Player Discussion Leon Draisaitl's next contract

[foshizzle]

its not a zero sum game though.

If the owners could away paying players less they would.

If Drai takes 12 mil it doesn't mean that Connor brown gets more. It means Connor brown still gets 1mil and the owner doesn't spend the rest.

The players working in their financial interest to get as much possible keeps the owners honest and the owners not wanting to spend everything keeps the players honest. If players start taking less on mass in the hopes the owners spread the wealth...they won't. It would go to profits instead. The CBA creates the battle ground for all this happen in the interest of keeping every team viable.

Also the cap isn't a stable thing, or static. What's good one year might not be good the next year and as a player you need to fight for your bag above all else.

Except that many teams spend to the cap. To say the owner doesn’t spend the rest is false.

 

[Drivesaitl]

People should really read the article. The percentage stuff is there important part, not the $10 M stuff. It's almost like people only read the headline and don't read the article.



Yup, it makes no sense whatsoever. The players all pull from the same pot, it's the very definition of a zero sum game. Players aren't that smart, by and large, so maybe they don't understand this? Swayman talking big about "understanding the business side" but then saying that follow-up is pretty funny actually to be honest. Players should want every other player in the league to take as little money as possible, therefore increasing the odds of more money being available for their own negotiation. It's beyond crazy to me that people don't understand how straight forward the situation is, but here we are.

1) Its a paywall. How many people are going to bother unlocking it.
2) Its Staples and McCurdy. See above.
3) It doesn't factor in 10M buck players being a fairly recent phenomenon
4)It arbitrarily compares what top 2 paid make vs what core make etc.
5) Its another example correlation does not mean causation. The article purports that the 10M is some kind of salient variable. it isn't that, its that generally teams win most cups when Superstars are still young, and not in last big bucks contracts.

Yeah I read it, never getting that time back.

 

[Roderek]

It's about standing up for what you're worth

And yes there is an ongoing battle between players and owners. Precedents matter and affect the future of collective bargaining.

Yup, If Leon takes less and Bowman overpays on another contract what is the point, he may as well get paid. As others have said about the NHLPA, they want players to sign the biggest contracts they can get as it sets precedent/comparable.

NHLPA wants as many owners to be cap strapped as possible, the more owners that are close to the cap and think they are 1 or 2 pieces away, but can't fit those pieces under the cap, would be more willing to vote to increase the amount being paid to the players. It is never going to be an easy sell, but perhaps they can use the leverage for something else that the players want. You want to get rid of the shootout and have us play 10 minutes of OT, you need to allow us 2 more roster spots at a max contract of 1.125 Mil(I think that is what you can bury in the AHL) that doesn't count against the cap, but we can't ice a lineup over the cap when they are inserted. Presumably those two positions would be lesser paid vets maybe rookies.

I am sure the NHLPA has guys working for them smarter then me that can come up with ideas, but this suggestion would technically open up another 64 jobs for NHL players and Cost he Owners a total of 73.6 Mil, which sounds like a lot, but how many teams already bury these types of contracts in the A, so they are already paying it anyhow.

NHLPA always wants as much leverage as possible for CBA negotiations. More teams cap strapped the better for them.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Except that many teams spend to the cap. To say the owner doesn’t spend the rest is false.

But in this scenario the players are taking less Because of unicorn fairy dust. Owners won’t spend more than they need to.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I will again ask the same question. Why does the NHLPA want to get superstars to take as much as possible only to leave less for everyone else? For example, telling a player like Draisaitl to go for it just so a small handful of players can use this as leverage while the team will be worse and others on your own team will get less makes sense in what world?

Because superstars define what cap is of any particular pro league due to the amount of cap their pay represents?

Numerically its indisputable that the NHL is the lowest paying of any top league. NHL players (any) are not even in the top 100 of top earners in pro sports today. NHL has completely dropped out of that race.

Relative pay is defined by what the top earners make and what the league cap is. Most players realize this and that if top players continue to earn more than salary cap, league minimums and average pay and such will increase for all.

Yes, in a microcosm set time if the stud player takes bigger pay that takes up an increased share of the current cap. But the futures is why nobody would complain about it. Because any time top players start to be paid more everybody else follows in subsequent caps and CBA's. I mean you know this.

