Why Not Have PERFORMANCE BASED PAY For Players?

[WordsOfWisdom]

Instead of awarding players long term contracts for yesterday's performance, why not set up a system where players are paid based on how well they perform today (statistically)? 

 

I know there will be people that say it's impossible to accurately evaluate a player that way, but I disagree. I think we're there already with recent "advanced" stats.

 

Players could be separated into various "tiers" based on what percentile they occupy within the league. 50th percentile = average. Each key statistic could be evaluated: goals, assists, +/-, corsi/fenwick, faceoffs (for centers), even time on ice. Goalies would of course be evaluated based on save percentage, goals against average, and you could add shutouts in there as a nice bonus.  

 

With a system like this, everyone wins. Teams don't get stuck with dead weight players that aren't performing as expected. Players don't get stuck in long term, low paying, entry level contracts. You always get paid what you're worth, and there is always motivation to perform now, not to live on reputation or wait for contract years.

 

Thoughts?  

[BluPuk]

Might be difficult to get the PA on board, but I suspect the NHL owners would love it.

 

A system like that would only work if the team/organisation were also rated as to their commitment to getting all the talent they can. Rate their draft effort, their support system, their coaches, their willingness to get the best talent available. You can't expect players to make their best effort every day while management goes to the Bahamas on the players' sweat. We have to recognise that creating a good team starts at the top of the ladder.

[radoran]

This was touched on in Another Thread - but when you start getting into "games played" and "time on ice" for categories, players can find themselves at the mercy of teams and coaches who may not always be working "in good faith"

 

We have seen "incentive" based contracts where players have been denied playing time to avoid hitting the incentive (baseball's Chase Utley last year, for example).

 

It's a great theory - and I like the general gist of where it is going - but the devil is always in the details of how it is executed.

 

I'm not against it, but I can see where the NHLPA, for example, might have an issue with it.

[NRH]

This was touched on in Another Thread - but when you start getting into "games played" and "time on ice" for categories, players can find themselves at the mercy of teams and coaches who may not always be working "in good faith"

 

We have seen "incentive" based contracts where players have been denied playing time to avoid hitting the incentive (baseball's Chase Utley last year, for example).

 

It's a great theory - and I like the general gist of where it is going - but the devil is always in the details of how it is executed.

 

I'm not against it, but I can see where the NHLPA, for example, might have an issue with it.

 

It's something that needs specific contractual language to prevent the team itself from preventing you from hitting those incentives, if you start denying X player ice time when they approach the 50 goal mark to avoid paying me the incentive then they get the incentive regardless.(grant the written language would be at least 3 pages longer than that)

 

It's easier to just pay the player a little bit more and assume you're making the right call on signing him and if he turns around and scores 60 goals for half the price as an Ovie or Crosby then you make out like a bandit.

 

Arbitration hearings would become a norm for this contracts.

[fanaticV3.0]

Instead of awarding players long term contracts for yesterday's performance, why not set up a system where players are paid based on how well they perform today (statistically)? 

 

I know there will be people that say it's impossible to accurately evaluate a player that way, but I disagree. I think we're there already with recent "advanced" stats.

 

Players could be separated into various "tiers" based on what percentile they occupy within the league. 50th percentile = average. Each key statistic could be evaluated: goals, assists, +/-, corsi/fenwick, faceoffs (for centers), even time on ice. Goalies would of course be evaluated based on save percentage, goals against average, and you could add shutouts in there as a nice bonus.  

 

With a system like this, everyone wins. Teams don't get stuck with dead weight players that aren't performing as expected. Players don't get stuck in long term, low paying, entry level contracts. You always get paid what you're worth, and there is always motivation to perform now, not to live on reputation or wait for contract years.

 

Thoughts?  

 

Because that would make sense?

 

You're not wrong, it's never been a change at this point.

[WordsOfWisdom]

This was touched on in Another Thread - but when you start getting into "games played" and "time on ice" for categories, players can find themselves at the mercy of teams and coaches who may not always be working "in good faith"

 

Although the key here is that there won't be any predefined thresholds. You simply get paid for what you accomplish. If the team takes away your ice time and gives it to someone else, then they are still paying the same amount of money but it's going to a different player on the same team. Either way, the team is paying someone.

