Jump to content

David Savard Fan Club


titanfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, johnnyhasbeen said:

I work in entertainment. I guess I better stop taking it seriously, like security at a Texas concert. 

Everyone should take their work seriously, especially anything related to safety ... the comparable to any frustration from a player not performing up to their salary would be the irritation of a singer/rapper giving a pathetic performance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

So a complete restructuring of the fundamental tenant of the CBA with the NHLPA?

Will never happen ... trying to remove guaranteed contracts from the CBA would result in a work stoppage (be it the first strike since 1992 or another lockout) that would make the loss of the 2004-2005 season look like a love-in.

 

The problem is not overpaid players ... doubt many of us would turn down waayyy more than we are actually worth at whatever job we do if it was offered ... the issue is that the GMs/owners give too much money for the role the player is actually capable of filling ... unless the player went from a buzzsaw on the ice to a matador (waving everyone by) after the contract is signed it is not the players fault ... 

I could handle 2 years without hockey if the resulting product was better. 

It is not a question of fault. If you are hired for a job and after you are hired it us discovered that you are not capable you are not at fault. Regardless of how wonderful your CV is and how great you performed in past jobs you can and will be fired. 

Athletes should not be exempt from dismissal. GMs and coaches can be fired. Players should be able to be fired too. They are not nonhuman. 

Contracts for athletes should all be performance based. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Everyone should take their work seriously, especially anything related to safety ... the comparable to any frustration from a player not performing up to their salary would be the irritation of a singer/rapper giving a pathetic performance

Perfect. So, if said performers performance evokes a riot, they are responsible? If said performer is unable to perform the audience is refunded and said performer is not paid. That is the real world I live in. You can't walk on stage not able to sing and expect to be paid. You cancel your show, repay your deposit from the promoter and go home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, johnnyhasbeen said:

Perfect. So, if said performers performance evokes a riot, they are responsible? If said performer is unable to perform the audience is refunded and said performer is not paid. That is the real world I live in. You can't walk on stage not able to sing and expect to be paid. You cancel your show, repay your deposit from the promoter and go home. 

Not exactly certain how you got from your original frustration with overpaid players to riots ... but if a performer goes out and performs the full show but is pathetic, then they bear some VERY, VERY, VERY small part of the blame for a riot Unless, of course, they actively incited it).

David Savard (for example) is more than able to play, just not able to play as well as you expect for the money he is being paid and the role he is being asked to fill ... and even if he was physically unable to play, unlike the music industry that is covered by the CBA (i.e., injured reserve) ... whether it is right or wrong, you are comparing industries that are effectively apples and oranges ... the TEAM is entering into the contract of sale for a fan to get a hockey ticket (not the players), and the ticket comes with no warranty about who will be playing for that team, or how well the players put on the ice will perform ... concert promoters sell tickets for a specific performer (e.g., Rolling Stones) and not just a general type of concert (e.g., "rock&roll") ... if the Stones can't perform the ticket is invalidated and refunds issued ... legally the promoter cannot fulfill the ticket be sending out Wyld Stallions (for anyone who doesn't know the reference, it is from Bill& Ted's Excellent Adventure).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, johnnyhasbeen said:

I could handle 2 years without hockey if the resulting product was better. 

It is not a question of fault. If you are hired for a job and after you are hired it us discovered that you are not capable you are not at fault. Regardless of how wonderful your CV is and how great you performed in past jobs you can and will be fired. 

Athletes should not be exempt from dismissal. GMs and coaches can be fired. Players should be able to be fired too. They are not nonhuman. 

Contracts for athletes should all be performance based. IMO

Not certain an NHL without guaranteed contracts would be better hockey ... it might give some fans the satisfaction of seeing players lose their jobs when they play poorly, but I sincerely doubt the "David Savards" of the NHL are not trying ... they just aren't good enough to fulfill the role the team decided to give them  ... nor would they be easily replaced by someone who would do a better job ... but if the replacement is cheaper the owners would get to save some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnnyhasbeen said:

Athletes should not be exempt from dismissal. GMs and coaches can be fired. Players should be able to be fired too. They are not nonhuman. 

Contracts for athletes should all be performance based. IMO

GMs and coaches are also guaranteed contracts. When they get fired, they still get paid. Like Julien is still getting his $5M for not coaching this year. If you want the ability to cut a player with no repercussion, then the salary cap will need to be significantly higher, as players will still want significantly higher compensation for the sake of having no guarantee. All of a sudden, your David Savards are getting $8M year, and fans will STILL be crying foul!, even though it isn't their money...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, huzer said:

GMs and coaches are also guaranteed contracts. When they get fired, they still get paid. Like Julien is still getting his $5M for not coaching this year. If you want the ability to cut a player with no repercussion, then the salary cap will need to be significantly higher, as players will still want significantly higher compensation for the sake of having no guarantee. All of a sudden, your David Savards are getting $8M year, and fans will STILL be crying foul!, even though it isn't their money...

The middle path would be an expansion of contract buy-outs, enabling teams to get out of bad contracts. Maybe easing the current buyout rule, or else allowing a limited number of full buyouts (without discount, as with a coach being fired) but up to $X (say, $10M) per year of it not counting against the cap.

 

Conceptually you could buy out Savard's contract at the end of the year (3x $3.5M remaining), write off $10M of cap, and you would spread the remaining $500K of cap hit over the three years. Savard still gets fully paid, and can sign for another team if he wishes to. Or buy out Gallagher (5x $6.5M), write off $10M, and then spread the remaining $22.5M of cap hit over five years. Obviously doesn't work as well for long or big-money contracts but I think that would be the intent anyway.

 

I don't think NHLPA would turn into Adam Ant over this approach ...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...