This is an interesting look in anycase comparing salary in different pro sports

https://www.ncsharp.com/info/salaries-professional-athletes-nfl-mlb-nba/

 

[McJadeddog]

its not a zero sum game though.

If the owners could away paying players less they would.

If Drai takes 12 mil it doesn't mean that Connor brown gets more. It means Connor brown still gets 1mil and the owner doesn't spend the rest.

The players working in their financial interest to get as much possible keeps the owners honest and the owners not wanting to spend everything keeps the players honest. If players start taking less on mass in the hopes the owners spread the wealth...they won't. It would go to profits instead. The CBA creates the battle ground for all this happen in the interest of keeping every team viable.

Also the cap isn't a stable thing, or static. What's good one year might not be good the next year and as a player you need to fight for your bag above all else.

It is an almost perfect example of a zero sum game. Whatever 1 player leaves on the table increases the amount available for all other players. Zero sum games are not limited to 2 actor situations, although that is the more common scenario for certain.

There is only 1 pie (to use what is likely the most common zero sum game example), and its capped in size at 50%. If one player from the total (lets think of 3 to make things easier to calculate) would normally get 16.66% of the revenue, but decides to take 10%, that means there is now 6.66% more for the remaining 2 players to negotiate for when their deals are up next. If player 1 took 25% of the pie, that would reduce the available pie for players 2 and 3 to only 25% total, rather than the more equitable 33.34%.

Yes, it is a zero sum game.

 

[fuswald]

NHLPA doesn't care how much individuals make they care about how high the cap is. They work for players not player.

 

[McJadeddog]

1) Its a paywall. How many people are going to bother unlocking it.
2) Its Staples and McCurdy. See above.
3) It doesn't factor in 10M buck players being a fairly recent phenomenon
4)It arbitrarily compares what top 2 paid make vs what core make etc.
5) Its another example correlation does not mean causation. The article purports that the 10M is some kind of salient variable. it isn't that, its that generally teams win most cups when Superstars are still young, and not in last big bucks contracts.

Yeah I read it, never getting that time back.

#4 is still true, arbitrary or otherwise. Most of your arguments are about the article (1 and 2) or talking about the $10M number (3 and 5) which I agree is a dumb argument for lots of reasons.

The top-2 making X% being a real determiner of success just obviously makes sense in a hard capped world. It's just simple math.

 

[McJadeddog]

Because superstars define what cap is of any particular pro league due to the amount of cap their pay represents?

Numerically its indisputable that the NHL is the lowest paying of any top league. NHL players (any) are not even in the top 100 of top earners in pro sports today. NHL has completely dropped out of that race.

Relative pay is defined by what the top earners make and what the league cap is. Most players realize this and that if top players continue to earn more than salary cap, league minimums and average pay and such will increase for all.

Yes, in a microcosm set time if the stud player takes bigger pay that takes up an increased share of the current cap. But the futures is why nobody would complain about it. Because any time top players start to be paid more everybody else follows in subsequent caps and CBA's. I mean you know this.

This is an interesting look in anycase comparing salary in different pro sports

https://www.ncsharp.com/info/salaries-professional-athletes-nfl-mlb-nba/

The only thing that increases the cap is revenue increases, full stop. There is no mechanism by which individual player salaries increase the cap, it doesn't exist. No, high individual earners now most definitely DO NOT cause the cap to go up in the future. Again, only revenue increases will cause the cap to rise in the future, barring a renegotiation of the 50% number.

Yes, the NHL is paid the least, but that is a function of the "hard cap % * revenue $" equation. It has absolutely nothing to do with what individuals make. If the NHLPA wants to no longer be payed near the bottom of major pro sports, they need to either: A) have total revenues increase, or B) renegotiate the 50% hard cap number, or C) some combination of A and B.

No, top players earning more will not cause average pay to increase for other players. The average pay is again really simple math. It is: (hard cap % * revenue $) / number of players. The opposite of what you are saying is actually the truth for most players. If the top earners make more, there is less for the lower players to earn. If the top players, however you want to define that, started making 25% more tomorrow, there would be a commensurate lowering of total salary available to the rest of the NHLPA membership.

This isn't hard to understand, none of this is complicated.

