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.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

It's a line drawn in the sand that is to some extent arbitrary, being based on estimates, negotiations and compromises.

Okay, so then not arbitrary.

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.

It's not at all irrelevant. If the PA were truly concerned about stars stealing from lower earning players, they could just lower the max.

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.

I never argued that the optics had an impact on driving up salaries.

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.

You said "Individual contracts do not drive salaries up because they can't drive salaries up... please stop living in the 90's where that was still the case." I never argued that this was the case.

Seems like you are the one who's confused.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Toronto brings him home.

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

No, please punt Marner outta there.

 

[Fishy McScales]

Okay, so then not arbitrary.

It's not at all irrelevant. If the PA were truly concerned about stars stealing from lower earning players, they could just lower the max.

I never argued that the optics had an impact on driving up salaries.

You said "Individual contracts do not drive salaries up because they can't drive salaries up... please stop living in the 90's where that was still the case." I never argued that this was the case.

Seems like you are the one who's confused.

But it IS arbitrary, and especially so in relation to your argument that they should lower it if they are concerned about players getting too high salaries.

You're starting to create a strawman here.
Even if your argument holds, maybe the PA is perfectly happy with the line being drawn at 20%? No one signs for the max anyway. But it doesn't matter, because the argument is not about the PA wanting to lower player salaries, that's your own conflation (and strawman).

And you did argue that optics had an impact on salaries because that was the reason you found for why the PA would apply pressure on McDavid to squeeze the Oilers. You are now backpedalling on that I see.

And frigging AGAIN, no YOU didn't argue it, I did. Should I mention it a third time? Player contracts could drive up salaries in the 90's, but not anymore like you say they can. Maybe a fourth time? In the 90's there was no salary cap, 50/50 revenue split or escrow, so the PA wanted players to get as much as possible out of contracts in order to drive salaries up, so the league wanted a cap to prevent that from happening. You think it's still happening so you seem to live in the 90's. Again, my argument, not yours. Get it? Forget it...

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

And you did argue that optics had an impact on salaries because that was the reason you found for why the PA would apply pressure on McDavid to squeeze the Oilers. You are now backpedalling on that I see.

They would not want their top end players to take discounts, which is my point. I never made any argument about them putting pressure on him or anything like that. McDavid is the league's a flagship player, and the optics of a star like him taking a big discount are not great for a player's union. So if the PA had a preference, it would be for McDavid to not take a discount. Is it a big enough issue that they would raise it with McDavid? I have no idea.

And frigging AGAIN, no YOU didn't argue it, I did. Should I mention it a third time? Player contracts could drive up salaries in the 90's, but not anymore like you say they can.

I never said that once.

Maybe a fourth time? In the 90's there was no salary cap, 50/50 revenue split or escrow, so the PA wanted players to get as much as possible out of contracts in order to drive salaries up, so the league wanted a cap to prevent that from happening. You think it's still happening so you seem to live in the 90's. Again, my argument, not yours. Get it? Forget it...

I never said that once.

 

[bucks_oil]

Okay, so then not arbitrary.

It's not at all irrelevant. If the PA were truly concerned about stars stealing from lower earning players, they could just lower the max.

I never argued that the optics had an impact on driving up salaries.

You said "Individual contracts do not drive salaries up because they can't drive salaries up... please stop living in the 90's where that was still the case." I never argued that this was the case.

Seems like you are the one who's confused.

Ok, boys... simmer down.

Let's take a step back here and remind ourselves what the argument is about... I feel like we could all use that.

The original argument, several pages back, was that the NHLPA would be unhappy if McDavid "took less" than he could in order to (preserve cap for his teammates and) win.

I think @Fishy McScales main point here is that the NHLPA would have zero (economic) motivation to take such a position, since salaries are capped globally at 50% of revenue, and any one salary, even at the extreme limits will not influence the available pool of money. It's a macro point.

@WhiskeyYerTheDevils you seem to be arguing that pushing the upper limits of the salary cap max (which determines only the distribution of the pool, not the value of the pool) would have a positive 'optics' to members of the NHLPA. That's a micro point.

