossed at him at this point in his career. The Oilers over spent on a player with tons of potential, without having shown anything other than potential. I know a lot of people use statistics to try and prove that someone who scored 40 points in 50 games is going to be an 80 point player (I am using loose number to make a point, please focus on the point, not the incorrect math), but that is not realistic in all cases. Look at AK. He had stretches of a season where everyone thought he would become a 30-40 goal scorer. He has never done it, though. We can all assume Hall will be a 70-85 point man, but he sure as heck shouldn't have been paid like one before ever even breaking 60 points! The Oilers should have tried to get him in at Pacioretty levels for a shorter term contract to see if Hall's durability can sustain a full season and to see if he actually breaks the 60 point mark with his current team.

Sorry for jumping into your conversation, but it is a fun one I just had to speak towards. Feel free to ignore me.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:24 PM
  #940
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
1) Yes

2) Somewhat, Hall being better

3) Depends who. An offensive AHL player named Desharnais did better than that. Unless we're referring to AHL fixtures but even then it is kind of a loaded argument. "Let's look at guys who aren't NHL likely, but if they make it, lets remove them off the sample". Guys like Ryder make 30+ goals usually and we're supposed to make it so it entirely depends.

4) 60-65 points

5) 70-75 over a full season

Now, this is ignoring injuries that may occur to both. Difference is, max hit that total and I'm assuming he won't improve and he's capped. In the case of Hall(and reasonably so) we're assuming he'll continue to improve and he hasn't earned that money just yet. So the comparison is very much loaded in conservatism in regards to max and he's worth the cash. In regards to Hall it's assumptions, forecasting and potential which are the driving force for such a deal. Otherwise hall is worth 4.5 mil.
I can't derive a contract value for Hall if you don't state what you think the $500,000 "AHL player" would get in that role.

The idea is that let's say there's a plethora of $500,000 players who can easily get 40 points in that role (you might believe it's 30 or 50 points), that means the first 40 points only gets you $500,000 in pay (because "anybody" can do that role), and you only make real money (in player terms) for production above that (because that's "specialized" labor).

But anyway, let's assume you think 40 like I wrote in my original post, that is, there's a ton of cheap replacement players out there ready to come in and get 40 points, then the first 40 points are worth $500,000.

You write that 63 points for Pacioretty is worth 4.5 million, that means an extra 23 points above replacement buys you an extra 4 million in salary.

You then write that Hall will get 73 points, 33 points above replacement. So the salary above replacement is: 33/23*4 = 5.74 million in salary for points 41 through 73, add in the $500,000 for points 1 through 40 and in your estimation Hall is worth 6.24 million per year.

This approximation does not account for:

1) Other contributions than points such as playing on the PK, hitting, forechecking, as I'm not sure what Hall can do in those situations. This is partly because I'm not sure how to account for them, and partly because I'm not sure what Hall can do.
2) Injury probability. Both players have already had one concussion and are thus both high-risk imo.
3) The fact Hall's contract ends at age 29 (goes through 7 years), and Pacioretty's contract ends at age 31 (goes through 6 years).
4) Cap appreciation/depreciation, which is zero in this case as they signed the contract in the same manner, but would otherwise cause significant swing.

You discuss potential and risk, but you projected Hall as being a 73 point player. If you were going by potential alone you would have said 80-90 points I think. You're already accounting for risk when stating 73 points.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:25 PM
  #941
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
YES.

Hmm. Not really. I think Pacioretty is a good player and top line winger on a team level, but the Oilers will be hoping expecting that Hall is more of league-level star.

Not so sure about Palushaj, say, but others like Locke, Aucoin, Conacher, whatnot, would probably be point-per-game NHLers in the league where they were given such privileged offensive roles.

65.

81.
????

If you think Pacioretty can get 65 points in that role, how would Locke and Conacher be point-per-game?

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:26 PM
  #942
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
#6) will Hall ever play 80 games in a season?
#7) do you think that, whatever you project him to be, he'll become than within two or three years?
As the pretend-GM, you have to make a projection of what Hall will become, otherwise you have no idea what to sign him for.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-22-2012 at 03:36 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 03:35 PM
  #943
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I would also answer the following 2 questions:

#6) will Hall ever play 80 games in a season? I don't think so. He is going to have to change his body or the way he plays if he wants to avoid recurring injuries. He can be great, but he seems to be the kind of guy who will get hurt because he will push his body past its limits to try and succeed at a play that leaves him vulnerable.
#7) do you think that, whatever you project him to be, he'll become than within two or three years? I don't see him hitting 70+ points in the next couple of seasons. Depending upon the kinds of injuries he sustains during that time, he may or may not achieve those point totals in later seasons of his career.