 

[Drivesaitl]

#4 is still true, arbitrary or otherwise. Most of your arguments are about the article (1 and 2) or talking about the $10M number (3 and 5) which I agree is a dumb argument for lots of reasons.

The top-2 making X% being a real determiner of success just obviously makes sense in a hard capped world. It's just simple math.

But its not that the top two pays is a determiner. Its an associated artifact.

The top highest pay often takes place well into the players career due to how salary cap is structured, due to precedent, how much free agents make etc.

In fact for many of the top paid like Doughty, Kopitar, they got their top pay days AFTER, and BECAUSE of winning cups and because of UFA.

The article is confusing differing variables.

For instance if one is to look at our pending top two, Leon and Connor they are most likely to impact potential cup wins in prime of careers. Yet their pay in that prime is less, as it is for many superstars in mid 20's. Such players will often make the most pay in their big contract subsequent to UFA. It isn't that the players are played the most at their peaks. Its that players are paid the most due to the CBA and the guidelines and timed parameters around free agency.

 

[McJadeddog]

But its not that the top two pays is a determiner. Its an associated artifact.

The top highest pay often takes place well into the players career due to how salary cap is structured, due to precedent, how much free agents make etc.

In fact for many of the top paid like Doughty, Kopitar, they got their top pay days AFTER, and BECAUSE of winning cups and because of UFA.

The article is confusing differing variables.

For instance if one is to look at our pending top two, Leon and Connor they are most likely to impact potential cup wins in prime of careers. Yet their pay in that prime is less, as it is for many superstars in mid 20's. Such players will often make the most pay in their big contract subsequent to UFA. It isn't that the players are played the most at their peaks. Its that players are paid the most due to the CBA and the guidelines and timed parameters around free agency.

Yes, there are a variety of factors at play for why there hasn't been much success above a certain % being spent on your top 2 players. I agree. I would further agree that we are seeing those reasons manifest within our own team, for the very reason you propose (age, primarily). None of that changes the fact that up until now, having a high % of salary in your top 2 players has not been a recipe for Stanley success. I cannot fathom why this is a controversial fact Its common sense in a hard salary cap situation, and for a sport where your top skaters only play 50% of the game at most if they are D, or only ~35% of the game if they are forwards.

Surely to god your argument isn't that McDrai making more has no negative effect on our chances of winning? This is a demonstrably false argument.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The only thing that increases the cap is revenue increases, full stop. There is no mechanism by which individual player salaries increase the cap, it doesn't exist. No, high individual earners now most definitely DO NOT cause the cap to go up in the future. Again, only revenue increases will cause the cap to rise in the future, barring a renegotiation of the 50% number.

Yes, the NHL is paid the least, but that is a function of the "hard cap % * revenue $" equation. It has absolutely nothing to do with what individuals make. If the NHLPA wants to no longer be payed near the bottom of major pro sports, they need to either: A) have total revenues increase, or B) renegotiate the 50% hard cap number, or C) some combination of A and B.

No, top players earning more will not cause average pay to increase for other players. The average pay is again really simple math. It is: (hard cap % * revenue $) / number of players. The opposite of what you are saying is actually the truth for most players. If the top earners make more, there is less for the lower players to earn. If the top players, however you want to define that, started making 25% more tomorrow, there would be a commensurate lowering of total salary available to the rest of the NHLPA membership.

This isn't hard to understand, none of this is complicated.

Player association bargaining rights increases cap more than revenues. Do I need inform you on league history when owners were making money like tycoons and paying players working class salaries in 50's, 60's?

I just showed the argument on how increased top contracts for any league is correlated with top cap, top average salary. etc.

Going to cite the WHA here as well. Top contracts had NOTHING to do with revenue. It was set by a new league determining players are underpaid and deciding that they could competitively attract players away from the NHL by paying them their considered worth. Indeed it was only the presence of the WHA that caused the NHL to start paying players accordingly. Again it had zero to do with revenues and everything to do with competition for players and an in effect kind of free agency occurring whereby players could just jump leagues and get paid.

Even in looking at specifically the Edmonton Oilers their revenues and profits have increased substantially since the cap. There has not been commensurate increase in salary cap in that time. Indeed the players pay is not being restricted by the revenues, its being restricted by the current CBA and hard cap decisions. You can bet your ass if the cap went away it wouldn't take years for the top NHL player to be paid 20M, 25M and beyond. Has less to do with the revenue than the current cap restrictions.