 

Example: 33 goals is worth more than 32 goals. There is no special reward for hitting 30 other than it's one more than 29. Playing 25 minutes per game on the top defence pairing is worth more than someone who plays 15 minutes per game. Now the player getting 15 minutes per game could argue that they should be playing more.... but we all know they WOULD be playing more IF they were better than the guy getting 25 minutes. Teams simply aren't going to give the worst players the most minutes. And really, it's no different than a 4th line player today saying they should be getting paid like Malkin because they could score like Malkin if only they were put on the top line. 

 

An arbitrator could settle unusual cases to make sure nobody is being cheated.

 

I think it could work.

[WordsOfWisdom]

It's something that needs specific contractual language to prevent the team itself from preventing you from hitting those incentives, if you start denying X player ice time when they approach the 50 goal mark to avoid paying me the incentive then they get the incentive regardless.(grant the written language would be at least 3 pages longer than that)

 

There would be no predefined thresholds.

 

How it would work (using fake dollar figures):

 

49 goals = $4.9 million dollars

50 goals = $5.0 million dollars

51 goals = $5.1 million dollars

 

 

You're thinking it would work something like this:

49 goals = $250,000

50 goals = $10 million dollars

51 goals = $10 million dollars + 1 cent

59 goals = $10 million dollars + 9 cents

60 goals = $15 million dollars

 

In a word: NO. Absolutely no. No threshold values. 

[radoran]

Although the key here is that there won't be any predefined thresholds. You simply get paid for what you accomplish. If the team takes away your ice time and gives it to someone else, then they are still paying the same amount of money but it's going to a different player on the same team. Either way, the team is paying someone.

 

Example: 33 goals is worth more than 32 goals. There is no special reward for hitting 30 other than it's one more than 29. Playing 25 minutes per game on the top defence pairing is worth more than someone who plays 15 minutes per game. Now the player getting 15 minutes per game could argue that they should be playing more.... but we all know they WOULD be playing more IF they were better than the guy getting 25 minutes. Teams simply aren't going to give the worst players the most minutes. And really, it's no different than a 4th line player today saying they should be getting paid like Malkin because they could score like Malkin if only they were put on the top line. 

 

An arbitrator could settle unusual cases to make sure nobody is being cheated.

 

I think it could work.

 

So (I'm just trying to parse this all out) you're saying a team would commit to paying $70M (for discussion) every season.

 

That $70M would then be divided amongst players based on a predetermined allotment based upon an assortment of stats - better performers getting more and others getting less.

 

How do players determine what teams they play for? How is injury taken into account? How does one compare a goalie to a forward to a defenseman?

 

I'm interested.

[WordsOfWisdom]

So (I'm just trying to parse this all out) you're saying a team would commit to paying $70M (for discussion) every season.

 

That $70M would then be divided amongst players based on a predetermined allotment based upon an assortment of stats - better performers getting more and others getting less.

 

How do players determine what teams they play for? How is injury taken into account? How does one compare a goalie to a forward to a defenseman?

 

I'm interested.

 

I haven't put much thought into this part yet. Hmmm..... there are many options here. This is what I've thought of in a few minutes:  

 

1. Teams could have a budget that fluctuates from year to year based on how the team performs. If everyone plays well, then it'll be an expensive year for ownership (although they should get that money back in additional playoff revenue and so on). If everyone on the team sucks, then management doesn't spend much on player costs that year (and they probably didn't bring in much on ticket sales either), so they catch a break when they need it the most.
2. Teams could have a fixed budget, where all 30 teams have the same amount of money allocated to player salary, of which players get their portion of that based on performance.
3. Teams could have a fixed budget, but each team could set a different amount, and players would get a portion of that. (Teams would compete for better players by setting a higher budget, which would be publically announced.)

 

I suppose when a player signs a contract, they would simply be agreeing to play for a particular team for a set length of time. What they get paid during that time is up to how well they perform. 

