Jump to content

These guys are still getting paid (Happy Rick DiPietro Day)


Brewin Flames

Recommended Posts

A complete list of players collecting paycheques on this holiest of days, Rick DiPietro Day.
 
Final July 1st payout in brackets.
Kyle Turris, NSH - $2 million (2027)
Cory Schneider, NJD - $2 million (2023)
Corey Perry, ANA - $2 million (2022)
Bobby Ryan, OTT - $1,833,333 (2023)
Vincent Lecavalier, TBL - $1,761,905 (2026)
Ilya Bryzgalov, PHI - $1,642,857 (2026)
Rick DiPietro, NYI - $1.5 million (2028)
Andrej Sekera, EDM - $1.5 million (2022)
Troy Brouwer, CGY - $1.5 million (Today)
Henrik Lundqvist, NYR - $1.5 million (Today)
Kevin Shattenkirk, NYR - $1,433,333 (2022)
Michael Grabner, ARI - $1,258,333 (Today)
Scott Darling, FLA - $1,183,333 (2022)
Dan Girardi, NYR - $1,111,111 (2022)
Dion Phaneuf, LAK - $1,062,500 (2022)
Justin Abdelkader, DET - $1,055,556 (2025)
Brad Richards, NYR - $1,055,556 (2025)
Jack Johnson, PIT - $916,667 (2025)
Alexander Wennberg, CBJ - $891,667 (2025)
Christian Ehrhoff, BUF - $857,143 (2027)
Karl Alzner, MTL - $833,333 (2023)
Cody Hodgson, BUF - $791,667 (2022)
Simon Despres, ANA - $662,500 (2024)
Dion Phaneuf, OTT - $354,167 (2022)
Steven Santini, NSH - $275,000 (Today)
  • Good Post 1
  • Uggh... 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brewin Flames said:

And Vinny still gets almost 2 mil a year for the next 5...lol.

 

As sad as I was when VLC was bought out (he STILL is one of my favorite players!), looking back, I realize this current loaded Lightning roster could not be possible had the Lightning kept him on for the life of his contract.
One and a quarter million for the next few years still, and ties to the community in Tampa Bay, well, I'd say its almost as if he never left :bigteeth:

Thankfully, it doesn't cost anything for the Bolts in cap space....only actual cash from the owner.

Also, on this list.... the NYR are on here FOUR times??
Tells you something about their decision making process when it comes to handing out contracts over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 7:47 PM, Brewin Flames said:

Ilya Bryzgalov, PHI - $1,642,857 (2026)

 

The gift that keeps on giving ...... somewhere in the mother land a giant bear is laughing all the way to the bank ..... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toivon voivani saada vain 10% minkä tahansa heistä palkasta 😀

 

MOD EDIT:

Translation - I hope I can only get 10% of any of them on salary

 

Since this site is a primary English site please translate. thanks. :)

Edited by pilldoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 12:09 AM, jammer2 said:

Somewhere, Alexi Yashin has a fuzzy nostalgic memory. After all, 2 rights DO make a Wong. 

 

Mike Milbury wants people to know he's still interested in running a hockey team...

  • Haha 3
  • Uggh... 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Mike Milbury wants people to know he's still interested in running a hockey team...

 

It really is amazing the stupidity GM's do in signing their players ..... For 8 bloody years DiPietro has been collecting money from the Isles and he still has 7 more years to go ....  (SMH)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Annoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/6/2021 at 12:17 PM, pilldoc said:

 

It really is amazing the stupidity GM's do in signing their players ..... For 8 bloody years DiPietro has been collecting money from the Isles and he still has 7 more years to go ....  (SMH)

 

I'd mention that I'm in favour of abolishing guaranteed contracts. (Or setting a limit of maybe 3-5 years max.)  But then people call me a slave driver and remind me of how much better the current system works by telling me all about players like DiPietro.  ;)

 

I don't have statistics to prove it (because they don't exist).... but I'm convinced the majority (>50%) of players decline in performance after signing their first big money, long-term contract.  Therefore, optimum player performance is achieved in the contract year prior to resigning a new contract, and if GMs were smart, they would part ways with the player in question at that moment in time and use the money to acquire the next big up and coming player at a discount price rather than max out their cap on a player that will be inclined to coast for the second half of their career.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I don't have statistics to prove it (because they don't exist).... but I'm convinced the majority (>50%) of players decline in performance after signing their first big money, long-term contract. 