You failed to consider what I said is that when top players demand more pay it puts more pressure for leagues to increase cap, so that it works for all players in terms of increasing cap overall in the short and longrun. Its a futures position.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Yes, there are a variety of factors at play for why there hasn't been much success above a certain % being spent on your top 2 players. I agree. I would further agree that we are seeing those reasons manifest within our own team, for the very reason you propose (age, primarily). None of that changes the fact that up until now, having a high % of salary in your top 2 players has not been a recipe for Stanley success. I cannot fathom why this is a controversial fact Its common sense in a hard salary cap situation, and for a sport where your top skaters only play 50% of the game at most if they are D, or only ~35% of the game if they are forwards.

Surely to god your argument isn't that McDrai making more has no negative effect on our chances of winning? This is a demonstrably false argument.

I think you arent' following me. The article falsely makes claim that 10M player is some determining effect. Or that even top two player salary is. The article is missing age effects, UFA effects etc. As such the article is noise.

Again in McD and Drai terms their peak competitive window is closing. The best chance of a team around them winning the cup was already had, because the players had arrived at peak early in careers and while even in ELC. That of course in a capped league can be a huge competitive benefit as it was for the Hawks.

Of course the next Mcd Drai contracts are less favorable for SC win potential. But they aren't getting paid due to Cup win potential. They get their big contracts now due to how CBA, UFA, free agency is age structured. Of course we will have less chance of winning cup in the future McD and Drai contracts. But not only due to how much, but due to how old the two superstars are in those respective contracts.

 

[McJadeddog]

Player association bargaining rights increases cap more than revenues. Do I need inform you on league history when owners were making money like tycoons and paying players working class salaries in 50's, 60's?

I just showed the argument on how increased top contracts for any league is correlated with top cap, top average salary. etc.

Going to cite the WHA here as well. Top contracts had NOTHING to do with revenue. It was set by a new league determining players are underpaid and deciding that they could competitively attract players away from the NHL by paying them their considered worth. Indeed it was only the presence of the WHA that caused the NHL to start paying players accordingly. Again it had zero to do with revenues and everything to do with competition for players and an in effect kind of free agency occurring whereby players could just jump leagues and get paid.

Even in looking at specifically the Edmonton Oilers their revenues and profits have increased substantially since the cap. There has been less increase in salary cap in that time. Indeed the players pay is not being restricted by the revenues, its being restricted by the current CBA and hard cap decisions. You can bet your ass if the cap went away it wouldn't take years for the top NHL player to be paid 20M, 25M and beyond. Has less to do with the revenue than the current cap restrictions.

You failed to consider what I said is that when top players demand more pay it puts more pressure for leagues to increase cap, so that it works for all players in terms of increasing cap overall in the short and longrun. Its a futures position.

Literally none of what you just posted goes against my point, or the "hard cap % * revenue $" equation.

WHA doesn't matter.

"Has less to do with the revenue than the current cap restrictions." Like, I don't even know how to respond to this. I guess I'll just continue referring to the above calculation? It is a function of that equation and A, B and C options from my above post are the only ways for the players to increase their share. Again, this is very simple math.

"Indeed the players pay is not being restricted by the revenues, its being restricted by the current CBA and hard cap decisions." It's both, as I've said many times now.

No, it most definitely does not ".... increasing cap overall in the short and longrun". In the short run this isn't true by simple math rules. There could be an argument for the long term, in that if the top players make a crazy high % of the cap number, that more of the lower players (who in the short term would be making less money) might be willing to strike to get the 50% number increase (B from above). But they also might just negotiate to have the max individual salary get lowered. It could play out in a variety of ways. But again, that isn't the scenario now. Right now, without inventing future possibilities to argue against, reality and math dictates that players earning more, cause other players to earn less.

A, B and C from above is how players can get a bigger piece of the revenue.

Maybe Fourier has the time/energy to engage with you further on this, but I don't. Believe what you want, I'll let the others on here reading this make their own determination and pipe up if they want.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Literally none of what you just posted goes against my point, or the "hard cap % * revenue $" equation.

WHA doesn't matter.

