ForumGhost Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) 72 million, 12 years. It kind of depresses me when players like this are taken off the marker forever, but it was a good signing for them considering the cap hit is only 6 million a year for a player who could get more. Edited January 28, 2009 by ForumGhost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 72 million, 12 years. It kind of depresses me when players like this are taken off the marker forever, but it was a good signing for them considering the cap hit is only 6 million a year for a player who could get more. Sign of the economic times. If Zetterberg signs for that, what can Bob do with Komi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think Gainey would try to sign him at around 4 million, but for long, I have no idea. Maybe 5 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Sign of the economic times. If Zetterberg signs for that, what can Bob do with Komi? nothing. 5 yeras max is enough for him. if anything, Gainey should concentrate his effort at signing Price long, long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 nothing. 5 yeras max is enough for him. if anything, Gainey should concentrate his effort at signing Price long, long term. I don't like long-term deals. I was only referring to the dollar amount. $4-5 should be plenty over the course of a 5-year deal, though Bob seems to prefer the 4-year timeframe. $4.5/4? Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Personally, I'm surprised nobody signs a long term deal for a remarkably low salary. Think about a guy like Zetterberg signing for 10 years at 2.5 million a year. Doing his obviously improves the team's chances of putting together a great team. Fans will absolutely love him for taking one for the team and will know he's playing for love of the game, not money. Nobody would ever criticize him about being overpaid if he slumps. He and his family are set for life. Everybody wins. Let's face it, at a certain point, the millions of dollars these guys make just get redundant. I guess the only drawback would be other players might get pissed at him for lowering the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Personally, I'm surprised nobody signs a long term deal for a remarkably low salary. Think about a guy like Zetterberg signing for 10 years at 2.5 million a year. Doing his obviously improves the team's chances of putting together a great team. Fans will absolutely love him for taking one for the team and will know he's playing for love of the game, not money. Nobody would ever criticize him about being overpaid if he slumps. He and his family are set for life. Everybody wins. Let's face it, at a certain point, the millions of dollars these guys make just get redundant. I guess the only drawback would be other players might get pissed at him for lowering the market. that would be insane. I do believe these guys play for the love of the game, but leaving $50-60M on the table is insane. Perhaps there is a point where the marginal value of a dollar is low, but $25M over 10 years is not near that point. Having $75M is better than having $25M - it represents far more security, the ability to be an somewhat self-sufficient entreppenneur without risk of going destitute, it allow people to have a greater ability to pamper their parents, to assure their children have all possible advantages, and to cap it off it allows a person to do all of that with an assurance that if they will not have to work for the rest of their lives. This is especially true for an athlete in a dangerous game where serious long-term injury is a possibility, especially with what we are starting to know about the effects of concussions over the course of a player's life. While it would be very good for me as a fan if a Zetterberg level player were to sign with montreal for $2.5M over 10 years, I would aboslutely not have more respect for the guy if he chose to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Come on, you make it sound like a guy would be living in the slums making that kind of money. I mean, even taking away, say 50% for agent fees and various state, city, and federal taxes for his income bracket and he'd be pulling down just under 1.4 million a year. If you can't provide for your entire family and be secure in retirement on 12.5 million bucks, then you're an idiot. I mean, think about how easy it is to split up 14 million: - 200,000 a year into a retirement account (which will earn nice interest and be worth much more than 2 mill) - 100,000 a year into a college fund for the kids (1 mill) - 50,000k a year for the best private school for the kids (500k) - 1,000,000 on a dream home - 75,000 to cover a lifetime's worth of utilities, cable, internet, etc. - 1,000,000 for a nice place for the parents and plenty of money for them to live on - 1,000,000 for a lifetime's worth of nice vehicles Right there you've got a nice amount of living expenses, retirement, the kids, and the parents covered and even throwing in a million bucks for stuff I didn't think of off the top of my head and another million in an emergency account and he's left with 2.5 million bucks to have every comfort and be an entrepreneur and not be worried if his business fails. The average person makes just under 2 million in a lifetime, so if a guy can't live comfortably and never have to work again and provide for his family on 14 million, then there is something wrong. And this isn't even including money already earned in a career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Personally, I'm surprised nobody signs a long term deal for a remarkably low salary. Think about a guy like Zetterberg signing for 10 years at 2.5 million a year. Doing his obviously improves the team's chances of putting together a great team. Fans will absolutely love him for taking one for the team and will know he's playing for love of the game, not money. Nobody would ever criticize him about being overpaid if he slumps. He and his family are set for life. Everybody wins. Let's face it, at a certain point, the millions of dollars these guys make just get redundant. I guess the only drawback would be other players might get pissed at