Yuke
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2020
- 454
- 416
For 1 yearWtf? The Oilers window is wide open and you want to dismantle. Trading Draisaitl is about the dumbest move they could make.
So dumb I don’t know why I’m even wasting my time replying.
For 1 yearWtf? The Oilers window is wide open and you want to dismantle. Trading Draisaitl is about the dumbest move they could make.
So dumb I don’t know why I’m even wasting my time replying.
1 year? Why are we suddenly junk in 2 years? Because we trade Draisaitl and McD says f*** it I’m outta here too?For 1 year
Seravalli and Friedman are essentially the only real insiders we have in this league that are noteworthy, in one way or another.Seravalli is the absolute worst "insider". Knows nothing. Has no cred.
When Elliotte Friedman posts something, then I'll pay attention.
One thing though is that Draisaitl's salary for 2024-2025 could be the highest in the league, but with an eight year deal odds are it would be front loaded to have a caphit in the 13.5 million range which would be more team friendly.Seravalli is the absolute worst "insider". Knows nothing. Has no cred.
When Elliotte Friedman posts something, then I'll pay attention.
Ah, I'm wrong. Maybe 2 years with the window. How is that team looking after?1 year? Why are we suddenly junk in 2 years? Because we trade Draisaitl and McD says f*** it I’m outta here too?
Its all well and good. Nothing is really going on so nothing wrong with a sidebar. If news comes up then we'll talk about that.Lockouts are always about money. Imposing a cap created structure of cost certainty and budget range for all consortia members to operate within tied to agreed up league hockey revenue related line items. The pie could then be carved up however each member team sees fit.
There would be zero reason for the league to deflate its revenue as it is looking to instil market confidence to grow its revenue pie through national opportunities (broadcast rights and league sponsorships) and prospective new owners with increasing valuation that lines only the owners pockets. Attracting new investors require showing and selling growth, not hiding it. The collusion days of NHL and NHLPA are long gone. They are true partners in fostering revenue growth with established, agreed upon budget lines accountable upon. Players rightfully bitched about artificial deflation with a moribund Arizona based franchise dragging down revenue but also hoarding LTIR contracts to clog cap responsibilities to live within its lowest financial range required.
Hockey's a high speed, high random sport with a ton of non-repeating variables. It's not a linear slow cook game like baseball where pitcher throws, hitter reacts, something or nothing happens. Even basketball is a simple concept. Soccer is so slow by comparison of either hockey or basketball.
For southern U.S. markets hockey is a lagging afterthought behind established pro sport options, big business college fake amateur sports, stuff like Nascar, etc. Not born into hockey, it's not necessarily a first, second or tertiary option for limited discretionary time or money. Why the game's history for greatest extend was centred around Canada and Northern U.S. big markets.
NHL marketing is what it is. You see alot of league strategy with learn to play investments with diverse youth demographics to try to nurture long-term hockey adopters who might drag mom and dad into watching the sport. The mass marketing strategies are largely focus on new fan development not necessarily entrenched hockey lifers. Agree though they have had their lunch fed them by an NBA league as one who was on equal revenue/fan levels once upon a time who shifted to innovative promotion strategy focused on elite star players with incredible talents.
I enjoy the discussion but think I/we have veered from Draisaitl's contract discussion of the thread. Probably boring everyone like a second grade MLS soccer game!![]()
What precedents are you considering?Basic math, no drama at all.
Drai at $14, McDavid at $12.5, Bouchard at ~$10 (in 25-26) means we'll have ~$38.5M tied in 3 players, or roughly 41.6% of an assumed cap of $92.5 M. You ain't winning with that percentage based on historical precedent. Is it possible? Sure, I guess anything is possible, but it is HIGLY unlikely, and setting us up for failure.
Honestly, if Drai is looking for $14+, we need to at least be exploring the trade market for him. Yes, I am aware that trading Drai means McDavid likely leaves, but the haul from trading Drai might mean 2 really good chances at winning the cup, rather than only 1.
Tough spot for the team either way if Drai is trying to squeeze the team.
Why should he back off what he’s worth? It’s his career, he worked his ass off to get where he is and he has a short window to earn what he can.If a guy who has already made over $70M in his career won't back off a little bit in terms of salary requirements then it certainly opens up the question as to what the commitment to the team is but we have no reliable sources to indicate that this is what's happening.