 

It's obviously a different sport, but I know that Bill James looked into some of this stuff, and found that baseball players VERY often perform better in seasons where they're heading into free agency. Whether or not this holds true in hockey I don't know, but I would be surprised to hear that it's very different.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'd mention that I'm in favour of abolishing guaranteed contracts. (Or setting a limit of maybe 3-5 years max.)

 

There is an eight year limit on contracts rightnow. Because of situations like DiPietro, and Parise, and Suter...

 

20 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I don't have statistics to prove it (because they don't exist).... but I'm convinced the majority (>50%) of players decline in performance after signing their first big money, long-term contract. 

 

"I don't want to do the research" doesn't mean the statistics "don't exist." Of course they exist. You have X number of players on long term deals and you plot out their production over the course of the deal.

 

19 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

if GMs were smart

 

Bill Hader Popcorn GIF by Saturday Night Live

 

22 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

use the money to acquire the next big up and coming player at a discount price

 

You're aware, I take it, of the RFA rules, right?

 

You're also doing a lot of prognostication, which is what got the "smart" GMs into all of this trouble in the first place.

 

All based on a theory you've developed based on research you haven't done.

 

So, you know, par for the course.

 

:thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

It's obviously a different sport, but I know that Bill James looked into some of this stuff, and found that baseball players VERY often perform better in seasons where they're heading into free agency. Whether or not this holds true in hockey I don't know, but I would be surprised to hear that it's very different.


There's obviously a reason for the term "contract year" when talking about players' production.

 

If you don't do stupid things like, say, for example, signing complimentary middle six winger Ville Leino for six years based on one playoff performance and slot him in as your #1C, you can avoid serious problems.

 

"GMs need to make better decisions" is a far cry from "we need to outlaw bad decisions."

 

It's also about evaluating the whole player and determining whether or not mortgaging your entire franchise for a loopy Russian goalie that you'll still be paying when Ryan Ellis' current contract expires is quite the slam dunk genius move someone thought it was.

 

Paul Holmgren (@RTHL_Flyers) | Twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, radoran said:

There is an eight year limit on contracts rightnow. Because of situations like DiPietro, and Parise, and Suter...

 

Too long. Ridiculously too long.

 

The purpose of the guaranteed contract is to protect the player against injury.  In a world without guaranteed contracts, players would be reluctant to take risks physically because an injury costs them money. A 1-year contract solves that problem. There's virtually no injury you can't heal from in a year. 

 

Players should be paid based on current performance, not past performance. Players should always be competing for a job in the NHL. If your performance drops off, you should be out of the league just as fast as you came in. Teams shouldn't be paying players not to play hockey. There are far too many of these long term deals where the players are being paid long after they're gone. It's silly.

 

Pull back the reigns. 3-year contracts max. No more DiPietro's in this league. No more free ride. That's my money as a fan being wasted.

 

5 hours ago, radoran said:

"I don't want to do the research" doesn't mean the statistics "don't exist." Of course they exist. You have X number of players on long term deals and you plot out their production over the course of the deal.

 

The DATA might exist, but nobody has ever mined it to produce those STATISTICS, at least for external use.  I'm certainly not going to because nobody is paying me to do it! :)

 

I have to use anecdotal evidence and experience. Experience tells me that players plateau once they get the big contract and rarely ever do anything to outperform it. Best that most players can do is break-even.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The purpose of the guaranteed contract is to protect the player against injury.  In a world without guaranteed contracts, players would be reluctant to take risks physically because an injury costs them money. A 1-year contract solves that problem. There's virtually no injury you can't heal from in a year. 

 

There are multiple injuries people don't heal from in a year.

 

Concussions say hello.

 

Let's not even talk about broken legs or reversed joints

 

Players have ONE SHOT for their financial stability.

 

Owners have to be financially stable before they even own a team.

 

Which one do you give the most protections to?

 

It's not a shock that the players' union takes the players' side.

Edited by radoran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, radoran said:

There are multiple injuries people don't heal from in a year.

 

Concussions say hello.

 

True.

 

2 hours ago, radoran said:

Let's not even talk about broken legs or reversed joints

 

Well said.  I get squeemish.  😮

 

2 hours ago, radoran said:

Players have ONE SHOT for their financial stability.

 

Yes but... :) 

 

The NHL isn't about setting players up for life financially. Never has been. The NHL is a place of employment for players to earn a living. Nowhere does it say that the league owes the players a lifetime of luxury just for making it into the league... nor should a player be granted a lifetime of luxury just for playing well a few seasons and landing their first big contract. It should be no different than any other job. You get paid while you're there and if terminated, that's it. You find another job (or career). The money should stop the moment the player's production stops. 

 

Injuries happen. If I worked as a roofer and fell off a roof, that might be the end of my working career. Worker's comp. would be my life going forward.

