Speculation: Elephant in the room: Is McDavid going to be the biggest UFA ever in 2026?

[nerevarine]

People say Sam Bennett had a lot to do with inspiring Matthew Tkachuk to sign in Florida. Let’s see what happens when Sam Bennett and Connor McDavid are teammates for Canada.

I think its far more likely sam bennett will sign a 1 yr deal with Edmonton to play with McDavid

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Sigh. Here we go again. Another poster not understanding the economics of the salary cap era.

The pot for salaries is fixed and based on revenue. If one player takes a high salary, another player gets less.

For this reason, there is no intrinsic incentive for the PA to ask an individual player to take more.

Sounds like you think the lowest paid players hold just as much sway in the PA as the highest paid players? I have a really, really hard time believing that.

 

[Fishy McScales]

Sounds like you think the lowest paid players hold just as much sway in the PA as the highest paid players? I have a really, really hard time believing that.

Maybe you're American but it sounds a bit like you're not really sure what unions are, why they exist and what they do.

Besides, the NHLPA Executive Board is a mix of stars and non-stars.

 

[Iwishihadaspacebar]

The Oilers have tried to fill the staff with people close to McDavid. That could be because he's been unhappy with how the team has been run by those at the top (understandably at times). Either he is happy with the situation now his people are there or he's very frustrated and has seriously considered going.

He'll get another $120m easily over the next decade wherever he signs, so it is a matter of where is the best place for him to win a cup. $5m-$10m is a lot of money but is it better than winning a cup when you've got $220m+ in the bank anyway.

The Draisaitl deal was thought of as helping keep McDavid, but if you're McDavid you have the comfort that you know the franchise still has an elite player even if you leave.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Maybe you're American but it sounds a bit like you're not really sure what unions are, why they exist and what they do.

Besides, the NHLPA Executive Board is a mix of stars and non-stars.

Sorry, why would my nationality make a difference in understanding what a union is?

 

[Fishy McScales]

Sorry, why would my nationality make a difference in understanding what a union is?

Why indeed...

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Sigh. Here we go again. Another poster not understanding the economics of the salary cap era.

The pot for salaries is fixed and based on revenue. If one player takes a high salary, another player gets less.

This assumes 100% of the league is up against the cap.

For this reason, there is no intrinsic incentive for the PA to ask an individual player to take more.

I understand the logic here, but at the end of the day the PA doesn't want marquee players taking below market contracts. The optics of stagnant growth in top end salaries would be bad for the PA.

 

[Fishy McScales]

This assumes 100% of the league is up against the cap.

I'm not a capologist by any means, but I don't believe this is strictly speaking true. The cap is a 50/50 split forecast based on a projected mid-point between floor and cap, where escrow accounts for the difference after the season as the actuals come in.

The argument that the PA, a labour union, wants their stars to take a bigger piece of the pie away from everyone else is still an argument that doesn't make sense.

It's one thing to be incorrect about something and then double down when having it pointed out like that guy did, it's human. I do it too sometimes. But why would go out of your way inserting yourself into a discussion spouting nonsense?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm not a capologist by any means, but I don't believe this is strictly speaking true. The cap is a 50/50 split forecast based on a projected mid-point between floor and cap, where escrow accounts for the difference after the season as the actuals come in.

It's true that effective salaries are zero sum, but my point was that teams plan to the cap, and contracts are distributed as such, so we shouldn't necessarily expect to see a change in contracted values.

So in that scenario, the net impact of an extra 1-2 million dollars going to a star is trivial when spread out among all the other guys in the league.

The argument that the PA, a labour union, wants their stars to take a bigger piece of the pie away from everyone else is still an argument that doesn't make sense.

It may not make sense to you, but the reality is that the optics of stagnating salaries for top end players is bad for the PA. Optics are critically important for labor unions, and losing support among their most valuable members is the last thing they want.

If the PA were really concerned about high salaries for stars stealing from everyone else, they'd push for a lower max AAV, which I'm sure the league would be thrilled about. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.

It's one thing to be incorrect about something and then double down when having it pointed out like that guy did, it's human. I do it too sometimes. But why would go out of your way inserting yourself into a discussion spouting nonsense?

I disagreed with your conclusion that the PA wouldn't want their stars making more money.

 

[Fishy McScales]

It's true that effective salaries are zero sum, but my point was that teams plan to the cap, and contracts are distributed as such, so we shouldn't necessarily expect to see a change in contracted values.

So in that scenario, the net impact of an extra 1-2 million dollars going to a star is trivial when spread out among all the other guys in the league.