In terms of quantifying "a little bit" or "team friendly" then I admit I don't have the answer.
My guess is that he will still sign with the Oilers in the next 30 days.
That's for the beginning of the contract. Cap will likely continue to rise well over 100M during their contracts and all players mentioned should be stars for the majority of their contracts.Basic math, no drama at all.
Drai at $14, McDavid at $12.5, Bouchard at ~$10 (in 25-26) means we'll have ~$38.5M tied in 3 players, or roughly 41.6% of an assumed cap of $92.5 M. You ain't winning with that percentage based on historical precedent. Is it possible? Sure, I guess anything is possible, but it is HIGLY unlikely, and setting us up for failure.
Honestly, if Drai is looking for $14+, we need to at least be exploring the trade market for him. Yes, I am aware that trading Drai means McDavid likely leaves, but the haul from trading Drai might mean 2 really good chances at winning the cup, rather than only 1.
Tough spot for the team either way if Drai is trying to squeeze the team.
the scenario we are discussing involves pretending all players are taking less on contracts so other players will get more money.
Im saying in this scenario owners will fill out a 23 man roster and keep the rest of the profits rather than pay 3rd and 4th line players more because they aren't near the cap. Remember, in this scenario the player have gathered together to take less on contracts. Thats where the fairy dust unicorn comment comes from.
The owners won't spend a cent more than they need too, Its why I m arguing that its not a zero sum game, its player vs player vs owner, not players vs owners, the money in the system is reliant on players getting the most they can, because if they start taking less owners start paying less ( to a limit set by the cap floor, but thats easily changed via CBA negotiations, well, not "easily" but the money in the system can change if the players don't fight for their bag. a handful of players taking less won't matter much, but the poster I was replying to suggested that say Drai talking less on his contract means Connor Brown gets more money and im saying thats not that true, and that the owner would just pocket the extra money. each player has to fight for their own interests ( more money) for the system to work.
nah, Im a huge fan of guaranteed contracts, Its better for the players and owners. NFL is a league of haves and have nots.
What should change is the way players are allowed to be sent down for under performing without risk of losing them.
I think guaranteed contracts allow for greater flexibility in players personal lives and really should be a right in every aspect of labour.
If the players position is to get rid of revenue sharing and a hard cap then they had better be looking for alternative places to play because there will be no NHL hockey until they drop that demand. Of that I am 99.99999999% sure.At no point was I debating that in current exchange. My take is that the CBA will change, and the rules change, because teams continue to fudge figures on revenue which NHLPA will again accuse them of. I was pointing out futures, and stated that several times in the thread. The NHLPA will demand a different type of agreement and probably a softer cap or Larry Bird exemptions. etc.
So we're literally just putting thoughts into people's heads now? How the f*** do you know what Connor's thinking? I've seen him at the golf course yelling at Nuge to "not take a penny less than he's worth".Then why respond. I'm guessing you cannot come up with an reasoning just "cause we will be in darkness". Lol
There is a chance we lose Bouchard if we sign Leon at 14 million plus. McDavid knows a team cannot survive with 4 guys taking the majority of pay, maybe he doesn't want to stay on a team fighting for playoffs? Leon or Bouchard can give us a great return if done correctly, or they just sign team friendly deals and it is all good.
Only 1 team has won with 4 guys taking just over 50% of the cap. And I believe that was under 51%. The projection was our 4 guys around 59%. I suspect CM knows his numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.So we're literally just putting thoughts into people's heads now? How the f*** do you know what Connor's thinking? I've seen him at the golf course yelling at Nuge to "not take a penny less than he's worth".
Can't just make shit up and say "McD thinks this", bro.
But how do you quantify what he's worth if you are the Oilers?Why should he back off what he’s worth? It’s his career, he worked his ass off to get where he is and he has a short window to earn what he can.
cap or not i support guys who go after their bag.
It would be a good poll question. If the league dropped revenue sharing and a hard salary cap then how many teams would be in financial trouble within a few years?If the players position is to get rid of revenue sharing and a hard cap then they had better be looking for alternative places to play because there will be no NHL hockey until they drop that demand. Of that I am 99.99999999% sure.