"Has less to do with the revenue than the current cap restrictions." Like, I don't even know how to respond to this. I guess I'll just continue referring to the above calculation? It is a function of that equation and A, B and C options from my above post are the only ways for the players to increase their share. Again, this is very simple math.

"Indeed the players pay is not being restricted by the revenues, its being restricted by the current CBA and hard cap decisions." It's both, as I've said many times now.

No, it most definitely does not ".... increasing cap overall in the short and longrun". In the short run this isn't true by simple math rules. There could be an argument for the long term, in that if the top players make a crazy high % of the cap number, that more of the lower players (who in the short term would be making less money) might be willing to strike to get the 50% number increase (B from above). But they also might just negotiate to have the max individual salary get lowered. It could play out in a variety of ways. But again, that isn't the scenario now. Right now, without inventing future possibilities to argue against, reality and math dictates that players earning more, cause other players to earn less.

A, B and C from above is how players can get a bigger piece of the revenue.

Maybe Fourier has the time/energy to engage with you further on this, but I don't. Believe what you want, I'll let the others on here reading this make their own determination and pipe up if they want.

Maybe you're a bit younger and you missed when NHL was not allowing free agency and fair pay.

It was only top players in hockey like Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe figuring they are worth 1M and getting it that opened up free agency at all in hockey. Again it was superstars leading the way in that. To that degree I can see what Swayman and others are saying. NHL cap and salaries have remained largely stagnant while other leagues salaries have exploded this milennium. Indeed if one looks at even the salary cap now in 2024 its still less than some clubs were paying (converted to current dollars) in 2004.

Finally NHL teams are notoriously bad at reporting revenues. Longstanding this has been an issue. Impasse will likely occur as revenues are highly suspected to be greater than reported and revenues have increased inordinately more than cap since 2004. If one points out other evaluations Like Forbes that includes valuation of member teams the latter has exploded while Cap has only doubled in 20yrs.

An impasse is likely, which is a different discussion.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Because superstars define what cap is of any particular pro league due to the amount of cap their pay represents?

Numerically its indisputable that the NHL is the lowest paying of any top league. NHL players (any) are not even in the top 100 of top earners in pro sports today. NHL has completely dropped out of that race.

Relative pay is defined by what the top earners make and what the league cap is. Most players realize this and that if top players continue to earn more than salary cap, league minimums and average pay and such will increase for all.

Yes, in a microcosm set time if the stud player takes bigger pay that takes up an increased share of the current cap. But the futures is why nobody would complain about it. Because any time top players start to be paid more everybody else follows in subsequent caps and CBA's. I mean you know this.

This is an interesting look in anycase comparing salary in different pro sports

https://www.ncsharp.com/info/salaries-professional-athletes-nfl-mlb-nba/

It's interesting to look at the revenue numbers of North American major sports. The biggest difference in revenue creation is NHL lags significantly behind NFL, MLB, NBA is diversifying revenue through national means including broadcast rights and league wide sponsorship. NHL has the highest percentage of revenue still tied to gate admission. It's why the NHL is pushing U.S. based expansion and so rigid in keeping a loss leader franchise in Phoenix.

Lots of different variables too. NBA with smaller roster makes sense they have highest player AAV. But also with high growth revenue they've evolved their hard cap over time to accommodate team need to retain their elites by going over the salary cap (The Larry Bird Rule). Shocking really that NFL juggernaut top revenue driver has a low average salary and predominantly non-guaranteed contracts. *Crazier still is that I recall at some point reading something along the lines that an avg NFL player lifespan is well below average. Don't know anything about the NFL cap system but they are the kingpins with national revenue driving and revenue share across member teams. MLB with is luxury tax system with penalty for the usual suspect big market buy their team consortia members. Notably now worked around in ridiculous fashion by Dodgers/Ohtani circumvention.

NHL is the only major N. American sports with more than 1 of its consortia members based in Canada. We're seeing a lot of trends effecting an increasingly diluted Canadian member base that started long ago with standardizing salaries in U.S. currency. Far more complexities I think with the NHL league.


Mixed lifespan info evaluated by position and body type. * Average Lifespan Of An NFL Player (All You Need To Know) – American Sports Planet

 

[Drivesaitl]

It's interesting to look at the revenue numbers of North American major sports. The biggest difference in revenue creation is NHL lags significantly behind NFL, MLB, NBA is diversifying revenue through national means including broadcast rights and league wide sponsorship. NHL has the highest percentage of revenue still tied to gate admission. It's why the NHL is pushing U.S. based expansion and so rigid in keeping a loss leader franchise in Phoenix.