It may not make sense to you, but the reality is that the optics of stagnating salaries for top end players is bad for the PA. Optics are critically important for labor unions, and losing support among their most valuable members is the last thing they want.

If the PA were really concerned about high salaries for stars stealing from everyone else, they'd push for a lower max AAV, which I'm sure the league would be thrilled about. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.

I disagreed with your conclusion that the PA wouldn't want their stars making more money.

The PA is not driving up salaries on a per-player basis, they do that through CBA negotiations where revenue share is established. The cap was introduced because the players were too good at driving salaries up in the former manner, hence why the owners pushed for, and got, a CBA where that's not a thing anymore.

Not sure what a lower max has to do with it as that's an arbitrary line drawn in the sand; the fact that there even are minimum and maximum salaries in the CBA should tell you something.

Btw do you also "disagree" that the earth is a sphere?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Not sure what a lower max has to do with it

You said yourself that star players making more takes from everyone else. If that was such a concern for the PA, why wouldn't they just lower the max contract? I'm sure the league would agree to increase the league minimum if it meant they could cut the league max in half. Then the PA can talk about how much their helping the little guys in the league.

as that's an arbitrary line drawn in the sand; the fact that there even are minimum and maximum salaries in the CBA should tell you something.

It tells me they have concerns about extreme contract values, and that they would have no issue with star players making up to that max (which is is a calculated value, far from arbitrary. The fact that you think its arbitrary kind of defeats your point about it's existence meaning something, no?)

I also noticed you didn't address my comment on the importance of optics to the PA, as well as the support of top earners, so I am assuming you agree?

Btw do you also "disagree" that the earth is a sphere?

Talk about spouting nonsense.... maybe we should leave the insults and hyperbole out of this?

 

[Fishy McScales]

You said yourself that star players making more takes from everyone else. If that was such a concern for the PA, why wouldn't they just lower the max contract? I'm sure the league would agree to increase the league minimum if it meant they could cut the league max in half. Then the PA can talk about how much their helping the little guys in the league.

It tells me they have concerns about extreme contract values, and that they would have no issue with star players making up to that max (which is is a calculated value, far from arbitrary. The fact that you think its arbitrary kind of defeats your point about it's existence meaning something, no?)

I also noticed you didn't address my comment on the importance of optics to the PA, as well as the support of top earners, so I am assuming you agree?

Talk about spouting nonsense.... maybe we should leave the insults and hyperbole out of this.

The max contract itself is still an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, if not by them then by you. Higher or lower is a matter of estimates, the fact it exists is not.

And yes I heard you about the optics. I ignored it because it was a reach that had little to do with the factual motivations of a labour union, as well as their available toolset in ensuring all their members are protected and subject to an advantageous CBA with competitive and/or reasonable salaries.

Individual contracts do not drive salaries up because they can't drive salaries up. I'm clearly not good enough at explaining this concept, but please stop living in the 90's where that was still the case.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The max contract itself is still an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, if not by them then by you. Higher or lower is a matter of estimates, the fact it exists is not.

The max contract value is the opposite of arbitrary lol. And I have nothing to do with where that line was drawn in the sand...

And yes I heard you about the optics. I ignored it because it was a reach that had little to do with the factual motivations of a labour union, as well as their available toolset in ensuring all their members are protected and subject to an advantageous CBA with competitive and/or reasonable salaries.

You don't think labor unions are motivated by the optics and support of their most valuable members? You can't be this naive.

Individual contracts do not drive salaries up because they can't drive salaries up. I'm clearly not good enough at explaining this concept, but please stop living in the 90's where that was still the case.

I never once made that argument.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Toronto brings him home.

New core 4 of McDavid, Matthews, Nylander and Marner.

 

[Fishy McScales]

The max contract value is the opposite of arbitrary lol. And I have nothing to do with where that line was drawn in the sand...

You don't think labor unions are motivated by the optics and support of their most valuable members? You can't be this naive.


I never once made that argument.

It's a line drawn in the sand that is to some extent arbitrary, being based on estimates, negotiations and compromises. And where you or I think it should be is even more arbitrary in relation to where it currently sits. Where it sits is also irrelevant to the point, which is, again, that there is a max in the first place, and which you brought up yourself and are now trying to obfuscate.

I certainly think optics matter to most, if not all organisations. Optics have no impact on whether player contracts drive salaries up since salaries operate under a cap and can't be driven up that way. Optics is an entirely irrelevant aspect that you reached for because you couldn't explain why the PA would care about individual contracts improving the lot of the many.

And no, you didn't make that argument, I did. Are you now disputing that higher salaries DID drive salaries up in the 90's? Or are you just confused?

Because you seem confused.