Stars Owner: Top players being paid too much

[CF84]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/23...katers-part-1/

This chart seems completely ridiculous. On average, defensemen are not that good while being that young. I've seen WAR charts where a young player is above 90% while playing third pairing minutes against weak opponents so maybe that's skewing the information? Also, the only young players in the league are already expected to become star players, while most prospects take quite some time to mature into good hockey players. That alone is enough to distort the available information.



Since you're using an older chart, I'll post an article from the same time frame that is more in line with what science says about peak physical fitness: https://www.cbc.ca/news/when-nhl-pla...rics-1.2646054

[SaskyFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Hockey was always in a dumb spot where you paid guys for what they did not what they will do for you. Vets shouldn’t be taking more money because they aren’t worth it.

Paying somebody for what they did doesn’t make much sense. But there is no guarantee what somebody will do. Especially when there is only 1 or 2 years of history. There are safer bets than others, but 99% of the time it isn’t absolute. Which I think is all he was trying to say. Sometimes those bets work other times they are Jeff Skinner.

[Shazam]

That blip at 39 for D-men is called the "Gio"

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Year 2 age?

I don’t think this graph says what you think it does. It measures improvement, not capability.

hence peak?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Shazam

That blip at 39 for D-men is called the "Gio"

Given the age of the Chart it's probably actually called the "Chara".

[zukes]

Does this guy want a system like baseball has, or like hockey used to have where guys are getting paid for past performance? I like the way this is trending. Pay the guys who are doing it now. The veterans that are now 3rd liners/role players are fine making $1.5 million after making their big contracts earlier in their career.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

hence peak?

except that is misleading. And this is what you originally said:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Players are in their prime typically from 22-26. You should pay them the most when they are at their best.

Which is wrong. The chart is measuring change in the player's WAR. That change is positive in the 22-25 years, meaning the player is improving during that time. The chart then remains relatively flat for the next several years, meaning players aren't improving, but they are still in their prime.

They're just numbers, which are always open to interpretation, but from that chart, I would label peak as 23-28, or more fairly, 21-30 (for forwards).

As others have said though, the results for defensemen make no sense at all, so - like with any individual stat set - we shouldn't read too much into them.

[Enoch Root]

Also, the entire X axis is negative, so is that chart saying the average change is negative EVERY year (except at 25, where it's zero)? If that were true, it would imply that players peaked at 18.

This chart generates more questions than answers.

[Ashasx]

I mean, the reduction literally begin after 25 years of age in that chart.

You can say the fundamentals behind it are flawed, but a decelerating car is no longer at peak speed.

Don't overthink my post - I meant nothing inflammatory.

Read the article I linked in my second post if you are more curious about the chart itself.

[Vinny01]

In some cases it makes a lot more sense to pay players out of their ELC or bridge than it does later in their career. We see players getting paid for past performance and then quickly becoming boat anchor contracts. Dallas is the perfect example with Benn and Seguin.

The Flames are locking themselves into a spot where their highest paid players will all be in their 30’s. Huberdeau, Kadri, Markstrom and likely Weegar. I still think a players prime is the 25-32 age range where maybe the points decrease but their overall game is enhanced.

The market saw a shift that began when McDavid was extended. He is a phenom and the Oilers were able to get him to sign max term and buy UFA years so it is understandable. Dubas took it to a new level with the Matthews and Marner deals. Matthews signs a monster deal with only 1 UFA year and Marner is paid top dollar as well. Previous to these 3 players teams were able to utilize the leverage they had over RFA’s to keep that market under 7M. MacKinnon, Gaudreau, Pasternak, Schiefele, Monahan, made in the 6’s. Funny enough paying guys that much out of ELC’s was also something the Oilers pioneered with their $6M deals for Hall, Nuge, and Eberle.

Now younger players are paid more and there is a risk they do not live up to the potential. On the flip side older players are being paid for what they have done and many of those contracts become boat anchors less than halfway into a max term.

The next time the CBA is reviewed it makes a lot of sense to lower the max term to 5-6 years from the current 7-8

[Northendzone]

WAR - what is is good for?