I mean... I can kind of see how a progression of ultra-high end salaries has a positive influence on me (micro) if I'm in that next tier down, and so-on-and-so-fourth, as the comparable guy beside me gets a raise, I feel a raise is something possible and I have agency to earn one... but 1) doesn't that happen anyway since players come in on ELC and as they establish themselves, upward trajectory is generally positive and 2) all of that upward mobility inevitably comes at a cost, which is born (and likely felt) by other members of the NHLPA.

It's' important to realize that for every extra $1M a McDavid earns, 10 other guys are actually going to be earning $100K less. I suppose @WhiskeyYerTheDevils your point would be that the for every ten guys actually making less, there are fifty to one hundred looking at McDavid driving up toward the max and licking their chops for their next contract? Thus NHLPA has a happier constituency when upward mobility is more visible?

But even if we accept that point... that the NHLPA would care, even though economically they shouldn't, since it creates more harmony in the ranks... @WhiskeyYerTheDevils you haven't addressed the original argument... McDavid is an individual, he's going to do what he perceives to be in his best interest. How on earth is the NHLPA actually going to influence his decision?

Is there any evidence they have ever done this with any other star player? Ovie, Crosby, anyone? We've certainly always had guys who could ask for the max, but nobody ever does and NHLPA never gives even a peep on the matter.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Ok, boys... simmer down.

Let's take a step back here and remind ourselves what the argument is about... I feel like we could all use that.

The original argument, several pages back, was that the NHLPA would be unhappy if McDavid "took less" than he could in order to (preserve cap for his teammates and) win.

I think @Fishy McScales main point here is that the NHLPA would have zero (economic) motivation to take such a position, since salaries are capped globally at 50% of revenue, and any one salary, even at the extreme limits will not influence the available pool of money. It's a macro point.

@WhiskeyYerTheDevils you seem to be arguing that pushing the upper limits of the salary cap max (which determines only the distribution of the pool, not the value of the pool) would have a positive 'optics' to members of the NHLPA. That's a micro point.

I mean... I can kind of see how a progression of ultra-high end salaries has a positive influence on me (micro) if I'm in that next tier down, and so-on-and-so-fourth, as the comparable guy beside me gets a raise, I feel a raise is something possible and I have agency to earn one... but 1) doesn't that happen anyway since players come in on ELC and as they establish themselves, upward trajectory is generally positive and 2) all of that upward mobility inevitably comes at a cost, which is born (and likely felt) by other members of the NHLPA.

It's' important to realize that for every extra $1M a McDavid earns, 10 other guys are actually going to be earning $100K less. I suppose @WhiskeyYerTheDevils your point would be that the for every ten guys actually making less, there are fifty to one hundred looking at McDavid driving up toward the max and licking their chops for their next contract? Thus NHLPA has a happier constituency when upward mobility is more visible?

But even if we accept that point... that the NHLPA would care, even though economically they shouldn't, since it creates more harmony in the ranks... @WhiskeyYerTheDevils you haven't addressed the original argument... McDavid is an individual, he's going to do what he perceives to be in his best interest. How on earth is the NHLPA actually going to influence his decision?

Is there any evidence they have ever done this with any other star player? Ovie, Crosby, anyone? We've certainly always had guys who could ask for the max, but nobody ever does and NHLPA never gives even a peep on the matter.

Solid post - I honestly never even argued that the NHLPA would actually do anything to influence his contract. I have no idea how they operate in regards to things like this. My only point is that their preference would be to avoid a situation where their marquee player is taking a discount. Whether or not they attempt to do anything about it is an unknown.

I would think the league's agents would probably be the most concerned about McDavid taking a meaningful discount, and the most likely to try and do something about it.

 

[Fishy McScales]

They would not want their top end players to take discounts, which is my point. I never made any argument about them putting pressure on him or anything like that. McDavid is the league's a flagship player, and the optics of a star like him taking a big discount are not great for a player's union. So if the PA had a preference, it would be for McDavid to not take a discount. Is it a big enough issue that they would raise it with McDavid? I have no idea.

I never said that once.


I never said that once.

Re-reading what you wrote you didn't make that argument, apologies for that.

However, I see people making that argument and every time I try to explain that it's not how it works (anymore) they just get defensive and double down.

