|
|
Post by insomnius on Aug 15, 2004 7:01:07 GMT -5
up from 2.7 last year...he scored 21 goals and 31 assists and he's worth 3 million?
What are the GM's and owners thinking?
It's like they have two sets of mouths and two sets of brains. One set works when they are talking to the media about how badly off they are and the opposite set works when trying to sign their players...
Kafka could not have imagined anything more absurd...
To me a 52 pt guy is not worth more than 1.3 to 1.5 million....and even that is high - he'd also have to be a real leader inthe dressing room and bring other intangibles to the team.
Perhaps they should use the points a players gets as a guage for how much you should get paid...that way you have a solid "point" of reference for salary negotiations.
over 100 pts - 6-8 million
80 - 100 pts - 4-6 million
60-80 pts - 2-4 million
below 60 pts - up to 2 million
ok that works for forwards but not necessarily for D men and goalies...
there are plenty of stats that can be used to create a similar system of pay for the other positions...then the owners and GM can factor in "intangibles" and in discussion with the player's agent come up with a figure within certain parameters...no real "salary cap" but an effective limiter I believe...
(wow that's a lot for a Sunday morning)
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 15, 2004 7:15:09 GMT -5
Not quite 10% . . . not as much as some GMs are throwing around . . . not a Sunny, who took les to stay with the team (well, to make sure he had a contract).
2.95 is probably about right -- but I like your scale idea.
And going for arbitration, thre was no way he was going to get less.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Aug 15, 2004 12:12:21 GMT -5
I think it's an unsound idea from every conceivable perspective.
1. It would encourage players to think of their own stats first. They would complain to the official scorers about every assist they didn't get. They would overstay their shifts, hang out at the defensive blueline waiting for passes instead of coming back to the crease to help defend, and hog the puck. You would see players with huge negative +/- ratings get undeservedly high salaries.
2. It would penalize players who don't play on the most talented teams or who play on teams that stress defense first.
3. Defensive forwards like Bob Gainey, Doug Jarvis, and Guy Carbonneau would be seriously undervalued on the pay scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Aug 15, 2004 13:55:05 GMT -5
The money Langkow got is on par with Yanic Perreault's last contract. To that end, the contract is not unreasonable. Langkow is a 50-60 point a year player, and that's the going rate. Phoenix doesn't have a long list of options at centre, and he's likely the best fit within their budget.
I'm with Blaise on the pay scale thing. As outlined, it only caters to elite scorers. Stoppers, like a Gainey, Carbo, Madden, aren't rewarded for the skill set they provide. I think there will always be an edge in salary for offensive players, and I don't have an issue with that. That said, the best defensive players deserve to be paid well (in the context of professional athletes). This concept is like saying an English teacher deserves to be paid more than a Gym teacher, or an engine builder gets paid more than a body man. A teacher is a teacher, and a mechanic is a mechanic. Their payscale is based on seniority, experience, and training. We see that more or less for athletes, and that's the way it should be (with the exception of the rookie salary structure in the NHL).
|
|
|
|
Post by insomnius on Aug 15, 2004 15:49:43 GMT -5
Wouldn't a defensive forward be on the third or 4th line?
Is 2 million not enough for someone on the 3rd or 4th line?
Would they not fall under the 60 pt range? And then have their intangibles factored in?
Just some ideas ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Aug 15, 2004 17:10:23 GMT -5
Wouldn't a defensive forward be on the third or 4th line? Is 2 million not enough for someone on the 3rd or 4th line? Would they not fall under the 60 pt range? And then have their intangibles factored in? Just some ideas ;D No and no. John Madden isn't in the 60 point range but he just got a $4M lng-term contract from Lou Lamoriello, who doesn't throw money around. Second, some high scorers are unreliable despite their points and they don't get picked for international or Olympic competitions. Back in the 1970s Sam Pollock would never have traded Bob Gainey for Pierre Larouche despite Lucky Pierre's scoring touch. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Aug 15, 2004 17:11:19 GMT -5
John Madden is a third line player. He's likely the best in the biz right now (certainly near the top anyways). I think he's worthy of more than $2 million. The fact that he doesn't get 60 points doesn't make him less of a player.
Carboneau is widely considered one of the best defensive forwards in the last 25 years. He never had a 60 point season. Had he played during this generation, he'd be worth more than $2 million a year to me.
Langkow is not an elite player, by any means. I consider him to be in the same category of Perreault. Similar numbers, similar skill sets. Damon's faster and perhaps more physical. Yanic offsets that with faceoffs and better hands. Yanic played for $2.8 million and put up consistant ppg totals. Damon is not that dissimilar at this point. I figure he got what his play warranted.
|
|
