Around the NHL 2017

[Sabel79]

I know it's a delicate balance, but other players can't reasonably fault the guy for wanting to give consideration to his team's ability to compete.

 

Are NFL players likewise pissed at Brady for having repeatedly left money on the table so that he can compete for a Super Bowl? I tend to think not. And that's in the NFL, where the brutality of the game and the nature of non-guaranteed contracts make it far more imperative that players *get theirs* while the getting is good.

Were it any other player I'd be on board with your take. You're telling me that the undisputed best player to have hit the league in the last 35 years isn't worth the max, in this messed up communist system in which there's a max? In a system with limited dollars given to athletes with limited shelf lives, the outliers (or, on this case, outlier) not pushing forward the boundaries as far as possible to set the market as high as possible to increase the hand the union has to play at the next CBA negotiation is out of this world short-sighted.

 

Enjoy escrow going up after most of you don't get paid next lockout, most of the union! McDavid got paid up front...

[pi2000]

But surely there is a line? If you're a goalie and your team are giving up 40 shots a night and 3 breakaways and tens of odd man rushes, surely at some point (even if you let in soft goals) you complain? Maybe you let in those soft goals because you're tired from all the shots you've faced etc. Plus if no forwards score in the shoot-out, I don't think you can complain your goalie didn't stop any. A team that requires a goalie to save all but one and at the most two shots a night should never call out the goalie. Even if those two goals were soft as hell. I think a team that is winning or losing 5-4 every night has a right to publicly call out the goalie. Maybe just different philosophies towards the game though.

 

If either party (player or goalie) calls out the other, it can start a vicious cycle.    Let's say the team plays like and gives up 50 shots one night... they know they played like , they didn't play that way on purpose, for whatever reason they didn't have it that night.    Now let's say the tendy starts calling out guys in the lockerroom or media after that game... guess what happens next time he gives up a bad goal that costs them a game... it will be a complete shitshow, guys yelling at the goalie, goalie yelling at players, it creates a divide that can explode into a complete mess.     That's why goalies should never call their teammates out in public, and you don't hear players calling the goalie out... even when warranted.

 

You're supposed to be a team, have eachother's backs, especially in the media.    Sure, during the game if a d-man up, makes the wrong read,turns the puck over or whatever and it creates a scoring chance, then yeah, the goalie and player will likely talk about it... in 99.9% of cases the d-man will apologize to the goalie, give him a tap on the pad, and they'll talk it over about what maybe to do different next time.... but the goalie doesn't go and vent to the media and throw his own teammates under the bus.    And next time maybe that player isn't so eager to block a shot for his goalie, etc.   

[dudacek]

I'd like to see where Lehner said Jack was careless with the puck or thought he was better than he is. Only quotes I ever saw, Lehner said "we" not they, and certainly not a specific player

[pi2000]

I'd like to see where Lehner said Jack was careless with the puck or thought he was better than he is. Only quotes I ever saw, Lehner said "we" not they, and certainly not a specific player

 

from some article... 

 

Some of Buffalo’s best moments come when Eichel creates plays by carrying the puck. It also led to a bad moment Sunday as he turned the puck over next to the net, leading to a 2-1 Canucks lead. Lehner seemed to pick out the moment following the game.

 

“We have a structure, but we don’t play it,” Lehner said Sunday. “If we’re going to chip it deep or do whatever we’re supposed to do, let’s do another deke, let’s do another play. Get out of our zone? No, let’s do the fancy thing.”

[That Aud Smell]

Were it any other player I'd be on board with your take. You're telling me that the undisputed best player to have hit the league in the last 35 years isn't worth the max, in this messed up communist system in which there's a max? In a system with limited dollars given to athletes with limited shelf lives, the outliers (or, on this case, outlier) not pushing forward the boundaries as far as possible to set the market as high as possible to increase the hand the union has to play at the next CBA negotiation is out of this world short-sighted.

 

Enjoy escrow going up after most of you don't get paid next lockout, most of the union! McDavid got paid up front...

 

Hmmmm.