Lots of different variables too. NBA with smaller roster makes sense they have highest player AAV. But also with high growth revenue they've evolved their hard cap over time to accommodate team need to retain their elites by going over the salary cap (The Larry Bird Rule). Shocking really that NFL juggernaut top revenue driver has a low average salary and predominantly non-guaranteed contracts. *Crazier still is that I recall at some point reading something along the lines that an avg NFL player lifespan is well below average. Don't know anything about the NFL cap system but they are the kingpins with national revenue driving and revenue share across member teams. MLB with is luxury tax system with penalty for the usual suspect big market buy their team consortia members. Notably now worked around in ridiculous fashion by Dodgers/Ohtani circumvention.

NHL is the only major N. American sports with more than 1 of its consortia members based in Canada. We're seeing a lot of trends effecting an increasingly diluted Canadian member base that started long ago with standardizing salaries in U.S. currency. Far more complexities I think with the NHL league.


* Average Lifespan Of An NFL Player (All You Need To Know) – American Sports Planet

The NFL average and minimum salary only as low as it is due the 55 man roster. So in that way its not comparable to other sports with much smaller rosters.

Sure the NHL has lagged behind other sports in revenue but the NHL also under reports revenues and franchise worth relative to reality and other leagues.

The NHL as we often agree does the worst in terms of marketing and benefitting from their star players cachet. Both on the ice in allowing the players to shine unimpeded, and off the ice in marketing they don't capitalize enough.

McD in marketability terms should be gold on and off the ice. He should be in a different stratosphere from where he is in terms of pro athletes pay and potential pay.

Whats been missed in the discussion is historically landmark changes in pay for free agents will have quantum effects on leagues profile and general pay. If a McD demanded to get paid 20M and settle for nothing else and threaten to sit out the league CBA would be renegotiated to allow it. Just saying. Whatever he gets paid in next contract he's worth much more.

Its even arguable that the leagues current cap and pay devalues the profile of their superstars and tends to put them in poor light of what other profile athletes are making. For the non discerning sporting fan this equates to them not being good, not of comparable worth etc. Its only the NHL that isn't worth it if you get my dig.

The things McD does in his sport puts him in a league of few. Few comparable. He's so good at moves its like he makes time stop, freezes other players and does what he wants on highlight reel plays. Its some Messi-Ronaldo stuff. McD is crazy good. Unfortunately the NHL as a league isn't.

Last point is that the NHL did a bit better in marketing Wayne Gretzky and his skills etc. He was in the convo at least in worldwide terms as a superstar athlete. McD doesn't even get consideration despite his electric play. McD is a Michael Jordan who isn't being marketed that way.

 

[K1984]

It could be the agents but it still is bad advice that the players should be smart enough not to follow. If they are telling the players that going for the most they can get helps others then they are simply lying to their clients.

You would think by now that the players would have some understanding of how things work. But maybe not. We heard lot of crazy things from guys like Toews that showed he did not have a clue what the purpose of escrow was for instance.

Toews demonstrates what is probably a pretty standard level of player's understanding of how the CBA works and their position in it.

I used to really, really like Toews, but lost a ton of respect for him when he was the poster boy of tear shedding during the 12-13 lockout. Stands on the soap box weeping a sob story at every opportunity. Meanwhile has no idea what escrow is, and didn't seem to have any concept whatsoever of the fact that someone on a $10M AAV long term deal like he was on has far less to worry about than the guy in the midst of the standard 1-4 year NHL career is missing a significant amount of his brief earning window so Toews could get his. Always "woe is me," his teammates toiling at the bottom of the roster making $700k? Not sure he knows they exist.

Concepts like CBA, escrow, definition of hockey related revenue, impact on arbitration on negotiating power, etc, etc are somewhat complicated legal and accounting concepts, especially when viewed on the whole. The standard NHL player would have no idea what any of this is, so it is quite easy for them to get twisted by their agent or the PA.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The NFL average and minimum salary only as low as it is due the 55 man roster. So in that way its not comparable to other sports with much smaller rosters.