him for lowering the market. Whatever you're on, I want some! But seriously, you're right on a number of your points, and a player could definitely live well on $2.5 million for 10 years.... but really, you're surprised nobody does this? $50 million extra to cover the hard feelings for being slammed as overpaid goes a long way. And, the money is part of the measuring stick all players use. They use it to gauge performance and relative worth; it's a source of pride. Some amount of 'home town discount' is tolerated, but if you give it away for much less than market, you're going to see more criticism from players than accolades from fans. Even a lot of fans would think a player isn't very smart for accepting less than he's worth. As for the millions just getting redundant, there are all kinds of things to spend money on, and I'm sure most players want as much as they can for that purpose during their lengthy retirement. Even if a player is massively charitably inclined, I doubt that a billionaire team owner is his charity of choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I just think if a player's goal is to win the Cup and he'll do anything to get it, then it's not beyond the realm of possibilities that a guy would do this. I mean, if the choice is between retiring with 20 million by hindering the team's ability to build a big time contender and retiring on 10 million and the team can afford a key cog or two, you'd think at some point some player would bite the bullet. I just can't help but think that when guys see a team like Tampa Bay implode that some of them wonder if taking HUGE money is the best thing for them to achieve their goals. Tampa spent huge money on a few guys, missed the playoffs, got constrained by the cap, had to trade off parts, and now is just a bad team. Taking half the money you're worth when you're a guy of Zetterberg's calibre isn't going to hurt financially and will create a better opportunity to win. I suppose its just one of those things if you can't imagine the luxury of living on 14 million, you can't even comprehend the need to live on 28 million. So many of these guys just blow through money like it's nothing. When guys are making the kind of money professional athletes do, there is no excuse for going broke like McCarty did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Fanpuck, first of all you weren't talking originally about the marginal difference of $10M, you were talking about giving up $50M. I would probably not do either, but there is a difference. Many of the numbers you gave as cost estimates were pretty low. What really stuck out to me was the housing number. $1M buys a very nice house, especially if you are away from population centers, but a truly awesome place? absolutely not. Also, if I were truly wealthy, I'd want more than one house - I'd probably want one in Chicago, Montreal, and the warm city of my choice. As far as cars go - considering that Sergei Kostitsyn was talking about owning a car that retails for over $125,000... and considering you need to get a car for your wife... and your kids... $1M does not cover lifetime car expenses. Add to that the fact that you probably want at least one extra car for each extra houses... $75,000 absolutely would not cover utilities, etc... on your houses. Add in that we could have hyperinflation for a few years? Suffice it to say that it is easier than one might think to blow through millions of dollars without realizing it. Obviously $25M is fantastic wealth, more than anyone on this board can probably expect to ever make, but there is an absolute difference between $25 and $75. Does that difference matter? Who am I to say. Between the two of use, I'm the tax and spender, but that doesn't mean I begrudge an individual his right to play the game as the rules have been set. I think it is plausible to love hockey and love the Stanley Cup and value it less than $50M (or ever $20M), especially considering that the lost money is not a guarantee of getting the cup, especially when you already have a cup, especially when the money goes back to the ownership so they can either a: pocket the money, or b: pay some other schmuck that same extra $50M to score less than you do. Asking for player/employee sacrifice has been a tactic of ownership over the last century to beat back gains by unions and employees generally. I have little sympathy for the owner who asks his player to be a "team player" and accept a discount while he takes a special dividend to empty the team of capital. If I were a player, my response to a plea for a wage cut would be "I'll cut mine when you cut yours... maybe." The bible says that you will eat by the sweat of your brow, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Fanpuck, first of all you weren't talking originally about the marginal difference of $10M, you were talking about giving up $50M. I would probably not do either, but there is a difference. Not sure where you're coming up with that 50 million figure... The only number I originally threw out there originally was the 2.5 million a year for 10 years for a hypothetical player. And once you take taxes and agents into account, even signing for 25 million instead of 75 million ends up being a difference of 25 million to live on, not 50 million. Many of the numbers you gave as cost estimates were pretty low. What really stuck out to me was the housing number. $1M buys a very nice house, especially if you are away from population centers, but a truly awesome place? absolutely not. Also, if I were truly wealthy, I'd want more than one house - I'd probably want one in Chicago, Montreal, and the warm city of my choice. As far as cars go - considering that Sergei Kostitsyn was talking about owning a car that retails for over $125,000... and considering you need to get a car for your wife... and your kids... $1M does not cover lifetime car expenses. Add to that the fact that you probably want at least one extra car for each extra houses... All the stuff you're talking about is completely excess luxury. I'd say a million dollar home is luxurious enough, let alone multiple houses. What's wrong with renting on vacation? If you can't be happy with one house, you've