 

Examples:

 

Nashville budget: $40M

Chicago budget: $60M

Toronto budget: $70M

 

As their contracts expire with their existing team, players would want to play for Toronto (if they can) because they would have the chance to earn the most money (having their share of a larger pot), but there are only so many roster spots. Not everyone can be on that team, and there's only so much ice time to go around. You might think Toronto would be a "stacked" team, but it's a resource allocation problem. 60 minutes of ice time - 20 players. You simply can't give everyone 25 minutes of ice per night. Thus, you can't have four lines of players scoring 50 goals in a season. They won't play enough to do it. So do you play on Toronto's third line and get 15 minutes of ice and pot 25 goals in a season..... or do you play on Nashville's top line and get 25+ minutes and score 50 goals? Players would have to position themselves such that they are a "good fit" for the team they are going to. If I'm a GM and I already have two scoring lines, I don't need more scoring. An Ovechkin isn't going to come to my team to be line 3 or 4, so the best players will still spread around naturally to find top line minutes.

[JR Ewing]

Although the key here is that there won't be any predefined thresholds. You simply get paid for what you accomplish. If the team takes away your ice time and gives it to someone else, then they are still paying the same amount of money but it's going to a different player on the same team. Either way, the team is paying someone.

 

Example: 33 goals is worth more than 32 goals. There is no special reward for hitting 30 other than it's one more than 29. Playing 25 minutes per game on the top defence pairing is worth more than someone who plays 15 minutes per game. Now the player getting 15 minutes per game could argue that they should be playing more.... but we all know they WOULD be playing more IF they were better than the guy getting 25 minutes. Teams simply aren't going to give the worst players the most minutes. And really, it's no different than a 4th line player today saying they should be getting paid like Malkin because they could score like Malkin if only they were put on the top line. 

 

An arbitrator could settle unusual cases to make sure nobody is being cheated.

 

I think it could work.

This begs a lot of questions. All else being equal, 33 goals is better than 32 goals. All else is hardly ever equal, though.

 

-What if 32 has far tougher zone starts than 33, and had to haul the puck out of his zone much often, while 33 started in the offensive zone much more often?

-What if 32 is facing tougher comp?

-What if 33 was gifted much better linemates than 32?

-What if 33 allowed much more back in his own zone to get that one extra goal?

-What if 33 is a power-play specialist lacking an all-around game, while 32 has a set of skills which means that he plays a lot more at ES, where it's much tougher to score?

-What if 33 doesn't kill any penalties while 32 does?

-What if 33 plays for a weak team, thus giving him more opportunity to play a lot of minutes, while 32 plays for a strong team, limiting that opportunity?

 

That's off the top of my head.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I shouldn't have mentioned Toronto in my example. Now everyone will think it's just another scheme to build a dynasty here lol. 

[flyerrod]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

The first thing you have to do is throw out the cap if you were to want that system to work. How bad would a team like the Yotes be? Who would want to play in the desert? You would end up with 6 or 7 good teams and the rest would be fodder. In other words, you would be taking money from Uncle Gary and he does not want to see that happen. As much as i dislike the cap, it does level the playing field.

[canoli]

Are performance bonuses already part of all player's contracts? If so I hardly ever hear about them; usually only in reference to a rookie on an ELC. Whatever the case, how about making performance bonuses mandatory for all players?

 

Everyone gets a base salary, the same for all rookies, all 2-year vets, 3-year vets etc. and the bulk of a players' earnings potential is his performance bonus(es). Keep it conservative so there's plenty of cap room for the bonuses. Guaranteed money becomes a thing of the past and everybody plays hard to hit their thresholds.

 

Injured, can't possibly hit your mark? Sorry, sh-it happens there's always next year. With a base salary, even a conservative figure like 900K, an injured NHL player still has an awfully nice year, nothing to complain about.

 

Something has to change - guaranteed money is ruining players and their teams in the process. I can't see how a league-wide performance bonus scheme could possibly work but on an individual basis why not? Doesn't the NFL do something like that now?

 

[AJgoal]

Are performance bonuses already part of all player's contracts?

 

Only on ELCs and over-35 contracts. Performance bonuses are not otherwise permitted.