Sure the NHL has lagged behind other sports in revenue but the NHL also under reports revenues and franchise worth relative to reality and other leagues.

The NHL as we often agree does the worst in terms of marketing and benefitting from their star players cachet. Both on the ice in allowing the players to shine unimpeded, and off the ice in marketing they don't capitalize enough.

McD in marketability terms should be gold on and off the ice. He should be in a different stratosphere from where he is in terms of pro athletes pay and potential pay.

Whats been missed in the discussion is historically landmark changes in pay for free agents will have quantum effects on leagues profile and general pay. If a McD demanded to get paid 20M and settle for nothing else and threaten to sit out the league CBA would be renegotiated to allow it. Just saying. Whatever he gets paid in next contract he's worth much more.

Its even arguable that the leagues current cap and pay devalues the profile of their superstars and tends to put them in poor light of what other profile athletes are making. For the non discerning sporting fan this equates to them not being good, not of comparable worth etc. Its only the NHL that isn't worth it if you get my dig.

Agree about the roster size distortion effect. Though NFL super elites still get big bank pay while a huge swath get low pay and no guaranteed job.

The NHL salary cap is predicated on transparency with clear hockey related revenue accounted for. Failing to do so or false reporting is likely collusion or a sueable legal matter. Professional sports team have been given significant regulatory considerations in terms of operating their cartel systems. Not sure NHL would risk its business model and standing over cheating their reporting. The huge money is in expansion which gets parcelled out is beyond sharing with players.

Oilers valuation has absolutely soared through McDavid effect, winning team in monopolistic conditions that enable maximum revenue return, a heavily public subsidized hockey parlance, and increasing value of NHL franchises onboarding over time. McDavid's super elite game has a halo effect for Katz's team worth but also creates another revenue stream for McDavid himself as we see with non-role model gambling partnership, banking and other stuff.

There's no league competition like the rival WHA that created heated inflationary prices for player salaries; upended the front end of player acquisition with signing underage players; and opened up a global market for talent signing European star players.

With a hard cap system it at least puts all franchises on a prospective level playing field with controllable decisions how to disperse their cap range for talent. Without it we would see even worse erosion of talent from secondary markets to palm trees and no-tax jurisdictions.

Now a prospective discussion point might be an evolving cap system, similar to NBA, in which the Larry Bird rule provided a means for teams to spend beyond cap to retain how to acquire elite talent. In the big picture the NHL is trying to evolve out of a niche, regional sport played on ice into high growth opportunity space where ice is served in drinks and the only toothless 'athletes' are at the NASCAR races (just kidding cancel culture!! haha). Hockey is a distant thought in terms of established sports entertainment options, a highly technical sport played at highest speed so challenging for new fans to understand and embrace.

With a new CBA in the impeding future and record NHL revenue growth and expansion fees, I doubt it's coincidence that players like Swayman are spouting union brother mantra and that it appears maybe the flag mark Draisaitl contract might be more complex than anticipated. The signals are likely for fans who can get ready for another barn fight between millionaire and billionaires. After all 'it's just business' both sides continue to remind us all.

 

[AlanHUK]

You do realize Mackinnon has the current record contract right?

I obviously did not.

The premise is still the same, but instead of 12.5x8 it'd need to be 12.6x8 to be 'record money'.

The point was that that phrase isn't necessarily an indication that Leon won't sign a team friendly deal.

 

[Sanchez]

 

[AM]

It's about standing up for what you're worth

And yes there is an ongoing battle between players and owners. Precedents matter and affect the future of collective bargaining.

They aren’t worth anything money wise without the bright lights and tv contract.

 

[AM]

This is a job and these people are some of the best in the world at doing it. Wouldn't you want to be paid everything your worth in your area of employment?

I negotiate contracts all the time. The concept of value is an ever present consideration in the discussion. So if it were me, I would ask myself, can a family afford to watch my best in the worldness do my stuff in the place I want to live and raise my family in? Then I would negotiate a contract inline with my sense of fairness.

You know, if you’re asking.

 

[Oilslick941611]

It is an almost perfect example of a zero sum game. Whatever 1 player leaves on the table increases the amount available for all other players. Zero sum games are not limited to 2 actor situations, although that is the more common scenario for certain.

