Let's get Ted in uniform...

There are NASCAR fans who are excited to see crashes. Also nudging happens all the time in NASCAR and is far more dangerous.

I thought that this would be a thread about Ted Nugent finally joing the marines. Damn!

Originally posted by Celeste:

Originally posted by mankie:

Originally posted by Celeste:
who said anything about boxing?

I did.

right…why? are you saying boxing is as thuggish as hockey because there are no penalties for fighting…that's just silly…

let's talk about what a wanker Ted is instead!!!

No, Rhett said that hockey is thuggish because of the fighting…they even have a penalty for it. My point was simply that boxing and NASCAR don't even have penalties for fighting so it's obviously much more accepted in those sports, and therefore far more 'thuggish' than hockey.

Ted isn't a wanker he's a good man who lost his cool for a brief moment. He's invested a ton of money and paying alleged superstars millions and millions who are grossly under-performing for him. IN fact he's one of the few owners who's in it for the sport and love of the team, not the ego or money. Even the bloke who was involved has said it's no biggie, drop it.

I personally think athletes should be paid on commission. If they win they make more than if they lose.

Originally posted by mankie:

I personally think athletes should be paid on commission. If they win they make more than if they lose.

EXACTLY. I was just telling this to my girlfriend last night. i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something. like golf, thats how they do it. they dont even ahve a base salary do they? (oops, NASCAR might do this as well, hehe).
Anyway, this would take care of players making $8 million dollars a yaer to finish 25-53.

and Ted L. is a good man, any shithead money hungry owner who saw a fan heckling him would just think "hey, screw him, i am a gazillionaire!"

go Ted. (can he play the point on the PP now that Gonchar is gone?)

Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
I thought that this would be a thread about Ted Nugent finally joing the marines. Damn!

NOW you're talking redneck. The only uniform he should be in is a prison uniform for his cruelty to animal attrocities.

Originally posted by mankie:
I personally think athletes should be paid on commission. If they win they make more than if they lose.

well, I know Rhett would agree with you on that…he says it all the time…

I still think Ted is a wanker…AOL sucks and its his own fault for over-paying superstars…

Originally posted by Celeste:

I still think Ted is a wanker…AOL sucks and its his own fault for over-paying superstars…

Jagr was one of the best players in hockey til he came here. what can ya do? bad fit, and Ted got rid of him. i say, good job. Anson Carter is a very good player. and 1/5 of the price

Originally posted by Celeste:
well, I know Rhett would agree with you on that…he says it all the time…

are you speaking in Rhetts behalf now, because he cant say anything nice? ;)

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something.

I'm surprised by this logic. It's the best way to ruin a team sport. Every man for himself on the ice to earn his keep - now who's going to pass and make $50 for an assist when they can make $100 for a goal?

The back-up net-minder makes $3m for winning a championship - the same as the starting netminder who posted 3 shutouts? That's even less fair than the current system.

Originally posted by sonickteam2:

Originally posted by Celeste:

I still think Ted is a wanker…AOL sucks and its his own fault for over-paying superstars…

Jagr was one of the best players in hockey til he came here. what can ya do? bad fit, and Ted got rid of him. i say, good job. Anson Carter is a very good player. and 1/5 of the price

I was sorry to see Carter leave the last time, he's a great player with great work ethic…not only that he looks 'way cool' with his dreadlocks busting out from under the helmet.

Jagr won't do well at the Rangers…..just too many superstar egos on that team if you ask me.

Originally posted by Celeste:
well, I know Rhett would agree with you on that…he says it all the time…

He probably says that because NASCAR has the worst payout formula of all sports. You can lose the race and still make more than the winner because NASCAR provides owners incentives to keep the big names in the race.

That theory won't work in any other sport and I don't think it works in NASCAR either.

Sports is just like any other job - perform or you get fired. The real problem is in guaranteed contracts, not athletes failing to perform.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something.

I'm surprised by this logic. It's the best way to ruin a team sport. Every man for himself on the ice to earn his keep - now who's going to pass and make $50 for an assist when they can make $100 for a goal?

The back-up net-minder makes $3m for winning a championship - the same as the starting netminder who posted 3 shutouts? That's even less fair than the current system.

well, sonick's comment needs clarification, then…he said every athlete is paid a "certain" amount…not that they are all paid the "same" amount…

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
i say, pay every athlete a certain amount, and then they earn incentives the rest of the way. Win the championship, get $3 million or something.