got a problem. Then with the cars, I can understand maybe buying one 100,000 dream car. Other than that, let's say you have two kids, buy them each a top flight normal brand car for their 16th birthday. You and the wife can still have a new 50,000 dollar car every 6-7 years. That's far above comfortable. $75,000 absolutely would not cover utilities I typed the wrong number, but I'm pretty sure I counted it right in my overall computation. I left out a 4 in front of it. Though, I guess I didn't include cell phones in that number. I don't have a monthly bill for that, so it didn't occur to me. My whole point is that 12.5 million in 10 years is more than 6 times what the average, comfortable person earns in a lifetime. Most guys play at least 5 years before getting "the big contract" so even making league minimum for the first 5 years and a guy has already earned more than the average person in a lifetime. That big 25 million over 10 year deal is then all icing on the cake. As long as you invest wisely and don't do stupid stuff, you're gonna be more than comfortable and just a step below luxurious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Fanpuck, Zetterberg did exactly what you're speaking of when he signed for a cap hit of 6 million dollars. He's probably going to wind up losing money because of this decision but he's allowed the team to give re-signing Franzen/Hossa a shot. Your example is just too exaggerated. It's just too much money to turn aside. I do agree that simonus's projection for cost on cars is also extremely exaggerated. I can understand multiple houses (as well as houses with prices exceeding a million dollars) but do you really need 6-8 cars, all of them 100K+? Even with all that much money, I wouldn't want so money cars (tell the wife to get her own ). I'd also add that these players can almost make money at will even after their retirement from hockey. Many of them get jobs on TV or with their organizations and they could get paid any time they want to appear in a commercial, autograph session, event, etc. If I were an athlete, every time I'd want some cash, I'd buy something, sign it and then sell it. Unlimited supply of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I do agree that simonus's projection for cost on cars is also extremely exaggerated. I can understand multiple houses (as well as houses with prices exceeding a million dollars) but do you really need 6-8 cars, all of them 100K+? Even with all that much money, I wouldn't want so money cars (tell the wife to get her own ). I can see that there is little point in talking about the costs of such things, but BTH - this is one thing about which I am quite certain. First: we are not talking about how many cars you have at a given time - we are talking about buying cars over the course of your life. I would not say that you would need or want 6-8 cars at any given time, but over the course of your life you are likely (between your whole family) to buy at least 6-8 cars. Lets say you get a new car every 5-6 years and each one costs between $75 - $150k and you keep two cars (I know my family kept 4 or 5 cars when I still lived at home... but then again I got rid of my car when I moved to the city) - that is between $300k - $600k outlay every decade. A lexus ls460L costs around $80k-$90k. It's a very nice car and I'd probably not want something more expensive, but it is not at the top price for a sedan - it is much cheaper than than a Mercedes AMG, a 7 series BMW, or the Bentley Continental. Second: a million dollars buys you 1300sqft in the Trump International in Chicago, which is obviously overpriced... I was able to find 2900sqft for $1.1M in an old building in town.. I'm sure that place is quite nice, but it isn't exactly a mansion. Maybe it's not cars that you want to spend your money on... Maybe you are me and you start buying musical instruments, stereos and recording equipment... maybe if I were truly rich I'd want to build my own recording studio in my condo. Maybe you're Alex Kovalev or Joe Juneau and you start buying planes. Maybe you are Saku Koivu and you start buying MRI machines. Maybe you are a multi-multi millionaire like Angelina Jolie and you pay to have a few hundred acres of Cambodia de-mined. Maybe you are a billionaire like Bill Gates and you pay to have malaria wiped out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'd forgotten that most people buy new cars after a few years. But when they do, don't they normally sell the old one? For such luxurious cars, they'll be able to get a decent refund. I was referring to you saying that you'd have a car in a whole bunch of different cities and could have half a dozen cars at the same time. This is just a hypothetical case anyway. I think the player that's willing to leave 10-25 million dollars on the table is also the one who can live comfortably with the millions he has and isn't interested in buying multiple mansions and multiple sports cars. Given Sergei's salary, he's probably an exception. A lot of pro athletes drive 50k cars, and that's still above average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Off topic: I remember when an NBA or MLB (can't remember which) player went on strike one of the players actually came out and said that they had to get a massive pay increase because how could they afford the mortgages on the five houses and payments on the twelve cars. I think it was at that point I realized just how completely pampered these athletes are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 No idea, but Sprewell turned down something like 12 million a year because he said he had a family to feed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 No idea, but Sprewell turned down something like 12 million a year because he said he had a family to feed. Was that before or after he choked his coach? Class fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 No idea, but Sprewell turned down something like 12 million a year because he said he had a family to feed. He didn't turn down 12M/year because he said he had a family to feed, he justified turning it down by talking about the need to support his children. I think Sprewell just had an unfortunate