[peter puck]

Keep the hard cap and allow for performance bonuses but these performance bonuses would have a hard cap of their own. The closer you are to hard cap the less money you have for your bonus cap. You could also limit the amount of bonus money per player based on his current salary.

[MadDevil]

This begs a lot of questions. All else being equal, 33 goals is better than 32 goals. All else is hardly ever equal, though.

-What if 32 has far tougher zone starts than 33, and had to haul the puck out of his zone much often, while 33 started in the offensive zone much more often?

-What if 32 is facing tougher comp?

-What if 33 was gifted much better linemates than 32?

-What if 33 allowed much more back in his own zone to get that one extra goal?

-What if 33 is a power-play specialist lacking an all-around game, while 32 has a set of skills which means that he plays a lot more at ES, where it's much tougher to score?

-What if 33 doesn't kill any penalties while 32 does?

-What if 33 plays for a weak team, thus giving him more opportunity to play a lot of minutes, while 32 plays for a strong team, limiting that opportunity?

That's off the top of my head.

Yeah, I don't think it's quite as easy to judge a players value statistically in hockey as it is in say football. In the NFL you can say a TD is worth X dollars, a sack is worth Y dollars, rushing yards are worth Z dollars. But how do you do that for hockey? How do you put a monetary value on what a defensive defenseman does? Or if you're using Corsi, isn't that dependant on how a player is being used, or who is on the ice with them?

I would also worry about players not telling team doctors about injuries, abusing painkillers, or rushing themselves back from injury, knowing that if they don't play, they don't get paid as much.

[WordsOfWisdom]

This begs a lot of questions. All else being equal, 33 goals is better than 32 goals. All else is hardly ever equal, though.

 

-What if 32 has far tougher zone starts than 33, and had to haul the puck out of his zone much often, while 33 started in the offensive zone much more often?

-What if 32 is facing tougher comp?

-What if 33 was gifted much better linemates than 32?

-What if 33 allowed much more back in his own zone to get that one extra goal?

-What if 33 is a power-play specialist lacking an all-around game, while 32 has a set of skills which means that he plays a lot more at ES, where it's much tougher to score?

-What if 33 doesn't kill any penalties while 32 does?

-What if 33 plays for a weak team, thus giving him more opportunity to play a lot of minutes, while 32 plays for a strong team, limiting that opportunity?

 

That's off the top of my head.

 

The defensive side of the game would be looked at through things like corsi/fenwick, +/-, etc. You could take PP and PK time into consideration as well. Without getting overly complex, I think it's possible to differentiate players by their stats.

 

If "33" plays for a weak team, he will have all the opportunity in the world to pile up big numbers. If "32" plays for a strong team, he will have to fight hard for ice time -- that's the price you pay for playing on a winner. Theoretically, the weak team will probably have a lower budget though, so there won't be as much in the pot to collect.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I would also worry about players not telling team doctors about injuries, abusing painkillers, or rushing themselves back from injury, knowing that if they don't play, they don't get paid as much.

 

Good point. Problem solved:

 

You pay the player a pro-rated salary.

 

Example: If player X gets injured, and plays in 60 games instead of 82, you look at the pace he was on and pay him as though he played a full 82 games. That way no player is ever rushed back from injury.

 

Extraordinary case (with solution): If player X plays 1 game, scores 2 goals, tears his ACL, and misses the rest of the season, what happens then? Do you pay him for 164 goals? No. There are options here. Option A) He gets paid nothing. (Tough break, but that's sports.) Option B) He gets paid whatever he made last year. Option C) He gets paid the league minimum. Option D) An arbitrator can rule on it.

[WordsOfWisdom]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

The first thing you have to do is throw out the cap if you were to want that system to work. How bad would a team like the Yotes be? Who would want to play in the desert? You would end up with 6 or 7 good teams and the rest would be fodder. In other words, you would be taking money from Uncle Gary and he does not want to see that happen. As much as i dislike the cap, it does level the playing field.

 

You can still have a salary cap and a salary floor if you want. It doesn't affect this system. 

 

If the cap is $80M and the floor is $60M, then the Yotes will have a budget of at least $60M. How that $60M is divided up would be determined by the performance of the players on the team.