I honestly do not think Hall should have gotten the kind of money the Oilers tossed at him at this point in his career. The Oilers over spent on a player with tons of potential, without having shown anything other than potential. I know a lot of people use statistics to try and prove that someone who scored 40 points in 50 games is going to be an 80 point player (I am using loose number to make a point, please focus on the point, not the incorrect math), but that is not realistic in all cases. Look at AK. He had stretches of a season where everyone thought he would become a 30-40 goal scorer. He has never done it, though. We can all assume Hall will be a 70-85 point man, but he sure as heck shouldn't have been paid like one before ever even breaking 60 points! The Oilers should have tried to get him in at Pacioretty levels for a shorter term contract to see if Hall's durability can sustain a full season and to see if he actually breaks the 60 point mark with his current team.

Sorry for jumping into your conversation, but it is a fun one I just had to speak towards. Feel free to ignore me.
I also think that a lot of GMs signed long-term deals due to uncertainty over CBA negotiations. This was a collective behavior around the league and is thus probably justified.

You wrote a fairly big range for Hall, 70-85 points, and obviously if he had signed a 2-year, 4.5 million per year contract the range would have probably dropped at the end, increasing the odds of a fair deal. However, the GM had to weigh the risk versus the risk of a new CBA going in a direction he doesn't like.

Also, it's a 7-year contract. He might be overpaid next year, but by the 7th year, which is actually in 8 seasons, so 2020-2021, he might be severely underpaid at 6 million per year. He'll be 29 years and in his prime, and if you factor in a conservative 3% annual growth in the cap his salary will be 23% depreciated by the end of his contract relative to his peers.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 07:26 PM
  #944
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I can't derive a contract value for Hall if you don't state what you think the $500,000 "AHL player" would get in that role.

The idea is that let's say there's a plethora of $500,000 players who can easily get 40 points in that role (you might believe it's 30 or 50 points), that means the first 40 points only gets you $500,000 in pay (because "anybody" can do that role), and you only make real money (in player terms) for production above that (because that's "specialized" labor).

But anyway, let's assume you think 40 like I wrote in my original post, that is, there's a ton of cheap replacement players out there ready to come in and get 40 points, then the first 40 points are worth $500,000.

You write that 63 points for Pacioretty is worth 4.5 million, that means an extra 23 points above replacement buys you an extra 4 million in salary.

You then write that Hall will get 73 points, 33 points above replacement. So the salary above replacement is: 33/23*4 = 5.74 million in salary for points 41 through 73, add in the $500,000 for points 1 through 40 and in your estimation Hall is worth 6.24 million per year.

This approximation does not account for:

1) Other contributions than points such as playing on the PK, hitting, forechecking, as I'm not sure what Hall can do in those situations. This is partly because I'm not sure how to account for them, and partly because I'm not sure what Hall can do.
2) Injury probability. Both players have already had one concussion and are thus both high-risk imo.
3) The fact Hall's contract ends at age 29 (goes through 7 years), and Pacioretty's contract ends at age 31 (goes through 6 years).
4) Cap appreciation/depreciation, which is zero in this case as they signed the contract in the same manner, but would otherwise cause significant swing.

You discuss potential and risk, but you projected Hall as being a 73 point player. If you were going by potential alone you would have said 80-90 points I think. You're already accounting for risk when stating 73 points.
Bold, so you're saying Hall HIT 73 points? That's the discussion here. Some feel Eller has be a 2nd line center or better. Is he worth 4 mil per or more then? Subban has potential to be an elite d-man, should he get 6-6.5 per? That's the question here. Hall hasn't done it yet.

Now, in regards to his 70-75 points, no, it was not with risk. You said over an 82game season. In reality, I see Hall hitting 60-65 per over whatever time he plays.

My projection is fairly simple. Hall is a LW. The top scoring LW in the game last year was ilya kovalchuk who is supremely stronger and more talented than Hall and he hit 83 points. 75 points would've made him the 4th most productive LW in the NHL. This is me including risk? LW and RW combined he'd be a top 9 winger in the game with 75 points. Risk and injury included 75 points was a very nice gesture on my part.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 10:56 PM
  #945
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Interesting post. It shows the value of points gained over the mean scoring level of the league is likely non linear. This seems intuitively true. 40 points are fairly 'easy' to get, 80 are almost impossible. Yet it's only 'twice' the points. Salaries for players projected at 70 points or more, over many seasons, would therefore be much higher.