use of hyperbole thrown back at him. He turned down 12M because he thought his market value was higher. As far as athletes being pampered - I don't get that at all. Athletes get paid their market value - whether or not we think they are "overpaid", they are certainly paid at the rate the market values them at at the given time. When Mark Teixeira is 38 yrs old, he won't be "worth" $15M or whatever it is they are paying him, but the market price of getting Teixeira in 2009 is to promise to pay him that much when he is 38. And it is not like athletes don't work for their money... its not like a hockey player only works for 15 minutes a night or David Ortiz works for 4 at-bats. That is no more true than it is that Fanpuck works 1:30 a day for 6 months of the year.... or that I have only worked for 4 hours since that is about the aggregate amount of time I have spent in front of a court. Of course athletes make way more money (albeit over a very short period of time) than the average person does, but I don't see people getting so disturbed over how much actors make or - until very recently - over how much CEO's make. Why aren't you pissed off at how much surgeons make? I wonder if it is because one has some sense that an athlete is on "their" team... that there is so connection there. If I buy an iPhone, I don't feel like I'm part of Steve Jobs' team and as such I don't have a personal stake in whether he exercises his stock options... but maybe when I buy a habs ringtone for my iPhone I think I'm part of the group and I see more clearly the earning disparity between myself and Alex Kovalev? I honestly don't understand the cognitive dissonance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Why aren't you pissed off at how much surgeons make? Most of your post was good stuff. This, though, was utter bollocks. Really? Guys saving lives? The problem is in the priorities of our consumerism and entertainment driven society. Fair enough, guys get paid according to how many people they make happy; I may not like it, but I understand it and respect the culture from which it comes. But to insinuate a surgeon is in the same ballpark as Barry Bonds or Brad Pitt? I do realize you were trying to make a point, but I think trying to make that point by indicating guys who actually deserve the money is harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Most of your post was good stuff. This, though, was utter bollocks. Really? Guys saving lives? The problem is in the priorities of our consumerism and entertainment driven society. Fair enough, guys get paid according to how many people they make happy; I may not like it, but I understand it and respect the culture from which it comes. But to insinuate a surgeon is in the same ballpark as Barry Bonds or Brad Pitt? I do realize you were trying to make a point, but I think trying to make that point by indicating guys who actually deserve the money is harsh. richest surgeons are the cosmetic plastic surgeons, followed by the neurosurgeons doing spinal surgeries which have questionable benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 @simonus: I have no problem with athletes making millions, but one comes off as awfully greedy or irresponsible to say that they can't support their family on 12 million dollars a year. Most of your post was good stuff. This, though, was utter bollocks. Really? Guys saving lives? The problem is in the priorities of our consumerism and entertainment driven society. Fair enough, guys get paid according to how many people they make happy; I may not like it, but I understand it and respect the culture from which it comes. But to insinuate a surgeon is in the same ballpark as Barry Bonds or Brad Pitt? I do realize you were trying to make a point, but I think trying to make that point by indicating guys who actually deserve the money is harsh. Most doctors are probably lured into the hospitals because of the high salaries, not because they're so eager to save lives. Can you really just assume "their job is to save lives, hence they deserve money?" People who become teachers probably have better intentions but they get paid much, much less because there are so many people willing (and probably able) to do those jobs. Also, for each rich and famous actor or pro athlete, there are a bunch of broke ones trying to make a decent living. It's only the best of the best that make the big money, as it should be in any profession. Just in these fields, we only know about the best, so when we talk about "actors," we really mean a small group of Hollywood stars like Brad Pitt and when we say "athletes," we mean Henrik Zetterberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Most doctors are probably lured into the hospitals because of the high salaries, not because they're so eager to save lives. Can you really just assume "their job is to save lives, hence they deserve money?" People who become teachers probably have better intentions but they get paid much, much less because there are so many people willing (and probably able) to do those jobs. you are actually totally wrong about that. The great majority of people I know who are doctors or medical students care deeply about helping people. Obviously they want the salaries that come with the position, but that in now way means that they didn't first look at medicine because of their fascination with the human body and their desire to help people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 you are actually totally wrong about that. The great majority of people I know who are doctors or medical students care deeply about helping people. Obviously they want the salaries that come with the position, but that in now way means that they didn't first look at medicine because of their fascination with the human body and their desire to help people. Could be. But if doctors made the same salaries as teachers, it suddenly becomes a much/ less attractive job occupation for a whole lot of people. Making money comes first, morals second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 capitalism has failed. just a matter of time before zetterberg renegotiates for saltpork Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.