[NRH]

What if I don't make the 20 goal minimum you've placed on me but all 19 goals I've scored were game winners and my +/- is +80? Do I still get shafted that 5 million for not getting that 1 goal?

 

 

Where does your threshold system end? What if I blow up and score 80 goals in a season and inadvertently earn an extra 20 million more for my team? Do you take the huge penalty for going over the cap with your bonuses because we've all hit numbers you never imagined we'd hit?

 

What if you apply a stop to the threshold preemptively saying my money stops at X number of goals, does that mean I can healthy scratch myself since there is no incentive, I can't get hurt at the end of this season and risk my ability to score 40 next year for 12 million.

[WordsOfWisdom]

What if I don't make the 20 goal minimum you've placed on me but all 19 goals I've scored were game winners and my +/- is +80? Do I still get shafted that 5 million for not getting that 1 goal?

 

No. There wouldn't be any thresholds.  If the team payroll is $60M, and you score 19 goals, you would get paid 19 / total team goals for * 60M. (I'm simplifying the formula to only show offence but you get the idea.) 

 

Where does your threshold system end? What if I blow up and score 80 goals in a season and inadvertently earn an extra 20 million more for my team? Do you take the huge penalty for going over the cap with your bonuses because we've all hit numbers you never imagined we'd hit?

 

There is no threshold. If you score 80 goals, you might earn almost 50% of your team's payroll (if it stays fixed). If the payroll can fluctuate, then it would be an expensive year in terms of team payroll for that year because everyone did well. 

 

What if you apply a stop to the threshold preemptively saying my money stops at X number of goals, does that mean I can healthy scratch myself since there is no incentive, I can't get hurt at the end of this season and risk my ability to score 40 next year for 12 million.

 

There is no threshold!    The more you produce, the more you get paid. If you play like Gretzky, you'll be the highest paid player in pro sports. 

[MadDevil]

You think some guys don't backcheck hard now, just wait until they can get paid more to cherry pick...

I see it now. This is all part of your plan to increase scoring.

[flyerrod]

You can still have a salary cap and a salary floor if you want. It doesn't affect this system. 

 

If the cap is $80M and the floor is $60M, then the Yotes will have a budget of at least $60M. How that $60M is divided up would be determined by the performance of the players on the team.

My question was more along  the line of who is going to sign to play there knowing full well that they won't have the support they need to score goals/assists/make incentives? You can't realistically have a cap and incentive pay. For instance, if you were paying based on incentives, look at the LOD line for the Flyers in their hot years. How do you ice a team under the cap when you have one line 's scoring putting you over it? You can't penalize a team for that.

[WordsOfWisdom]

You think some guys don't backcheck hard now, just wait until they can get paid more to cherry pick...

I see it now. This is all part of your plan to increase scoring.

 

I didn't think of that, but it just might be the only way to get players and coaches to focus on the offensive side of the game for a change!  

 

(But I included metrics for defence as well, so maybe not. I guess we can dream.)  

[WordsOfWisdom]

My question was more along  the line of who is going to sign to play there knowing full well that they won't have the support they need to score goals/assists/make incentives? You can't realistically have a cap and incentive pay. For instance, if you were paying based on incentives, look at the LOD line for the Flyers in their hot years. How do you ice a team under the cap when you have one line 's scoring putting you over it? You can't penalize a team for that.

 

There are 30 teams and over 700 players. Somebody has to play in Arizona. It's either that or the KHL. When push comes to shove, players will be happy to play in Arizona when the alternative is not playing professional hockey at all. Same scenario with Winnipeg and Edmonton. There are lots of places in the NHL today that players don't want to be. It comes down to a choice of whether they want to play hockey for a living or work at McDonalds for a living. I think when the choice comes down to that, Winnipeg or Arizona would be a wonderful place to become a multi-millionaire playing hockey. Priorities get straightened out rather quickly. If you're a good player, you can put up good numbers anywhere.  

 

Looking back to the LOD line on the Flyers... Let's say the Flyers had a payroll of $50M back then. If the LOD line is responsible for 50% of the team's overall production, then that line will be earning $25M that season.