NHL Salary Increases since 2000-01
by Hawerchuk on Mar 24, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintTyler Dellow got me thinking about this - the impact of the new CBA and the salary cap has not been felt uniformly by any means. While the 50th to 80th salary percentile experienced roughly the same level of annual salary growth before and after the lockout, players in the top 20% of salary - approximately the five-best players on each team - have seen a much smaller rate of salary increases. The blue line shows the annual rate of increase over the last eight seasons, the brown over the last five:
Keep in mind that the players at each percentile are different in each year as older players lose their skills and younger players become stars. The main impact of the CBA was to place strong downward pressure on the most expensive contracts. In other words, the very best players in the NHL are playing at a substantial contractual discount relative to what they were paid prior to the lockout. You can make a very good argument that these players, particularly those making over $5M a year, are some of the biggest bargains in the league.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You can make a very good argument that these players, particularly those making over $5M a year, are some of the biggest bargains in the league.
I would have to agree. For, say, Ovechkin, getting paid about 9M above replacement a year. You said a UFA win was worth 2M and an RFA was around 1M right? That would put Ovechkin as being paid for 9 wins until he’s 25-year-old contract season and then 4.5 wins afterwards.
I think 9 wins is a bit much, that’s equivalent to a 0.65 goal per game effect, I believe that’s Gretzky territory. But as soon as Ovechkin hits his UFA years he’ll be worth it I think, an estimated 0.3 goal per game effect I think is in the ball park of what the top guys bring.
I don’t watch much NYR games and I know the $7M seems ridiculous on the face of it but just looking at how Drury is used in NYR it seems like they lean on him heavily to take a lot of defensive zone faceoffs.
Now I had a short discussion with Gabe about this and I think faceoff winning ability is worth something but surely not in the range of $7M. But, the case is clear that the Rangers at the very least use Drury to play a subset of incredibly tough defensive shifts and are counting on him to get the puck out of the Dzone quite a lot. He’s probably not the best at it judging by where most of his events occur (in his own zone) but it will surely affect his counting numbers.
Drury might not be worth $7M but he is surely not as overpaid as the average fan believes and he is surely a much better player than the average fan believes.
As a Ranger fan, I can say most Ranger fans are idiots when it comes to Drury. Is he overpaid, yes. However, like you said, he plays a very specific and important role on the team. In addition to important draws, Drury and Callahan are the key PK pair.
it’s the Redden signing that really hurts. So dumb.
The way people think of this is that all contracts are compared to UFAs. So Ovechkin is being paid for about 4 wins per season. He has some excess value – one win, maybe? That’s a bargain in the NHL; it’s very rare to have someone contribute two wins more than his salary, aside from a top rookie.
Yeah, 1 win more than his price seems reasonable, that’s, what, 5 wins or 30 goals? 0.37 goal-per-game contribution, that seems quite reasonable.
I remember Vic saying two things, one was about how Ovechkin moving the game line about 35-40 cents and one about a 20 cent move in the game line being equivalent to 0.2 goals.
I’m not sure where that latter idea comes from but if true then it’s reasonable to think that Ovechkin is more than worth his contract, and guys like Crosby too.
Can you clarify what the red vs. blue means?
More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.
You’re using year-by-year salary numbers, correct? Not cap hits?
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
I’m guessing this is a product of relative competition. In any given offseason, only a handful of teams can afford to sign the really expensive players, while almost everybody can afford the second-tier guys, so those players end up with more leverage relative to their true worth. I’m not sure what else it could be.
Limiting top earners to 20% of the salary cap has worked out rather well for the league’s elite as the cap ceiling has shot up 45% since 2005. Unfortunately, minimum wage salaries were set in hard dollars as opposed to their 2005 percentage of cap (1.15%) resulting in the lunch bucket players leaving signficant cash on the table.
http://www.puckreport.com/2009/07/nhl-minimum-wagers-miss-out-on-bull-run.html
MG
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