In my opinion the McDavid and Drai deals were pretty good as both players really blossomed, and if they they were heading into FA say this July McD might be getting a $16m contract

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I mean, the reduction literally begin after 25 years of age in that chart.

You can say the fundamentals behind it are flawed, but a decelerating car is no longer at peak speed.

Don't overthink my post - I meant nothing inflammatory.

Read the article I linked in my second post if you are more curious about the chart itself.

I think the point that you are missing is that there is very little change for several years. You used the word Prime - prime isn't a point in time, it's a period in time. As that graph shows, things remain pretty consistent until about the age of 30, then they start to slide more precipitously.

I think you originally interpreted improvement as peak, but it isn't that black and white.

Anyway, whatever.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Funny enough paying guys that much out of ELC’s was also something the Oilers pioneered with their $6M deals for Hall, Nuge, and Eberle.

I'm not sure why that idea persists here.

Dion Phaneuf got $6.5 for 6 years coming out of his ELC in 2008.

Mike Richards got $5.75 for 12 years in 2007 coming out of his ELC.

Nash and Kovalchuk were the first with rich 5 year contracts in the first year of the cap.

Cost certainty became the name of the game as soon as the cap was introduced.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

WAR - what is is good for?

In my opinion the McDavid and Drai deals were pretty good as both players really blossomed, and if they they were heading into FA say this July McD might be getting a $16m contract

At some point the player begins to price himself out of any team that has aspirations of building something around him. Even at his current salary, the Oilers are having significant issues with a decent support cast because of the flat cap. Some of this is certainly self-inflicted with other poor signings, but it doesn't help matters.

How many teams can actually toss out a 16M AAV to McDavid if he were a FA? Teams that are at least competitive anyway? Any that can, are likely doing so at the expense of at least 2 solid players.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Billionaire team owner complains that guys at the top are getting too big a piece of the pie.

That's some amazing lack of self awareness.

If anything NHL stars are still underpaid relative to their contributions.

The fact that a guy like Blake Coleman makes $5 million per year while guys like Huberdeau/Gaudreau only make twice as much is pretty nutty. He's not half the player, and he doesn't sell half the tickets that those guys do.

I forget the player, but wasn't it the Oilers who were ripped by Burke a number of years ago for basically killing the traditional second contract?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, but that's not what he said. He said young guys putting the puck in the net are coming in and taking too much money. Benn (33) and Seguin (30) are no longer young. And neither are scoring many goals these days.

He's conducting public negotiations with his young stars and trying to grind them down. Seems like a moron.

He is clearly building his team the way he wants to, paying aging players big money as a thank you. Hope it works out for him.

[Groot]

It's not the top guys that are eating up too much cap space and squeezing the veterans or whatever, it's the middle-tier players.

Crosby was making $8.7 million per in 2008-2009 which accounted for 15.3% of the cap space, which was $56.7 million that year. There were only 4 other players on the team that year making more than $4 million per year. The 3rd line of Matt Cooke - Jordan Staal - Tyler Kennedy has a combined cap hit of $3.941 million.

The stars of the league were always taking a larger percentage of the salary cap. It's the middle-6 players that have seen their salaries rise higher than either stars or 4th liners/replacement level players, and that's what is killing teams cap space.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I forget the player, but wasn't it the Oilers who were ripped by Burke a number of years ago for basically killing the traditional second contract?

I believe it was Dubas who ruined the second contracts the most, giving those kind of huge contracts to Matthews and Marner over a small period of time.

[Geeoff]

Seems like a mindset that works in other areas, but not so much professional sports, where people are paid for seniority rather than performance. Another thing to keep in mind is that probably when you own an NHL team, you form relationships with the veteran players over time, so it probably sucks to have to trade or otherwise move on from your friends

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm not sure why that idea persists here.

Dion Phaneuf got $6.5 for 6 years coming out of his ELC in 2008.

Mike Richards got $5.75 for 12 years in 2007 coming out of his ELC.

Nash and Kovalchuk were the first with rich 5 year contracts in the first year of the cap.

Cost certainty became the name of the game as soon as the cap was introduced.

I suppose it is because these were among the first deals signed after the lockout of 2012 where the rules were changed and the 10+ year deals were no longer allowed. You are correct that many of the stars from the beginning of the cap era were given big deals