There is only 1 pie (to use what is likely the most common zero sum game example), and its capped in size at 50%. If one player from the total (lets think of 3 to make things easier to calculate) would normally get 16.66% of the revenue, but decides to take 10%, that means there is now 6.66% more for the remaining 2 players to negotiate for when their deals are up next. If player 1 took 25% of the pie, that would reduce the available pie for players 2 and 3 to only 25% total, rather than the more equitable 33.34%.

Yes, it is a zero sum game.

But no. What the player may leave on the table doesn’t go to other players. Someone talking less on a contract doesn’t increase the dollar amount of another players contract.

Your scenario assumes that every team will spend every dollar on other players. No they won’t. If you have players taking less overall to leave more of the pie. The owners will just keep extra pieces when they fill out the roster.

It only works when every player works in their best interest to get as much money as possible on a contract. Leaving money on the table enables the owners to keep more profit by not spending to the cap limit.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Agree about the roster size distortion effect. Though NFL super elites still get big bank pay while a huge swath get low pay and no guaranteed job.

The NHL salary cap is predicated on transparency with clear hockey related revenue accounted for. Failing to do so or false reporting is likely collusion or a sueable legal matter. Professional sports team have been given significant regulatory considerations in terms of operating their cartel systems. Not sure NHL would risk its business model and standing over cheating their reporting. The huge money is in expansion which gets parcelled out is beyond sharing with players.

Oilers valuation has absolutely soared through McDavid effect, winning team in monopolistic conditions that enable maximum revenue return, a heavily public subsidized hockey parlance, and increasing value of NHL franchises onboarding over time. McDavid's super elite game has a halo effect for Katz's team worth but also creates another revenue stream for McDavid himself as we see with non-role model gambling partnership, banking and other stuff.

There's no league competition like the rival WHA that created heated inflationary prices for player salaries; upended the front end of player acquisition with signing underage players; and opened up a global market for talent signing European star players.

With a hard cap system it at least puts all franchises on a prospective level playing field with controllable decisions how to disperse their cap range for talent. Without it we would see even worse erosion of talent from secondary markets to palm trees and no-tax jurisdictions.

Now a prospective discussion point might be an evolving cap system, similar to NBA, in which the Larry Bird rule provided a means for teams to spend beyond cap to retain how to acquire elite talent. In the big picture the NHL is trying to evolve out of a niche, regional sport played on ice into high growth opportunity space where ice is served in drinks and the only toothless 'athletes' are at the NASCAR races (just kidding cancel culture!! haha). Hockey is a distant thought in terms of established sports entertainment options, a highly technical sport played at highest speed so challenging for new fans to understand and embrace.

With a new CBA in the impeding future and record NHL revenue growth and expansion fees, I doubt it's coincidence that players like Swayman are spouting union brother mantra and that it appears maybe the flag mark Draisaitl contract might be more complex than anticipated. The signals are likely for fans who can get ready for another barn fight between millionaire and billionaires. After all 'it's just business' both sides continue to remind us all.

Every league impasse and lockout has been around the league not fully or accurately reporting all their income. Plus the NHL does a poor job of factoring in corrolary income source, rise in team worth etc. No doubt the league is lagging behind other pro sports leagues and that the players are getting paid less due to the NHL doing such a shitty job marketing and managing its own product. Of course accounting can be creative and the NHL is likely underreporting revenues. Its longstanding with the NHL.

Marketing wise and not allowing star players to do their magic on ice is a major fail for the NHL. At onset McD was one of the most marketable sports figures around. The NHL has completely botched this, like they did formerly with marketable players like Crosby.

I don't agree hockey is a hard sport to understand and embrace. I don't think thats a factor either in what makes top sports. Maybe its me but I'll die before understanding baseball or cricket. I'll never figure out the actual applied rules of "travelling" in basketball, and football takes a lot more explaining of rules than hockey did. Harken back to when I first watched sports. Dad would turn a hockey game on and say just watch, you'll figure it out. With Football there were all these necessary explanations about what on earth the game is about. In hockey its intrinsic and intuitive the object is to put the puck in the net. Aliens would figure that out.

Hockey and Soccer are on par as easily watched understood sports. Of course theres nuance and much more that goes into it but neither sport pre-empts viewers on understand or embrace level.