I think the real argument here is about projection, not pay. Will Hall produce 70-80 points a season the next 6 years? Probably, based on his evident skill, size and adaptation to the NHL game so far. Still, it is a risk. I think these risky decisions should be allowed however. Especially as it helps the small market teams predict cost, and keep their young guns.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 11:12 PM
  #946
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Your argument and logic are good. Let me suggest however that with your model you are asking for a league that renews itself every eight years by eliminating older and experienced players, and their deserved big contracts, in order for the owners to save money.

If we think about it, with your model, and exaggerating of course, in the last 60 years would never have had:

Johnnie Bower in his thirties, and forties.
Jaques Plante in his thirties.
Larry Robinson in his thirties.
Bob Gainey in his thirties.
Gordie Howe in his thirties, forties or 50's.
Mark Messier in his thirties.
Nick Lidstrom in his thirties.
Mark Recchi in his thirties, and forties.
Guy Carbonneau in his thirties.
Doug Harvey in his thirties.
Jean Beliveau in his thirties.
Yvan Cournoyer in his thirties.
Jaques Lemaire in his thirties.
Chris Chelios in his thirties.
Mike Modano in his thirties.
Joe Sakic in his thirties.
Brett Hull in his thirties.
Ray Bourque in his thirties.
Brad Park in his thirties.
Gump Worsely in his thirties.
Jean Ratelle in his thirties.
Johnny Bucyk in his thirties.
Wayne Gretzky in his thirties.
Edit: ****, forgot my favorite: Stevie Y.

Many of these payers were not compensated properly for the wonderful hockey they played. That is in the past as it should be.

Of course, these are all stars, and you could argue that lesser players over thirty could be replaced by cheaper younger players. But how do you know that players such as those above would not also be replaced, in a model of cheap and young NHL players? I'm not gonna bet my house on it.

Further, I think the NHL is a superb league in large part because the 'older' players have so much to teach the younger ones. The quality of play that I pay to watch is superb by all players, because of this teaching. I gladly pay for this experience also, becuse I get the best hockey I can ever see due to it.

What will we miss in the future of Hockey if we allow owners to eliminate older players because their experience and age call for the high compensation they deserve?

We'll miss the very best of Hockey.

NHL hockey players are expensive. It is a fact, and there is no use denying it. If you want to see hockey played at the highest and most intelligent levels, and you cannot, look to the owners in this lockout, not the players.
I think you missed my point.

All I was saying is that players are replaceable. There is a saying which says: cemetaries are filled with irreplaceable people.

The concept of the idea was to find a way to passe the 50/50 deal, nothing more, nothing less. The NHL at 50/50 is still the best league in the world. And, there still is a place for the players on that list.

The context in which I talked about this point was that someone said the players were NOT replaceable; which is simply not true.

So in response to your post, no we would not be missing out on anything. And the players, they might not even miss out on much money either, specially if the CBA can get signed ASAP in order to keep the growth pace.


Cheers,

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-22-2012, 11:30 PM
  #947
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
As much as the NHL discriminates against young players with the ridiculous offer sheet compensations, it also discriminates against older players with the age 35 retirement rule.

Both are foolish. The priority should be to give comparable compensation for comparable performance.
You can't do that because the market is not the same. Even the "free market" plays by some rules. You can ask China if they like the pressure they are getting right now in order to "comply" to regulations.

Current production is not the only thing taken into account when talking about market value.

NORiculous is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 02:46 AM
  #948
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
As the pretend-GM, you have to make a projection of what Hall will become, otherwise you have no idea what to sign him for.
problem with paying for projections, and it's not specific to Hall, is that unless the player produces at the projected pace right away, you're pretty much guaranteed to be overpaying for the player.

example:
You guys are making comparisons with Pacioretty, Hall will be better some of you think, you could all be right. But...

at 4+M, Pac with his 65 or so points is signed to a "fair" contract. wouldnt it be logical to say that for every season Hall doesnt surpass those 65 pts, he's being overpaid by more or less 2 Mil ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 07:34 AM
  #949
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
????

If you think Pacioretty can get 65 points in that role, how would Locke and Conacher be point-per-game?
For them to be "given" those roles, it's basically a replacement-player league. Much different than the current NHL. But I think they would be star calibre players in such a league. Or maybe not Locke, he may have already peaked, but the kind of top-notch non-NHL offensive star you're talking about, that guy with a top line role is going to put up points. Moreso than Pacioretty.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 01:10 PM
  #950
swimmer77
Post Oates
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,395
vCash: 500
I'm slowly leaning towards the owners nowadays but I'm not sure why.

Can't wait for opening night on November 2, 2012. Awesome.

swimmer77 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.