Stars Owner: Top players being paid too much

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Of course none of those guys are worth half of McDavid. That's my whole point.

You just bored and trying to start an Oilers/Flames pissing match?

You don’t come here for hugs and gift baskets do you?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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

That seems so wrong for defense. How many defensemen are at their best at 19-24?

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

It's a weird complaint since (Assuming everyone spends to cap) the same amount of total money is being spent

Why does he 'care' if veterans are getting squeezed. This is the same in every sport where the younger players are starting to make the big money (Which makes sense, don't pay for what someone HAS done but what they most likely will do)

I guess if you have a lot of long term contracts locked up with veterans and your young guys now need a raise its an issue - But that's more of bad salary management by the specific team.

Guess you shouldn't have overpaid your vets for non prime years....

He cares because he messed up and blew his wad on veterans like Seguin and Benn. Now it’s blowing up in his face. 😀

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hasn’t this owner done this to his players before? I seem to recall ripping on Seguin a couple years ago.

I honestly thought this was a bump of that thread.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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

I think an issue with this graph is that you have to be a very good player to play lots of games before age 25, so the young sections skew disproportionately to star players (who also get sheltered in their youngest years). I bet the bottom half of NHL rosters are 80%+ guys aged 25-32.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If he doesn't wanna pay Robertson, Brad should be typing up the offer sheet as we speak.

With what cap space and compensatory draft picks?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[CGY12]

Not being an owner and having insight into the books, I'd think its the complete opposite. If you split the pay brackets into 3 tiers (3 being the lowest), tier 2 and 3 have to much of the pie vs 1. I'm sure the NHLPA is happy about that but their are way to many middle tier players making really good money relative to the cap, which takes away from the stars that really decide if you win or lose.

The Stars owner is just upset he paid to much for what he considered "super stars" at the time and they are now chilling after getting paid. I wish every system was like the NFL where performance after signing still actually mattered but you still get some guaranteed money, vs. 100% guaranteed.

[bluejays]

His comments are probably aimed towards the tit sucking Benn and Seguin have been doing for a long time. That's what happens when you sign party boys.

[EVERLAST]

I'm sure other Owners say the same stuff ....but in private.

Is this the same guy that Mike Richard's used to roast on the fan when Turco was still in goal and Richard's joked that Turco was his b!@#$%?
That was hilarious and disturbing simultaneously.

I guess the stars will be playing extra hard this year huh. Lol.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I honestly thought this was a bump of that thread.



I think an issue with this graph is that you have to be a very good player to play lots of games before age 25, so the young sections skew disproportionately to star players (who also get sheltered in their youngest years). I bet the bottom half of NHL rosters are 80%+ guys aged 25-32.

There are also guys who peak as fourth liners around that same age. Think Lance Bouma, who was only good enough to touch the NHL during his career peak. It is only the best players who continue to play into their late twenties and thirties.



I think the methodology used for that graph does a very good job of accounting for aging properly.

[Hack&Lube]

"Guys who can put the puck in the net are getting too big a piece of the pie"
-Stars Owner

"Guys who can put the puck in the net are what makes me millions of dollars in the playoffs"
-All the other NHL owners

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by wireframe

It is only the best players who continue to play into their late twenties and thirties.

Trouble is, those aren't necessarily the same players who were already in the NHL in their late teens and early twenties. The graph isn't tracking the same group of players over time; players are coming and going all the way along, which is liable to alter the results.

To take two recent Flames as examples, Mackenzie Weegar had his first good offensive season at age 26 – the same age at which Sean Monahan's offence dried up because of injuries. Weegar wasn't in the NHL yet when Monahan emerged as a first-line forward. Monahan may not be in the NHL anymore when Weegar has his best years.

We don't know enough about the methodology behind the graph to assess how well it's compensated for this kind of thing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I honestly thought this was a bump of that thread.



I think an issue with this graph is that you have to be a very good player to play lots of games before age 25, so the young sections skew disproportionately to star players (who also get sheltered in their youngest years). I bet the bottom half of NHL rosters are 80%+ guys aged 25-32.

Yeah I think a better way might be to do the same graph but only include the top 50 players in goals/assists/points. Or maybe just points. Whatever but limit it somewhat to the top performers and see how it changes.It would also be helpful to update the data since that is only 2008-2016.

You could also look do a chart but base it on years in the league instead of age.

[Nammer403]

I feel like he's said that before

[N-E-B]

“The guys who can put the puck in the net are getting paid too much”

Um, what?

The guys getting paid too much are the guys who used to be able to put the puck in the net.

If veterans are getting squeezed out by players who are younger, faster, stronger, and better that’s a good thing. I’d rather watch Cale Makar than Joe Thornton at this point.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Of course none of those guys are worth half of McDavid. That's my whole point.

You just bored and trying to start an Oilers/Flames pissing match?

I wonder how many McDavids Nurse is worth…

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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

Year 2 age?

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

[SaskyFlamesFan]

Some of what he says in that interview makes sense. The bridge deal is basically gone, once an entry deal is done guys want to get paid. Some players are probably a safe bet, but some guys would rather see them progress a little before getting paid. A guy like Robertson is probably a safe bet although he only has really two years of experience. The safer bet would be to pay him a little less for 2-3 years and then a big contract.

The last line is getting all the attention about paying guys who put the puck in the net but the majority of the interview is reasonable in my opinion.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by SaskyFlamesFan

Some of what he says in that interview makes sense. The bridge deal is basically gone, once an entry deal is done guys want to get paid. Some players are probably a safe bet, but some guys would rather see them progress a little before getting paid. A guy like Robertson is probably a safe bet although he only has really two years of experience. The safer bet would be to pay him a little less for 2-3 years and then a big contract.

The last line is getting all the attention about paying guys who put the puck in the net but the majority of the interview is reasonable in my opinion.

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Year 2 age?

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

It measures change from Year X to Year X+1 (aka year 2). Which is the point of the exercise of talking about "peak" - to see where the average change starts to be negative, and where players on average really tend to fall off a cliff.

I agree with the criticisms about sample favouring younger players because the truly elite get into the league sooner and get more ice time at that age so that seems likely to skew the data. But overall, it's pretty hard to argue against the proposition that forwards fall off really hard around 30 on average.

Defensemen just sort of hang on longer while still trending down for the most part. I think the conventional wisdom about defencemen peaking later is that many of them just aren't given their due right away, because unless you're Makar, even good young defensemen aren't game breaking, highlight-driving talents and it takes a little longer to build a track record.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hasn’t this owner done this to his players before? I seem to recall ripping on Seguin a couple years ago.

And Benn