 

There is some food for thought there. I don't have a strong take on whether an annual max, salary caps, and the like are good or bad for pro sports. I'm aware generally that the NBA is confronting some real problems with its max contract scheme. I know there are other issues, too, with things like the revenue portions in which the players entitled to share. That's all a bit beyond my scope of interest, frankly.

[Sabel79]

Yeah, if Lenny seems like he's going to arbitration, where he'd get more that he's worth because other teams GMs are garbage and give contracts unrelated to reality, get the rid of him. ASAP.

[That Aud Smell]

I'd like to see where Lehner said Jack was careless with the puck or thought he was better than he is. Only quotes I ever saw, Lehner said "we" not they, and certainly not a specific player

 

 

from some article... 

 

Some of Buffalo’s best moments come when Eichel creates plays by carrying the puck. It also led to a bad moment Sunday as he turned the puck over next to the net, leading to a 2-1 Canucks lead. Lehner seemed to pick out the moment following the game.

 

“We have a structure, but we don’t play it,” Lehner said Sunday. “If we’re going to chip it deep or do whatever we’re supposed to do, let’s do another deke, let’s do another play. Get out of our zone? No, let’s do the fancy thing.”

 

Yeah, I remember that. It was clear at the time that Lehner was calling out Eichel.

[Doohickie]

If either party (player or goalie) calls out the other, it can start a vicious cycle.    Let's say the team plays like ###### and gives up 50 shots one night... they know they played like ######, they didn't play that way on purpose, for whatever reason they didn't have it that night.    Now let's say the tendy starts calling out guys in the lockerroom or media after that game... guess what happens next time he gives up a bad goal that costs them a game... it will be a complete shitshow, guys yelling at the goalie, goalie yelling at players, it creates a divide that can explode into a complete mess.     That's why goalies should never call their teammates out in public, and you don't hear players calling the goalie out... even when warranted.

 

You're supposed to be a team, have eachother's backs, especially in the media.    Sure, during the game if a d-man ###### up, makes the wrong read,turns the puck over or whatever and it creates a scoring chance, then yeah, the goalie and player will likely talk about it... in 99.9% of cases the d-man will apologize to the goalie, give him a tap on the pad, and they'll talk it over about what maybe to do different next time.... but the goalie doesn't go and vent to the media and throw his own teammates under the bus.    And next time maybe that player isn't so eager to block a shot for his goalie, etc.   

 

You've made that point a few times, but looking at various interviews and such, I don't think this code that you promote is as uniform as you'd like to think.  Some players call teammates out and get away with it.  Some can't get away with it.  But it's not a universal code.

[TrueBlueGED]

2. Were I a dues paying member of the NHLPA, I'd be incredibly pissed at McJesus right now. Why he left money on the table when he absolutely didn't have to is beyond me. Draisaitl and Jack, among others lost a few million with one stroke of Connor's pen. It's not like you're not getting locked out anyway. Get what you can get.

Maybe if you were Jack or Draisaitl you'd be pissed, but if you were a mid or low tier player you would be happy. The more the top players command, the less there is to go towards the rest of the rosters. Players get 50% of HRR--McDavid getting more/less as an individual player has no impact on how the players get as a group, it just shifts around the distribution of money within their share.

[That Aud Smell]

Maybe if you were Jack or Draisaitl you'd be pissed, but if you were a mid or low tier player you would be happy. The more the top players command, the less there is to go towards the rest of the rosters. Players get 50% of HRR--McDavid getting more/less as an individual player has no impact on how the players get as a group, it just shifts around the distribution of money within their share.

 

I think this goes to another point he's making. Probably not the thread for a fuller discussion, but I am sure it is thread-worthy. "Economics of the NHL and Other Pro Sports Leagues."

[Sabel79]

Exactly. They were sold the out and have been bled more over the course of many CBA negotiations by. At first a complicit and later on an incompetent union.

[Taro T]

Were it any other player I'd be on board with your take. You're telling me that the undisputed best player to have hit the league in the last 35 years isn't worth the max, in this messed up communist system in which there's a max? In a system with limited dollars given to athletes with limited shelf lives, the outliers (or, on this case, outlier) not pushing forward the boundaries as far as possible to set the market as high as possible to increase the hand the union has to play at the next CBA negotiation is out of this world short-sighted.

