Player Discussion Leon Draisaitl's next contract

[Broberg Speed]

Nice comeback, you really got me there.

It's weird, I've never seen you before except in this thread. Taking an interest in retaining, in your case not retaining, one of the Oilers superstars. The linchpin player necessary for the Oilers to successfully sign their other superstar and star offensive defenseman.

All three players already in the organization, good luck replacing even one of them once you let them go.

You need superstars, if your ultimate goal is winning Stanley Cups, and there are only a handful of superstars in the league. We have two of the very best, if not the two best, and a flourishing offensive star on the backend. I'd think you'd learn to spell the players names and shit.

 

[Drivesaitl]

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.

Top tier pro sports is long past catering to family incomes or affordability. That boat sailed decades ago.

Top tier pro sports and entertainment is now geared to mostly top 5% earners or product addicts. or those employed in top earning firms that get tickets gifted.

We're out of the convo. I'm sympathetic to your stance. But I've long been a Tube tier fan, not even a 2nd tier or third tier fan and if the Boobtube is charging PPV for a broadcast they can get stuffed as well.

Its not for me. But its not for the vast majority of us in terms of attending live events now.

 

[Yuke]

It's weird, I've never seen you before except in this thread. Taking an interest in retaining, in your case not retaining, one of the Oilers superstars. The linchpin player necessary for the Oilers to successfully sign their other superstar and star offensive defenseman.

All three players already in the organization, good luck replacing even one of them once you let them go.

You need superstars, if your ultimate goal is winning Stanley Cups, and there are only a handful of superstars in the league. We have two of the very best, if not the two best, and a flourishing offensive star on the backend. I'd think you'd learn to spell the players names and shit.

I've been on this board longer than you, just don't post all the time. When you miss the little c in a person's name ( for whatever reason) and some HF cowboy try to make something out of it is probably why I don't post that often.
Now, do you actually think having over 55% of cap tied into 4 players makes this team better? A long term contender? Well I don't. We will have 1 shot and that is this coming year and then watch the Penguins model unfold. How many sure fire prospects do we have? One, maybe, to fill the rest of the roster then it will be has beens or tweeners.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

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.

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!

 

[Fourier]

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/

What you suggest does not apply when the league has a specific revenue sharing agreement with a cap that is explicitly tied to revenue. .

 

[McJadeddog]

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.

I actually don't know whether the league spends to the 50% maximum each year, but I think they do. The existence of escrow payments that are only partially refunded each year would indicate that they do indeed pay to the limit. Somebody with more knowledge about historical escrow payments might be able to correct me though.

 

[Fourier]

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.

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.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Frank Seravalli "President of Hockey Content @dailyfaceoff"
Honestly I dont put a whole lot of stock in what he has to say on this topic, for months now hes been saying that we would be impressed at how cheap the AAV would be and its a "done deal"
then
yesterday he started changing his tune

Seravalli is the absolute worst "insider". Knows nothing. Has no cred.
When Elliotte Friedman posts something, then I'll pay attention.

 

[Yuke]

The Oilers will languish in darkness if they don't re-sign Draisaitl and McDavid. You and your 55% bullshit. I don't give a f*** about your bubullshit

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.

 

[AM]

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.

They will if they are trying to lose weight.

 

[MoontoScott]

Seravalli is the absolute worst "insider". Knows nothing. Has no cred.
When Elliotte Friedman posts something, then I'll pay attention.

Agreed-- You and I can set up a blog or a Youtube channel and claim that we often chat with Oiler insiders but that statement and 4 bucks will buy you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks.

This story he is pedaling may be true but it doesn't mean that he had any inside information. I think some posters are overreacting here.

 

[Drivesaitl]

What you suggest does not apply when the league has a specific revenue sharing agreement with a cap that is explicitly tied to revenue. .

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.

 

[MoontoScott]

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.

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.

 

[brentashton]

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.

Bob, why’d you eat all the Mediterranean Chicken?

 

[DavidHasselhoffsFist]

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.

I did and maybe staples should make a better headline. Nothing against your post though

 

[foshizzle]

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

I can’t do a check since capfriendly isn’t a thing anymore, but wasn’t the majority of teams at or close to the cap?