The big complaint you herar out of the NHLAP revolves around escrow. That is in itself often based on a lack of understanding of how the system works but none the less it is probably a solvable issue given where the cap ceiling is relative to revenues. Right now the old formula has the ceiling at 15% above the mid point. But the current ceiling is probably close to the midpoint. Even with say a $10M increase in the ceiling up to the expiry day of this CBA the ceiling would likely be well under the 15% gap away from the midpoint. The current CBA fixes escrow at a max of 6%. That could be effectively achieved by setting the ceiling at 5-6% above the midpoint. If they did that and if the NHL kept growing revenues at anywhere near the current pace, this would practically eliminate escrow.
I've said all along that it starts at $14 mil. Anything less would be a bargain for the Oilers.One thing though is that Draisaitl's salary for 2024-2025 could be the highest in the league, but with an eight year deal odds are it would be front loaded to have a caphit in the 13.5 million range which would be more team friendly.
Only if Drai refuses to sign here. That's the only scenario where our window slams shut in a year. McDavid likely leaves then too, which would suck horribly, and would bring on the next decade of darkness in my opinion. You can't recover from losing two top 5 players.For 1 year
I hope you're right. I've expected 14M, but 13.29 would be nice. I just hope they finalize it soon. I'm nervous as all heck about it.Word is the big boys stood in front of the group and stated they would be leaving some on the table. The media is just looking for hits.
I'm sure he comes in @ 13.29M avv.
I just want him to sign. If it's a million aav more than I'd like I still say I'm glad he's stayingOnly if Drai refuses to sign here. That's the only scenario where our window slams shut in a year. McDavid likely leaves then too, which would suck horribly, and would bring on the next decade of darkness in my opinion. You can't recover from losing two top 5 players.
I hope you're right. I've expected 14M, but 13.29 would be nice. I just hope they finalize it soon. I'm nervous as all heck about it.
Thanks for saving me a piece!Here is a way to explain it to them.
You and your three friends have a delicious pie that you all desperately want to eat. If one guy eats most of the pie, the others may not be happy. Or even simpler. You four have a pizza with 12 slices. On guy takes 9. What do the others say.
You sure?If the players position is to get rid of revenue sharing and a hard cap then they had better be looking for alternative places to play because there will be no NHL hockey until they drop that demand. Of that I am 99.99999999% sure.
The big complaint you herar out of the NHLAP revolves around escrow. That is in itself often based on a lack of understanding of how the system works but none the less it is probably a solvable issue given where the cap ceiling is relative to revenues. Right now the old formula has the ceiling at 15% above the mid point. But the current ceiling is probably close to the midpoint. Even with say a $10M increase in the ceiling up to the expiry day of this CBA the ceiling would likely be well under the 15% gap away from the midpoint. The current CBA fixes escrow at a max of 6%. That could be effectively achieved by setting the ceiling at 5-6% above the midpoint. If they did that and if the NHL kept growing revenues at anywhere near the current pace, this would practically eliminate escrow.
I did say only 99.99999999% sure.You sure?
Lost in this I guess is that in order for a membership such as the NHLPA to be persuaded the information provided should at least be persuasive, clearly worded, and in understandable terms. The fault with misunderstanding often involves how the information is communicated. I've seen escrow explanations, not just yours that don't exactly clarify all that well. I've also seen sources online that do a better job explaining.
![]()
Escrow 101: A guide to NHL escrow in the salary cap world - The Win Column
Making sense of what escrow is in the NHL and its impact the league in 2023–24, and what can be done about it in the future.thewincolumn.ca
But this is selective bias on your part. Not everybody understands such concepts and even with adequate explanation. You love math, I get it, I understand the escrow myself. Some players wouldn't. Thing is players might even feign understanding, nod their head, while not listening to a word of it.I did say only 99.99999999% sure.
If an agent can't explain escrow in plain language to their client they have no business representing that player.
I happen to love Shakespeare. Visiting the New Globe Theatre was a major highlight of one of my trips to London.But this is selective bias on your part. Not everybody understands such concepts and even with adequate explanation. You love math, I get it, I understand the escrow myself. Some players wouldn't. Thing is players might even feign understanding, nod their head, while not listening to a word of it.
Conversely there might be other domains, maybe Shakespeare, that you'd have trouble following.
The audience the agents are speaking to are not necessarily adept, or even competent in the area of understanding in question.