 

If a player loses out on an NHL career due to injuries, that's too bad. That's part of the risk. Have a backup plan. 

 

Here is how NHL players perform versus how they currently get paid:

 

payvsperf.png.793f2e1f384c1b36dd50e31e14d85d44.png

Edited by WordsOfWisdom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 8:14 PM, radoran said:

 

There are multiple injuries people don't heal from in a year.

 

Concussions say hello.

 

Let's not even talk about broken legs or reversed joints

 

Players have ONE SHOT for their financial stability.

 

Owners have to be financially stable before they even own a team.

 

Which one do you give the most protections to?

 

It's not a shock that the players' union takes the players' side.

 

I say don't protect any, let the free market reign and let teams keep paying for dumb contacts.

 

If players can get set for life, good for them.

 

If owners can get players for under market value, good for them.

 

Makes more sense than inventing all these rules that lawyers find loopholes around anyways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 10:13 PM, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

True.

 

 

Well said.  I get squeemish.  😮

 

 

Yes but... :) 

 

The NHL isn't about setting players up for life financially. Never has been. The NHL is a place of employment for players to earn a living. Nowhere does it say that the league owes the players a lifetime of luxury just for making it into the league... nor should a player be granted a lifetime of luxury just for playing well a few seasons and landing their first big contract. It should be no different than any other job. You get paid while you're there and if terminated, that's it. You find another job (or career). The money should stop the moment the player's production stops. 

 

Injuries happen. If I worked as a roofer and fell off a roof, that might be the end of my working career. Worker's comp. would be my life going forward.

 

If a player loses out on an NHL career due to injuries, that's too bad. That's part of the risk. Have a backup plan. 

 

Here is how NHL players perform versus how they currently get paid:

 

payvsperf.png.793f2e1f384c1b36dd50e31e14d85d44.png

 

I agree with what you saying about nobody owes anyone anything, least of all owners don't owe players a lifetime deal nor do players want to be paid less than the maximum they can get.

 

We can compare players to roofers, but we all know that roofers are in less demand than players, so players will be able to command a higher price based on what it will cost to get another player of similar value.

 

Personally, I rather just abolish all the salary cap rules etc, and let them all make up whatever contact they like - if you want to play for free then good for you, if you want to bankrupt your team then good for you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Villella McMeans said:

Makes more sense than inventing all these rules that lawyers find loopholes around anyways.

 

The owners makes those rules to stop the owners from making stupid decisions and offering bad deals.

 

It's easier than not making stupid decisions and offering bad deals.

 

Nobody is forcing the Wild to give 12 year deals to Parise and Suter. The Wild did that all by themselves.

 

And then they changed the rules so nobody could do something that stupid again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Villella McMeans said:

I agree with what you saying about nobody owes anyone anything, least of all owners don't owe players a lifetime deal nor do players want to be paid less than the maximum they can get.

 

Agreed.

 

7 hours ago, Villella McMeans said:

We can compare players to roofers, but we all know that roofers are in less demand than players

 

My comparison is based on the fundamental principle of work for pay.  The NHL and NHLPA have reminded us (constantly) that hockey is not a sport, it's a business.  For nearly 75 years, fans were content with the idea that the players wanted to play hockey because they loved the game, and the money was an added bonus. Today, after some 25 years of conditioning, fans are the first ones to spew out terms like "asset", "value", "cap hit", "market appeal", "budget", "PR", "economic growth", "revenue streams" and so on. Nobody talks about the game any more, it's all about the economics of the game. Everyone is an MBA today instead of a fan.  Fans have been conditioned to accept absurdity by the very product that they watch. It's like a drug dealer telling you how great drugs are... while injecting you.  :) 

 

The idea of work for pay is that if do something of value for me, I'll give you something of value in return: $$$.  Somehow, players have entered into a world of "pay forever, for work done at some point in the distant past".  Why would I ever pay someone in perpetuity for work not yet performed? Or why would I pay top dollar in advance for inferior work performed later? 

 

8 hours ago, Villella McMeans said:

Personally, I rather just abolish all the salary cap rules etc, and let them all make up whatever contact they like - if you want to play for free then good for you, if you want to bankrupt your team then good for you too.

 

I'd be happy to see the cap gone and replaced with a luxury tax. But I'd also like to see a cap on maximum contract length at 3 years, to save owners from themselves. We all know that owners will make stupid deals because they have to in order to sign the top players. That's how we got here. But at least the damage is minimized over a 3-year period and teams have the flexibility to get rid of bum players.  :) 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...