Argument I had with my brother about sports salaries & draft pick priority

[JOE]

I was talking to my brother the other day about how certain professional hockey teams get or have gotten preferential treatment in the draft. That if they finish last in the standings that they are automatically awarded the first pick. Then he cited how the Edmonton Oilers were able to successively finish last in the standings until the managed to secure the first pick one year to get current superstar Connor McDavid. He thought that such a system was unfairly rewarding General Managers and teams for their incompetence for losing.



To which I replied, I don't think so. I figger when teams are bad, perhaps it's the draft which is their only way out of the cellar. And then there's the other factor where some teams are ultra rich and can buy themselves a contender - such as the New York Rangers. So if they don't have such a mechanism to level the playing field, then the poor teams will always remain at the bottom of the standings. There'll never be any parity, and it would never enable small market teams such as Nashville or the Columbus Blue Jackets to rise and become respectable like they are today.



Then I turned to the topic of players who get paid unusually high salaries and relatively speaking are underperformers. There are a number of teams who have players making $10 million US per year, and yet have never won a championship, let alone a scoring title. ie - a Zach Parise, whose salary this year was $9,000,000 US and his output was 19 goals. That's roughly $500,000 US per goal.



To put that into perspective, there are players in the Hockey Hall of Fame who earned less than $500,000 in their entire career who won countless championships, such as the late great Jean Beliveau. Beliveau was in the NHL for 18 seasons and won the Stanley Cup 10 times. And he was in the Stanley Cup final 3 times in a losing cause. So win or lose, he was in the final 3/4 of his entire career. According to him, his entire career earnings were about $450,000. Factor in inflation in that might be $6 to 8 million in today's dollars - but for 18 seasons. that would translate into just $500,000 a year. He was one of the best players of his time and perhaps all time and yet he made practically nothin' compared with today's Super Duds. Given that his career output was over 500 goals in regular season play, that was less than $1,000 a goal. or in today's money, about $15,000.



Anyways, make a long story short, I suggested to my brother that today's players should be paid on their actual performance, not on their expected outcome. I suggested to him, that this would incentivize what the players make rather than award underperformance. This would improve the quality of play in the NHL considerably. So it would be more along the lines of professional golf or tennis, where if a player wins, he makes lots of money. And if doesn't make anything. Therefore, under such a scenario, a player like Sidney Crosby would make his $10,000,000 for his championships, and an underperformer like Parise would only make a fraction of that.



Again, we got into another argument, and this made him really upset. I'm not entirely sure why this is the case. Perhaps it upset him that I was upending an illusion that the NHL is not the holy grail or golden standard of professional hockey excellence? And that they could do some things differently to improve what is otherwise a lacklustre product.



Anyways, trivial random musings. A change in values and the times. But perhaps it's also an indicator what people value now - and the value often isn't there anymore.

[Anonymous]

A brother this time? Not a friend?

[JOE]

A brother this time? Not a friend?

Whatever.



As for your Toronto Maple Leafs, they got a heckuva deal signing rookie Auston Matthews for 3 years at $3,775,000 US.



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/4768914/thumbs/o-AUSTON-MATTHEWS-570.jpg?16">



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-sign-auston-matthews-entry-level-deal/">http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/mapl ... evel-deal/">http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/maple-leafs-sign-auston-matthews-entry-level-deal/

LENGTH:

3 Years

CONTRACT TYPE:

Entry-Level Deal

SALARY CAP HIT:

$925,000

TOTAL:

$3.775 million

His rookie output was over 40 goals. So if those figures are accurate. that's about $25,000 a goal. Closer to what the best HHOFers were paid. So...if a player like Parise gets paid close to $500,000 per goal, then there definitely something wrong with the salary structure of the NHL. That'd be like the best player in Tennis or Golf winning the US Open getting paid $20,000, and yet a well-known has been who finishes 100th getting $1,000,000 for just showing up at the tournament. But of course, neither of those two sports pays out their winnings like that. If they win, they make money. And of course if they don't, they don't make anything no matter how popular they may have been in their prime.



The NHL should strongly consider adopting a similar model in order to improve the game.

[Anonymous]

I Wish Calgary had Auston Matthews.

[Anonymous]

A brother this time? Not a friend?

Whatever.

Exactly.  Whatever.

[JOE]

I Wish Calgary had Auston Matthews.

Calgary is a young team with a lot of promise.



Again, I believe they built their team largely through the draft.



Yet, if they had to adopt my brother's version of it, they'd be cellar dwellers forever, and there'd be no incentive for them to improve. And the league would be full of perennial winners and losers, with a large number of them going broke. Of course, such a system wouldn't be fair. But thanks to a system which favors lower finishing teams, Calgary is back in it, having made the playoffs this year and a respectable finish in the regular season standings.

[Anonymous]

I Wish Calgary had Auston Matthews.

Calgary is a young team with a lot of promise.



Again, I believe they built their team largely through the draft.



Yet, if they had to adopt my brother's version of it, they'd be cellar dwellers forever, and there'd be no incentive for them to improve. And the league would be full of perennial winners and losers, with a large number of them going broke. Of course, such a system wouldn't be fair. But thanks to a system which favors lower finishing teams, Calgary is back in it, having made the playoffs this year and a respectable finish in the regular season standings.

I paid more attention to Calgary this year because they made it to the playoffs.

