I have always thought that performance based contracts would be great in the NHL. Eliminate signing bonuses and have a standard performance based bonus. Make the guaranteed contact size lower and only that count against the cap.

20 Goals - 2 Mil
30 Goals - 3 Mil
40 Goals - 5 Mil
50 Goals - 7 Mil

Do that for Goals, assists, points. For Goalies do Save percentage , GAA and Shutouts. It would never happen, but it would bring salaries down where they need to be IMO.
- Jimmygrazz

Bad idea for individual players (as others have pointed out).

But a few years before the last CBA (back when performance bonuses were legal) the Leafs instituted a policy; no individual performance bonuses. All performance bonuses were tied to team goals.

No offence, but this is the worst idea I've read anywhere and least likely to happen in any league, anywhere, ever
- conor_smythe

Why is it such a bad idea? Players would have to EARN their money? We couldn't have that now could we? I know at my job I get paid on how well I do. I know it would never happen, just thought it's a different idea.

Why is it such a bad idea? Players would have to EARN their money? We couldn't have that now could we? I know at my job I get paid on how well I do. I know it would never happen, just thought it's a different idea.
- Jimmygrazz

You know that for years players had performance bonuses, right?

Didn't really make a heck of a lot of difference.

And do you really want a guy skating around in the third period, late in the season, with his team holding on to a 1-goal lead, trying to pop a goal to make an extra $2 million?

Should the players be asked to give, and not expect anything in return? I agree that 50/50 is a reasonable ratio. But that still doesn't change the fact that they are giving in that. That can't be ignored. So in a deal that is supposed to be give and take, what do the players get out of it? The NHL's vision of a new deal is 50/50 and taking contract rights away from the players. How is that reasonable? And how is that not insulting to the players?
- MJL

Where exactly is there anything that says this is the case? Why is it that someone always EXPECTS to get something in return? If something needs fixed. FIX IT! The contract rules NEED FIXED. As does the revenue split. Players will still make out like bandits either way! I just dont get why they dont realize it?

You know that for years players had performance bonuses, right?

Didn't really make a heck of a lot of difference.

And do you really want a guy skating around in the third period, late in the season, with his team holding on to a 1-goal lead, trying to pop a goal to make an extra $2 million?
- Atomic Wedgie

be nice.. he was only making a suggestion for something to talk about

your point is well taken however.

Technically, yes. The reality was they didn't. Other than making the head of the NFLPA and his firm richer, it accomplished nothing for the players. No contracts were disolved or signed, etc. The league would've fought that in court all the way. It would've been years. The head of the NFLPA is a lawyer and represented the players whether he was the NFLPA head or if he was the head of the legal team for the players. Essentially, he double dipped, getting paid to lead the union but also collecting fees every time the NFLPA took the NFL to court. In general, players are idiots when it comes to CBA time. You saw it during football CBA negotations (when NFL star players making several million $$ a year were comparing their lives to SLAVERY, etc). Players want to hear that the owners are the root of all evil in their lives so when it's whispered in their ears that the owners are out to enslave them and disrespect them. The thought processes stop there.

Look no further than Sidney Crosby. What has Crosby brought to the negotiations? Zilch. He's spouting all this anger towards the owners that provide him with 8+ mill/yr and the best medical care in the world without actually saying anything relevant. It's like the politician who talks on the podium for 20 minutes and at the end of it you can't think of a single point he made.
- Flyers_01

Hear Hear!

But 1) I have no emotional attachment to the owners; and 2) the owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss.
- Atomic Wedgie

I don't know what the emotional attachement has to do with it. And it is speculated that the Owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss. The long term ramifications of a lost Season for the League is unknown. We know what they players will lose in a lost Season. Bottom line is that both sides lose.

Yes, 'free agent' people without unions or associations sign such contracts. I agree. To expect a labour union to give up those contractual rights is pure pie in the sky nonsense.
- triggermartin

not nonsense at all, that is unions give up rights on contracts. I have a good friend that does labor negotiations with the steel workers union (although dont remember what branch of it) and they have this very clause written in. Also seem to remember the NFLPA allowed this too...

I don't know what the emotional attachement has to do with it. And it is speculated that the Owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss. The long term ramifications of a lost Season for the League is unknown. We know what they players will lose in a lost Season. Bottom line is that both sides lose.
- MJL

Extrapolating from 2004-05, the owners will be just fine.

But according to Roenick, Recchi, O'Neill and others, the players will simply lose money, with nothing to show for it.

Oh, wait - that's already happened.

Yeah, yeah, I know - you think Fehr can still pull a rabbit out of a hat.

I don't know what the emotional attachement has to do with it. And it is speculated that the Owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss. The long term ramifications of a lost Season for the League is unknown. We know what they players will lose in a lost Season. Bottom line is that both sides lose.
- MJL

It's a pre-emptive strike so that you can't pull out the argument that I'm rooting for the owners.

I'm rooting for the players.

To do what is best for themselves.

