Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
That's pretty good criteria.
If I were to make one supplemental suggestion it'd be that you also want to look at the ice-time based on the prior year they signed. If they were signed on the premise that they were a "1st line player" and given salary consummate to that designation but later skill diminishment led to a drop in ice-time then they weren't given "2nd line money" they were given 1st line money that they just later failed to live up to.
|
I like that idea. The only problem I see though is, how do you come up with that list in the first place?
By taking last year's ice time, I can at least start with something to whittle down from. Whereas if I'm instead using the ice time of the year before each player signed their current deal, I'd have to go through literally every recent signing, look at their ice time from the year before and compare that to the team around them. It's a little more tedious.
But I understand where you're coming from. Sometimes people are playing second line minutes but getting paid for different expectations, whether those are first or third line expectations.
This is the inherent problem with salary negotiations. In a league so small (assume each team used all 50 contracts, there would be a maximum of 1500 players with NHL contracts in any given year), you're hard pressed to find legitimate comparables when it comes to ice time, production, role, etc. in order to establish a standard price. At best you usually get one or two people (Gaudreau and Tarasenko, Monahan and McKinnon/Barkov, etc.) but every team is different in terms of cap availability, team make up, etc.