Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, radoran said:

 

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.

 

Totally agree with what you said. I just meant that I don't care if owners make stupid deals that benefit players.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Agreed.

 

 

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? 

 

 

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.  :) 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree with everything you said about hockey is a business not a game, and also about work for pay etc.

 

I'd just rather not have these caps and taxes and let owners make bad deals that hurt their teams, because it usually the richest teams that make these bad deals - and as a Calgary fan when other teams make bad deals it help us in Calgary😉

 

Also thorough I understand that players have to be greedy and get as much pay as possible like lifetime deals that pay them into old age pension haha, I don't blame them at all for making owners look dumb - owners don't have to be dumb but they always choose to be, and personally I don't care if owners are dumb paying too much, and I don't care if players are dumb play for free either if they agreed to under contract or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The league made $4.37 Billion dollars in the pandemic year, down from the $5B it made the year before.

 

The Minnesota Wild, with two playoff round wins over the eight-year course of the contracts they just bought out, saw their value more than double over the course of those contracts from $218M to $500M.

 

With two playoff round wins in eight years.

 

More than "wanting to win" the owners "want" to make money, and they are doing so hand over fist.

 

That's why the "sport" is a "business". It's the way they want it. The millionaires are going to negotiate with the billionaires under the terms they both agreed to to split up ~$4-5B amongst themselves.

 

If you're just looking for the "purity of the game" there's probably a bantam or peewee league in your area.

 

:hocky:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Villella McMeans said:

Totally agree with everything you said about hockey is a business not a game, and also about work for pay etc.

 

I'd just rather not have these caps and taxes and let owners make bad deals that hurt their teams, because it usually the richest teams that make these bad deals - and as a Calgary fan when other teams make bad deals it help us in Calgary😉

 

Oh that'll happen regardless. Owners will make bad trades, bad draft picks, overpay for mediocre talent, etc.  :) 

 

All I'm really saying is that the guaranteed contracts have gone too far. It was predictable that when the cap was introduced in 2005, owners would get around the cap by extending contract lengths. Whatever "variable" isn't capped is the one that expands to infinity. Cap the salary per year? Magically, contracts expand to 15-year deals overnight. Owners are forced to offer more term because otherwise the player signs elsewhere. It's the same situation as it was for annual salary. Highest annual pay wins, unless some other variable can factor in... and contract length is it.

 

To me, the perfect player contract is to have 50% guaranteed (max 3-yr term) and the other 50% is paid based on performance bonuses (both team and individual performance). So if you want to be the highest paid player in the league, you would have to play like it, and your team would have to win. You wouldn't be able to get there from guaranteed contract money alone. Success would be rewarded, just like it is in the real world. Almost like the players are salespeople (selling the game) and they get paid a base salary + commission (performance bonus). :) 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, radoran said:

The league made $4.37 Billion dollars in the pandemic year, down from the $5B it made the year before.

 

I never said the league wasn't profitable.  :) 

 

3 hours ago, radoran said:

More than "wanting to win" the owners "want" to make money, and they are doing so hand over fist.

 

That's why the "sport" is a "business". It's the way they want it. The millionaires are going to negotiate with the billionaires under the terms they both agreed to to split up ~$4-5B amongst themselves.

 

If you're just looking for the "purity of the game" there's probably a bantam or peewee league in your area.

 

All I'm talking about is tweaking maximum contract lengths. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. I'm trying to break the deadlock that the NHL currently has on player movement due to these albatross contract lengths that teams are forced to sign (in order to acquire the player that will make a difference) and then burn for afterwards for years and years. It's silly.

 

Whatever happened to free agency

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Whatever happened to free agency

 

Ask Dougie Hamilton and Gabriel Landeskog.

 

For that matter ask Maple Leaf Sports Entertainment.

 

If nothing else this current CBA has done something nothing else has accomplished in a league of more than six teams - the Maple Leaes are competitive.

Edited by radoran
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I never said the league wasn't profitable.  :) 

 

 

All I'm talking about is tweaking maximum contract lengths. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. I'm trying to break the deadlock that the NHL currently has on player movement due to these albatross contract lengths that teams are forced to sign (in order to acquire the player that will make a difference) and then burn for afterwards for years and years. It's silly.

 

Whatever happened to free agency

 

 

Tweaking things with the intention of fixing a broken system is good, but don't you think that even after the changes you mentioned, both sides will still find ways and loopholes that will make one side complain that more tweaking is still needed to avoid bad deals?

 

I think most salary regulations have to removed and let the free market punish both sides for bad deals.

 

If teams can't control themselves giving lifetime contacts then let them go bankrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2021 at 12:05 AM, radoran said:

If nothing else this current CBA has done something nothing else has accomplished in a league of more than six teams - the Maple Leaes are competitive.

 

I mention this in another thread but the Leafs most competitive period (since their glory days of course) was the period of time after penny-pincher Harold Ballard died up until the salary cap was introduced in 2005. The Leafs made 4 conference finals (and should have made 1 final in 1993 if not for Kerry Fraser) during that BRIEF period of time (1990-2005).  If you consider that the lockout in 2004 wiped out the season, the Leafs had only 14 years to actually spend money and go for it. They did..... and it worked.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2021 at 4:15 PM, Villella McMeans said:

Tweaking things with the intention of fixing a broken system is good, but don't you think that even after the changes you mentioned, both sides will still find ways and loopholes that will make one side complain that more tweaking is still needed to avoid bad deals?

 

Oh for sure. Owners are constantly trying to find ways to shoot themselves in the head financially. If it takes putting them in a financial "straight-jacket" to keep them from hurting themselves, so be it.   :) 

 

On 7/23/2021 at 4:15 PM, Villella McMeans said:

I think most salary regulations have to removed and let the free market punish both sides for bad deals.

 

If teams can't control themselves giving lifetime contacts then let them go bankrupt.

 

Except that creates a situation where the decisions of one bad person (*cough* Harold Ballard *cough*) can potentially ruin the most profitable franchise in the league.  I don't think any one person should have that much power. I think the franchise belongs to the fans more than it does to the owners. The owners own the building, and the owners pay the player's salaries, but the fans essentially own the team

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Oh for sure. Owners are constantly trying to find ways to shoot themselves in the head financially. If it takes putting them in a financial "straight-jacket" to keep them from hurting themselves, so be it.   :) 

 

 

Except that creates a situation where the decisions of one bad person (*cough* Harold Ballard *cough*) can potentially ruin the most profitable franchise in the league.  I don't think any one person should have that much power. I think the franchise belongs to the fans more than it does to the owners. The owners own the building, and the owners pay the player's salaries, but the fans essentially own the team

 

 

 

Don't let that get back to any of the owners😄

  • Haha 1
Link to post
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...