[Romero]

I was talking to my brother the other day about how certain professional hockey teams get or have gotten preferential treatment in the draft. That if they finish last in the standings that they are automatically awarded the first pick. Then he cited how the Edmonton Oilers were able to successively finish last in the standings until the managed to secure the first pick one year to get current superstar Connor McDavid.

Last place teams aren't automatically awarded the first pick. There's been a draft lottery since 1995. When Edmonton was awarded that McDavid first round pick, they had actually finished the season in third-last place.

[Anonymous]

I was talking to my brother the other day about how certain professional hockey teams get or have gotten preferential treatment in the draft. That if they finish last in the standings that they are automatically awarded the first pick. Then he cited how the Edmonton Oilers were able to successively finish last in the standings until the managed to secure the first pick one year to get current superstar Connor McDavid.

Last place teams aren't automatically awarded the first pick. There's been a draft lottery since 1995. When Edmonton was awarded that McDavid first round pick, they had actually finished the season in third-last place.

Are you suggesting his "brother" was wrong.

[Anonymous]

I was talking to my brother the other day about how certain professional hockey teams get or have gotten preferential treatment in the draft. That if they finish last in the standings that they are automatically awarded the first pick. Then he cited how the Edmonton Oilers were able to successively finish last in the standings until the managed to secure the first pick one year to get current superstar Connor McDavid. He thought that such a system was unfairly rewarding General Managers and teams for their incompetence for losing.



To which I replied, I don't think so. I figger when teams are bad, perhaps it's the draft which is their only way out of the cellar. And then there's the other factor where some teams are ultra rich and can buy themselves a contender - such as the New York Rangers. So if they don't have such a mechanism to level the playing field, then the poor teams will always remain at the bottom of the standings. There'll never be any parity, and it would never enable small market teams such as Nashville or the Columbus Blue Jackets to rise and become respectable like they are today.



Then I turned to the topic of players who get paid unusually high salaries and relatively speaking are underperformers. There are a number of teams who have players making $10 million US per year, and yet have never won a championship, let alone a scoring title. ie - a Zach Parise, whose salary this year was $9,000,000 US and his output was 19 goals. That's roughly $500,000 US per goal.



To put that into perspective, there are players in the Hockey Hall of Fame who earned less than $500,000 in their entire career who won countless championships, such as the late great Jean Beliveau. Beliveau was in the NHL for 18 seasons and won the Stanley Cup 10 times. And he was in the Stanley Cup final 3 times in a losing cause. So win or lose, he was in the final 3/4 of his entire career. According to him, his entire career earnings were about $450,000. Factor in inflation in that might be $6 to 8 million in today's dollars - but for 18 seasons. that would translate into just $500,000 a year. He was one of the best players of his time and perhaps all time and yet he made practically nothin' compared with today's Super Duds. Given that his career output was over 500 goals in regular season play, that was less than $1,000 a goal. or in today's money, about $15,000.



Anyways, make a long story short, I suggested to my brother that today's players should be paid on their actual performance, not on their expected outcome. I suggested to him, that this would incentivize what the players make rather than award underperformance. This would improve the quality of play in the NHL considerably. So it would be more along the lines of professional golf or tennis, where if a player wins, he makes lots of money. And if doesn't make anything. Therefore, under such a scenario, a player like Sidney Crosby would make his $10,000,000 for his championships, and an underperformer like Parise would only make a fraction of that.



Again, we got into another argument, and this made him really upset. I'm not entirely sure why this is the case. Perhaps it upset him that I was upending an illusion that the NHL is not the holy grail or golden standard of professional hockey excellence? And that they could do some things differently to improve what is otherwise a lacklustre product.



Anyways, trivial random musings. A change in values and the times. But perhaps it's also an indicator what people value now - and the value often isn't there anymore.

Joe the sixty year old virgin bullshitter.

[Anonymous]

NHL players are not worth the money they make.

[Anonymous]

NHL players are not worth the money they make.

Is Kim Kardashian who is paid a lot more than professional athletes?

[Anonymous]

If you feel athletes and entertainers are overpaid, do something about it. Stop going to their concerts and games. Stop  downloading their songs.  Stop watching their moves, shows and games. Stop buying their products they endorse. Stop following them on Twitter and Instagram.



You have the power to do something about it. However, if you are doing those things and bitching, you only have urself to blame

[JOE]

NHL players are not worth the money they make.

...some might be. But that's far more an exception than the rule.



I'd call those the 'one %ers'. The Sidney Crosbys, the Steve Stamkos. But most simply aren't worth the salaries they're getting these days.



If a player can make $20,000,000 in gate receipts, TV advertising and sell an equivalent amount of merchandise, then I'd see he's earning his or her keep. And especially win the championship or else come very close to t.



It's when the athlete doesn't produce the ind of numbers commeasurate with the amount of what they're being paid,they are a net loss. It not only hurts the league financially, but also undermines the credibility of a professional sport.

[JOE]

If you feel athletes and entertainers are overpaid, do something about it.



Stop going to their concerts and games.

I rarely watch NHL games anymore. Especially regular season, because the vast majority of them aren't of sufficiently high quality.

[/b] Stop  downloading their songs.  

Where an entertainer, I don't download any songs, I buy the CDs where the exist instead.

Stop watching their movies, shows and games.

I already have. There aren't many good films coming out from Hollywood.

Stop buying their products they endorse.

I rarely do

Stop following them on Twitter and Instagram.

Never do. Social media is too invasive.

You have the power to do something about it. However, if you are doing those things and bitching, you only have urself to blame