 

[foshizzle]

My hope for the new CBA is their be a mechanism in place for getting rid of bad contracts ala the NFL. Their will be a whole lot more front loaded contracts, but the oilers should be fine with that

 

[brentashton]

I can’t do a check since capfriendly isn’t a thing anymore, but wasn’t the majority of teams at or close to the cap?

NHL Teams by Salary Cap, NHL Contracts and Cap Hit | Puckpedia

Check out the cap space, latest contracts, injury news, and transactions for all NHL teams, including salaries, cap hits, buyouts, and draft picks on PuckPedia.

puckpedia.com

 

[Oilslick941611]

I can’t do a check since capfriendly isn’t a thing anymore, but wasn’t the majority of teams at or close to the cap?

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.

My hope for the new CBA is their be a mechanism in place for getting rid of bad contracts ala the NFL. Their will be a whole lot more front loaded contracts, but the oilers should be fine with that

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.

 

[Drivesaitl]

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

Fat bastard!

 

[McJadeddog]

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.

You can keep saying it isn't a zero sum game, but it is, it very literally is. The only way your player v player v owner thing becomes in any way true, even at the edges, is when the league doesn't pay out 50% of revenue in salaries. But the escrow is paid every year by players specifically to account for the league paying MORE than 50% out in salaries. But lets even agree that escrow isn't paid out every year, which it is, but lets pretend it isn't. Lets say the league is planning on paying out $3 B instead of the planned for $3.1 B, through existing contracts on the books due to players taking less money en masse. This means that there would be $100 M more for the players negotiating their contracts that year to go after.

I just don't understand how you don't get this. Lets use Fourier's example above of a pizza. There are 20 slices that the league needs to provide the 10 players, and normally each player takes 2 slices. But 5 players decide to take one less slice this year (cause they play on the same team and want to win, or whatever), so only 15 slices are accounted for now. But there are always players coming off contracts and looking for new contracts. Lets say 2 players are looking for new deals. Those players now have the ability to ask for more than the normal 2 slices, as there are now 9 slices available, instead of 4 like normal. Thus proving that others taking less, allows you to negotiate more.

You yourself are proving the above with your point "each player has to fight for their own interests for the system to work", which is exactly what happens above. The only way the owners would win in the aggregate, is if all players (or a very large majority) would decide to take less on their contracts. But nobody is arguing that.

 

[Oilslick941611]

You can keep saying it isn't a zero sum game, but it is, it very literally is. The only way your player v player v owner thing becomes in any way true, even at the edges, is when the league doesn't pay out 50% of revenue in salaries. But the escrow is paid every year by players specifically to account for the league paying MORE than 50% out in salaries. But lets even agree that escrow isn't paid out every year, which it is, but lets pretend it isn't. Lets say the league is planning on paying out $3 B instead of the planned for $3.1 B, through existing contracts on the books due to players taking less money en masse. This means that there would be $100 M more for the players negotiating their contracts that year to go after.

I just don't understand how you don't get this. Lets use Fourier's example above of a pizza. There are 20 slices that the league needs to provide the 10 players, and normally each player takes 2 slices. But 5 players decide to take one less slice this year (cause they play on the same team and want to win, or whatever), so only 15 slices are accounted for now. But there are always players coming off contracts and looking for new contracts. Lets say 2 players are looking for new deals. Those players now have the ability to ask for more than the normal 2 slices, as there are now 9 slices available, instead of 4 like normal. Thus proving that others taking less, allows you to negotiate more.

You yourself are proving the above with your point "each player has to fight for their own interests for the system to work", which is exactly what happens above. The only way the owners would win in the aggregate, is if all players (or a very large majority) would decide to take less on their contracts. But nobody is arguing that.

is this not exactly what you argued back a few pages?

 

[Messrules11]

You will be the first guy crying that we cannot build a strong team in 3 years.

Wtf? 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.

 

[Zerotonine]

I can’t do a check since capfriendly isn’t a thing anymore, but wasn’t the majority of teams at or close to the cap?

Any team competing is pretty much cap maxed

 

[Reasonable Oil Fan]

Wtf? 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.

It’s quite obvious