I'm surprised by this logic. It's the best way to ruin a team sport. Every man for himself on the ice to earn his keep - now who's going to pass and make $50 for an assist when they can make $100 for a goal?

The back-up net-minder makes $3m for winning a championship - the same as the starting netminder who posted 3 shutouts? That's even less fair than the current system.

That's not what I meant smackie…I still say there should be individual contracts, but each contract should be 'perfomance based' as a team. If the team is failing miserable like the Caps are, then each player gets the minimum compensation based on his individual contract. Then the greater success the team has the higher up the pay-scale each player gets based on his contract. I think that would be great for sport because if a player is in a slump his team mates would have a personal interest in helping him out because their income is dependant on it.

Anyone see John Kerry in the hockey uniform? Very presidental, indeed! You know the man has never played hockey in his life because he still has all his teeth.

Originally posted by mankie:
That's not what I meant smackie…I still say there should be individual contracts, but each contract should be 'perfomance based' as a team. If the team is failing miserable like the Caps are, then each player gets the minimum compensation based on his individual contract. Then the greater success the team has the higher up the pay-scale each player gets based on his contract. I think that would be great for sport because if a player is in a slump his team mates would have a personal interest in helping him out because their income is dependant on it.

This from a footie fan? Probably the most mismatched payscale sport in the world?

Two words for you: Players Associations.

Like em or hate em, they were set-up to protect the players interests. The truth is nearly all contracts have individual bonuses in them. Very few "team bonus" based contracts would get players association approval. One exception would be footie, but it's not the players contract that is effected, it's the transfer price. Beckham's deal, for example, would not be an apporoved trade in any American Sport, because of the higher transfer fee should Real go further in the champions league. Then again, the athletes in US pro sports aren't chattel the way they are in Footie.

Originally posted by Celeste:
well, sonick's comment needs clarification, then…he said every athlete is paid a "certain" amount…not that they are all paid the "same" amount…

I am totally aware that i am not the first person who thought of this theory, and i am sure it wont work, but it would solve the problem that i personally cant stand.

You wouldnt get paid for a goal or an assist like that. You would get paid, incentives. for winning. Making the "team" more important.

Perhaps, the same amount is not fesible, but if the pay range was drastically dropped (cut everyones salary in half, or make a $50 million salary cap) then make the rest incentives.

Basically, i have not the time or the energy to figure out the holes in the theory, just a speculation, and i think it would at least make a player more driven to win.

According to a select few on this board, that just means that he's American.

Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Anyone see John Kerry in the hockey uniform? Very presidental, indeed! You know the man has never played hockey in his life because he still has all his teeth.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Beckham's deal, for example, would not be an apporoved trade in any American Sport, because of the higher transfer fee should Real go further in the champions league. [/QB]

If a trade can be performance based then why can't the player's contract?

I know I'm going to get hammered for this comment but what the hell….I think top flight footie players are much more mature than top flight American athletes, for the most part anyway. For example, Nicky Butt…..poor guy is asking to leave the greatest footie team in the world so he can get playing time, which will no doubt, mean a smaller salary at his new team. I can't see too many runny-catchy, hockey, hitty-runny, bouncey-nettie players doing that, they'd just sit on the bench counting their money rather than take less money to play for a lower team. I also don't blame the American athletes 100% for their attitude, because they don't want for anything when they show talent at a young age, so grow up spoiled little brats.

wby would you take less money to play on a sucky team?

i am not sure even I get that!!!

i would take less money to play on a better team or more money to play on a shitty one.

no one wants to be poor and lose!!!

- but two points here.

1. Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya both took tremendous salary hits just to play on Colorado this year to try and win the cup (which they will).

2. a VERY small portion of NHL players are "american athletes" and an even smaller portion are the ones that are making multi-million dollar contracts. Most are Canadian/Swedish/Finnish or Russian. esp the big money/holdout jerkoffs. :)

Originally posted by sonickteam2:

You wouldnt get paid for a goal or an assist like that. You would get paid, incentives. for winning. Making the "team" more important.

So Buckner's error costs everybody on the team their winning bonus, and this is supposed to help team chemistry and make everybody help everybody out and play better?

You guys are nuts.