Mike Richards or Brad Richards. The point is that if that 5% variance is there, the teams won't sign player to long term deals, because they can no longer use low years on the backend to lower the Cap hit. It no longer benefits them to do so. They don't nee to limit contract years to do it. That 5% variance takes care of that.
- MJL

Everyone has already admitted that! The 5% variance is the one point the NHL REALLY wants. If they get that then the rest could all go away or be worked out quickly. The PA doesnt want that though.

Exactly. That's all the NHL needs is that 5% rule. Let the players keep the rest. There is a deal there.
- MJL

Once again...the 5% the PA has said no way! The NHL has already said the rest could go away if they get the 5%. Open your eyes man. Fehr is not interested in getting it done.

I have always thought that performance based contracts would be great in the NHL. Eliminate signing bonuses and have a standard performance based bonus. Make the guaranteed contact size lower and only that count against the cap.

20 Goals - 2 Mil
30 Goals - 3 Mil
40 Goals - 5 Mil
50 Goals - 7 Mil

Do that for Goals, assists, points. For Goalies do Save percentage , GAA and Shutouts. It would never happen, but it would bring salaries down where they need to be IMO.
- Jimmygrazz

Along the lines of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to change is the EL system. Players on EL contracts make entirely too much money. There shouldn't be performance bonuses for them. They should make minimal salaries. Big money should be for verterans and free agents.

Once again...the 5% the PA has said no way! The NHL has already said the rest could go away if they get the 5%. Open your eyes man. Fehr is not interested in getting it done.
- Iggysbff

Please open my eyes for me. Show me where the PA has said no specifically ot the 5%.

Why is it such a bad idea? Players would have to EARN their money? We couldn't have that now could we? I know at my job I get paid on how well I do. I know it would never happen, just thought it's a different idea.
- Jimmygrazz

The talent level in the league would drop, not increase. Players in Europe will have very little reason to sign contracts in north america.

The logistics of paying defence men, role players, and goalies would be impossible to agree upon.

And most importantly, neither the players nor the owners would ever want a pay system like this.

But at least you acknowledgd it would never happen

Eklund: NHL Putting the Ball in Fehr's Hands for Two Weeks Will Be Key to End.
- Eklund

Actually a great read Ek!

But do the players understand that or is it all about sticking it to the owners?
- Flyers_01

I'm quite sure the players understand that they're losing paychecks. And I don't think that the players agenda is to stick it to the Owners. I think their agenda is to stand up for themsleves.

I'm quite sure the players understand that they're losing paychecks. And I don't think that the players agenda is to stick it to the Owners. I think their agenda is to stand up for themsleves.
- MJL

They're being ridiculous...period!

Cancel the season...

Where exactly is there anything that says this is the case? Why is it that someone always EXPECTS to get something in return? If something needs fixed. FIX IT! The contract rules NEED FIXED. As does the revenue split. Players will still make out like bandits either way! I just dont get why they dont realize it?
- Iggysbff

The players aren't against fixing things. The players are against footing the entire bill to fix things. And paying for the mistakes that the Owners made. I don't get why some people can't get that!

Along the lines of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to change is the EL system. Players on EL contracts make entirely too much money. There shouldn't be performance bonuses for them. They should make minimal salaries. Big money should be for verterans and free agents.
- MJL

They don't actually make that money, though.

The performance bonuses are never earned in full, or even close to halfway - there's a ridiculous standard set - how many rookies are going to win the Conn Smythe Trophy? It was just a way to artificially get teams to the cap floor.

And the NHL's last proposal proposed to eliminate ELC potential bonuses from counting as cap, which surprised many.

Extrapolating from 2004-05, the owners will be just fine.

But according to Roenick, Recchi, O'Neill and others, the players will simply lose money, with nothing to show for it.

Oh, wait - that's already happened.

Yeah, yeah, I know - you think Fehr can still pull a rabbit out of a hat.
- Atomic Wedgie

If the Owners were just fine from 04-05, why are we currently in a lockout. One thing your not going to see me do in a reply. And that is try and tell you what you think. I'll just deal with what you actually say.

They don't actually make that money, though.

The performance bonuses are never earned in full, or even close to halfway - there's a ridiculous standard set - how many rookies are going to win the Conn Smythe Trophy? It was just a way to artificially get teams to the cap floor.

And the NHL's last proposal proposed to eliminate ELC potential bonuses from counting as cap, which surprised many.
- Atomic Wedgie

That's not always true. There are a lot of cases where they make a lot of it.

It's a pre-emptive strike so that you can't pull out the argument that I'm rooting for the owners.

I'm rooting for the players.

To do what is best for themselves.
- Atomic Wedgie

I could care less who your rooting for. That couldn't be more irrelevant. I take the points you make at face value.

Everyone has already admitted that! The 5% variance is the one point the NHL REALLY wants. If they get that then the rest could all go away or be worked out quickly. The PA doesnt want that though.
- Iggysbff

And I'll again ask you where your getting that information from, that the PA doesn't want that?

Along the lines of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to change is the EL system. Players on EL contracts make entirely too much money. There shouldn't be performance bonuses for them. They should make minimal salaries. Big money should be for verterans and free agents.
- MJL

And why would a pro-player guy like you want to put artificial salary restrictions on rookies? Why should veterans and free agents get that money?

Why should a #1 overall pick be forced to make less money than Jody Shelley?