Ice Hockey: NHL do they deserve the pay?

Ok so what do you think of certain players earning huge sums and not really producing and should never have recieved the salaries they are on?

One player who could be on the list is Bobby Holik.What ever did he do to deserve (9 million) a year. Did he ever score over 50 goals or even get over a hundred points in a season.Top players are the likes of Wayne,Mario,Jagr and so on,guys who have proven themselves on the stat sheet that they deserve the millions they get.They are the ones that truely fill the arenas not over paid underacheivers.

Any other players you feel don't produce and are on top money?

Well, this is not going to be about 1 player or even the NHL. This is going to be professional US sports in general, mainly: Baseball, Football, Hockey, and Basketball.

Contracts are created and signed based on what the player HAS done in the past and what the player MIGHT do in the future. So every big contract is a gamble. This could be for many reasons, lack of drive, injury, targetted by the opponent, etc.

I think teams would have better players if the players themselves had to play well to make the money. Look at Marian Gaborik. He tried to hold out to get guaranteed money. Now he is doing squat. What does that mean? His base is about all he is going to make this year. He will have an extremely tough time making his targets to get his bonuses.

I believe all contracts should be based on what are you doing for me now. Its fine to give a great player a slightly higher base than a good player. But that great player still needs to perform to get the bonus money.

I sure don't think Jagr is worth his weight in gold. A-Rod is awesome, but 1 player does not make a team. Moss is one of the greatest athletes in the NFL, but his quarterback can't always get him the ball.

I am sure if I dug I could find more cases like that.

major league sports are quickly pricing themselves out of business, arod makes so much money they can't trade him, even when all the parties are in favor of the trade, he is finding out that because of his salary the rangers have to cut corners with the rest of the team and as a result are fielding an inferior team to go along with a superior shortstop, instead of helping build the winning team he was hoping for arod will once again be the one shinng light on a last place team

No other opinions?

What about other sports like Crayon mentioned?

In all of the major US sports, salaries are way out of hand, these guys are professionals, yes, but who wouldn't want that type of job?? And we're out there busting our humps, try to go to a game for a diversion from the rest of life, and we hear comments like Sprewell's "I need to feed my family"??

The salaries have got out of hand in all sports, nobody is worth that amount of money and most of them can't handle it.

If the clubs are willing to pay it though then nobody is going to turn it down, it's all about profit so as long as the margins are up then so will the salaries.

Its been awhile since this thread was started but looking around the sports world today, i would say that its got worse. Players wages have escalated so much in the last two years that it has been sending teams into major debt, especially in football/soccer. You only have to look at the World Cup that has recently ended and England. Some of them players are earning over 100,000GBP a week and thats without their sponsorship deals and outside ventures. Look how badly they underachieved in the tournament and are they really worth paying that much money?






[Edited on 13/7/06 by TRD]

After hearing what the players make in football I was astonished. Are they worth it? No, not by a long shot. Now, in the NFL, they earn their money. An average player's career is less than 4 years, due to the toll on the body. Hockey is getting better now that there is the salary cap. Baseball and basketball are still out of control imo.

..and yet we continue to suport these salaries by attending games, buying th emerchandise, etc. Not that I'm stopping, but if we quit giving them the money in the first plac,e maybe he salaries would be more in line with reality.

What I propose is something that I know will never take place. Why? Because it takes guts on those in control of the sports leagues.

I propose slashing the minimumm salaries drastically and then implementing a procedure for pay increase based on longevity and performance. In the year these changes are implemented, they will take effect for rookies entering the league that year and continue for eveyone entering the league after that. Players currently under contract will not be affected, but any veteran who negotiates a new contract will have to abide by the rules.

Take the NFL, for example. I say the minimum salary is cut to $150,000 a year. That's more than enough for anyone to live on. Then players can get a pay increase for being in the league 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, and more than 15 seasons. For each position, a sequence of benchmarks can be set. For quarterback, a specific passer rating or number of TD passes or yards could be a test. Also, a player can get credit for going to the Pro Bowl or winning an award like MVP or Super Bowl MVP. These benchmarks should be increasingly difficult to achieve.

There would be no maximum salary, because that is collusion. However, the salary increases should be small, and the increasing difficulty to reach a benchmark will prevent salaries from getting out of control. Let's say Reggie Bush. If he started out at $150,000 a year, then he could get an increase to $300,000 for playing three seasons, and if he met a criterion such as gaining over 1000 yards rushing for two out of those three years, then he could go to $400,000. If he continued to meet the benchmarks, he could get more money, but the roof would be around maybe $3 million a year, unless he achieved something outrageous like two 2000 yard seasons or over 20 TD for three years in a row. Still, then his ceiling would only be $5 million.