This thread also happens to be about McDavid, where fans on the mains will say things like "the PA wants McDavid to take more from the Oilers" when in reality it means "I want McDavid to take more from the Oilers, or sign for my team instead". Anti-Oiler rhetoric is pretty tiring.

Now you may not have explicitly said that you believed the PA has a vested interest in driving up player salaries via individual contracts, but you decided to ride out in defense of those who did, so to speak. You didn't question their takes, but mine was okay to go poke holes in even though I was in the right regarding the subject at hand.

 

[Snuggs]

Maybe an NHL record deal for McDavid is the Yzerplan!

McDavid could likely make more off the ice in places like NY/(any California team)/DAL/LV vs any contract extension number, even a record NHL contract (which any of those team would likely give on top of the lucrative off ice opportunity's he'll have). That's something to consider at this point in his career. On top of winning.

Example: McDavid goes to San Jose and now Silicon Valley company/bros are into hockey/investing in their backyard into the NHL marquee player. How bad would Facebook/etc want to throw a patch on the Sharks Jersey's vs other NHL teams now? Even the Oilers themsevles, it'll be a mini recession. Ad doallrs, coverage, etc, all get pulled.

For Oilers fans sake, I hope they win one and move on peacefully while not having to rebuild the whole ship with Draisaitl still around to win/compete with.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Re-reading what you wrote you didn't make that argument, apologies for that.

No worries

You didn't question their takes, but mine was okay to go poke holes in even though I was in the right regarding the subject at hand.

I thought you had handled their points rather well aside from the point I was seeking to correct, I saw no reason to pile on. It goes without saying that take home pay is zero sum, it's just not necessarily a meaningful impact for any one deal, and not a 1 for 1 arrangement.

 

[bucks_oil]

Solid post - I honestly never even argued that the NHLPA would actually do anything to influence his contract. I have no idea how they operate in regards to things like this. My only point is that their preference would be to avoid a situation where their marquee player is taking a discount. Whether or not they attempt to do anything about it is an unknown.

I would think the league's agents would probably be the most concerned about McDavid taking a meaningful discount, and the most likely to try and do something about it.

Ok fair enough... I agree with you on the agents, at least the top end ones, they are competing for their share of a finite pie and want to earn it with less effort... hence concentrating the wealth at the top end is fewer negotiations for the same effective $$$.

As for the NHLPA. What they should care about and what they do care about may not be perfectly rational/logical, but I would argue that what they should care about is two things:

1) Going from 50% to 51% in the next CBA. I don't see how the distribution of today's 50% should concern them at all in this regard... your point about optics creating "aspirational happiness" for constituents may be valid, but they will re-elect me anyway, so I call flibbity-flew on that one. I'd be focused on the hard economics of all of this, which means I might also care about....

2) Increasing the pie. And I made this point earlier in the thread, but if I were the NHLPA I would want greater parity in salaries and here's why: When McDavid takes an extra $2M I actually think that $2M loss from the available pool doesn't influence the lower end guys, I think it influences the older, higher end guys. For every lower level young player trying to negotiate from $875K up to $1.1M there are 1000 guys who could take his place happily at league min... his leverage is minimal so they'll settle quickly... but the GM still has to find McDavid's $2M. Where does he find it? He finds it from Jeff Skinner taking $3M or Henrique taking $4M or Perry taking $1.1M. Older, higher end guys who are nearing the end of their career... they can afford to take less in exchange for a chance to win... but... and this is where the NHLPA should care. At some point the health/sacrifice axis intersects with the low salary axis and the exchange is no longer worthwhile for the player... so they retire... and we know it takes the NHL years to establish and promote its stars... they have back story, they have credential, they have, well, lots of fans. Why would the NHLPA want Getzlaf or Thornton or Marchand to retire earlier just so McDavid can make more? They wouldn't... more stars means more money, bigger pie, 50% of something larger.

The NHLPA, just like the NHL itself, is selling entertainment.

McDavid entertains the same at $14M as he does at $16M. That replacement level player doesn't move the needle on any metric. That aging star still does... I want him to want to keep playing, so I prefer that he has that extra $2M available.