This plan would take a strong will to put in to action. The players would undoubtedly strike when they heard of it. However, as we all learned in 1987, the NFL can go on without the stars. The owners will field a team regardless. Players strike long enough and new stars are born. If the NFL stayed tough and let the players strike, eventually the union will come crawling for reconciliation. Hey, in 1987 players began to cross the picket lines after only four weeks off.

A minimum salary has been introduced into Football in the UK, not by the FA but by some clubs. The problem was these players was holding the clubs to ransom with their pay demands, they still do. But what the clubs themselves have done is to introduce a pay structure and wont go over that. Alot of clubs got into serious debt by paying players over inflated salaries and so it needed to be done. Obviously the huge clubs can still afford to pay anything to these players and thats why there is a huge gulf between some clubs.

That's a pretty good idea there, btb. I think the main problem with it is mre the lack of guaranteed money, the players do risk severe injuries in the sports we love to watch. A possible end-around this would be soem sort of health coverage that would extend beyond a players career, especially if they suffer from career-ending injuries.

I agree that a health plan would be a great idea, especially in football. Many times I have read stories of players whose careers were cut short by injury, but there was no plan that could cover costs. There are hundreds of ex-NFL players out there who had to find some kind of work to keep afloat.

Originally posted by BirdstheBest
What I propose is something that I know will never take place. Why? Because it takes guts on those in control of the sports leagues.

I propose slashing the minimumm salaries drastically and then implementing a procedure for pay increase based on longevity and performance. In the year these changes are implemented, they will take effect for rookies entering the league that year and continue for eveyone entering the league after that. Players currently under contract will not be affected, but any veteran who negotiates a new contract will have to abide by the rules.

Take the NFL, for example. I say the minimum salary is cut to $150,000 a year. That's more than enough for anyone to live on. Then players can get a pay increase for being in the league 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, and more than 15 seasons. For each position, a sequence of benchmarks can be set. For quarterback, a specific passer rating or number of TD passes or yards could be a test. Also, a player can get credit for going to the Pro Bowl or winning an award like MVP or Super Bowl MVP. These benchmarks should be increasingly difficult to achieve.

There would be no maximum salary, because that is collusion. However, the salary increases should be small, and the increasing difficulty to reach a benchmark will prevent salaries from getting out of control. Let's say Reggie Bush. If he started out at $150,000 a year, then he could get an increase to $300,000 for playing three seasons, and if he met a criterion such as gaining over 1000 yards rushing for two out of those three years, then he could go to $400,000. If he continued to meet the benchmarks, he could get more money, but the roof would be around maybe $3 million a year, unless he achieved something outrageous like two 2000 yard seasons or over 20 TD for three years in a row. Still, then his ceiling would only be $5 million.

This plan would take a strong will to put in to action. The players would undoubtedly strike when they heard of it. However, as we all learned in 1987, the NFL can go on without the stars. The owners will field a team regardless. Players strike long enough and new stars are born. If the NFL stayed tough and let the players strike, eventually the union will come crawling for reconciliation. Hey, in 1987 players began to cross the picket lines after only four weeks off.

I like some of this idea but the longevity part is unrealistic as the average career in the NFL is 3.6 years. Also with this you will see a HUGE jump in arbitration. Who gauges what?

What I really hate is the big contracts and signing bonuses for people coming out of college. I think if Ryan Leaf played for 10 years at his obvious skill level, he would have earned what he was worth over that time period in his first year. STOP throwing money at the unproven. Don't want to sign for the money offered? SIT! "We've got your rights and nothing vested in you except a draft pick."

Oh, my plan is by no means refined. I think the benchmarks need to be set by the league and the union working together. For example, set incremental standards for quarterbacks: completion percentage, yards, touchdowns, interceptions, maybe even individual game highs (like 400 yard games)--perhaps some others. As a rough example, say a player goes from 55%, 3300 yards, 24 TD passes, and 14 interceptions to 60%, 3450, 27, and 12. He has met all his benchmarks, so he can get the next level raise.

You're right that it would probably introduce a lot more arbitration into the picture. Even if the criteria were agreed upon, the players would try to negotiate something between raise levels if some of the standards were met.

Pinning a QB salary on performance that can be affected by others may be a problem, especially if they have a problem with each other...

Yes, but that will be an issue at every position. A running back depends on his offensive line. The seconday depends on the defensive line to exert pressure. The linebackers depend on the guys up front to hold the line. Sure, it's impossible to completely gauge one player's individual impact, but I feel a good approximation can be made.