Enjoy escrow going up after most of you don't get paid next lockout, most of the union! McDavid got paid up front...

You do realize that the players as a whole recieve EXACTLY the amount spelled out in the CBA & the pursuant accounting statements? Right? Regardless of what the sum total on paper of all contracts are, they will recieve EXACTLY what the books say they will be & not 1 penny more nor 1 penny less.

 

In a hard cap system, McClavicle leaving money on the table puts more money in every other player that gets paid (in years he left money on the table) than they'd've gotten had he taken the max. Because on paper, the total due the players would've been greater & the correction from pro forma to actual would've been lower to account for the sum of pro forma player salary being greater.

 

Yes, the guys at the very top probably do take a bit of a hit as now THEY can't reach the max contract (in all likelihood) but that only leaves even more money out there for the rank & file.

 

Truly don't see your point as most of the union benefits by this decision on his part. And his Euler teammates specifically MIGHT benefit additionally as they may get to play w/ higher $/quality players than they would've if the Eulers push their own cap savings into signing higher quality players.

[TrueBlueGED]

Exactly. They were sold the ###### out and have been bled more over the course of many CBA negotiations by. At first a complicit and later on an incompetent union.

Okay, but I don't understand how McDavid's contract affects the PA's bargaining position in the next round of CBA negotiations (see also: lockout).

[That Aud Smell]

Okay, but I don't understand how McDavid's contract affects the PA's bargaining position in the next round of CBA negotiations (see also: lockout).

 

I think this is where I am as well.

[3putt]

Pysyk get's three years. 

$2,733,333 AAV

[Sabel79]

You do realize that the players as a whole recieve EXACTLY the amount spelled out in the CBA & the pursuant accounting statements? Right? Regardless of what the sum total on paper of all contracts are, they will recieve EXACTLY what the books say they will be & not 1 penny more nor 1 penny less.

In a hard cap system, McClavicle leaving money on the table puts more money in every other player that gets paid (in years he left money on the table) than they'd've gotten had he taken the max. Because on paper, the total due the players would've been greater & the correction from pro forma to actual would've been lower to account for the sum of pro forma player salary being greater.

Yes, the guys at the very top probably do take a bit of a hit as now THEY can't reach the max contract (in all likelihood) but that only leaves even more money out there for the rank & file.

Truly don't see your point as most of the union benefits by this decision on his part. And his Euler teammates specifically MIGHT benefit additionally as they may get to play w/ higher $/quality players than they would've if the Eulers push their own cap savings into signing higher quality players.

  

Okay, but I don't understand how McDavid's contract affects the PA's bargaining position in the next round of CBA negotiations (see also: lockout).

Here's the thing: McClavicle leaving money on the table for the next eight years makes everyone (in the NHLPA) poorer. Nobody makes more. Future contracts are pegged to it. You think you're McChrist, nope. He took less money, so shall you. He's single handily castrated the union for years. In as much as they had balls before, which is doubtful.

[Trettioåtta]

  

Here's the thing: McClavicle leaving money on the table for the next eight years makes everyone (in the NHLPA) poorer. Nobody makes more. Future contracts are pegged to it. You think you're McChrist, nope. He took less money, so shall you. He's single handily castrated the union for years. In as much as they had balls before, which is doubtful.

 

Crosby did the same. Not too bad of an effect

[Sabel79]

Crosby did the same. Not too bad of an effect

Perhaps I'm slanted in my view on this. I've work d both as a member of a union and management in a union shop. As management, I'm clapping my hands delightedly as McDavid devalues the cost of labor by himself. As a union member, I'm finding the mythical mob ties to have him killed (those don't exist and never have existed).

 

Long story short: Pull up the ladde, I'm aboard!"

[Weave]

  

Here's the thing: McClavicle leaving money on the table for the next eight years makes everyone (in the NHLPA) poorer. Nobody makes more. Future contracts are pegged to it. You think you're McChrist, nope. He took less money, so shall you. He's single handily castrated the union for years. In as much as they had balls before, which is doubtful.

 

There is a salary cap and a salary floor.  X number of dollars will be spent on salary.  30% of X could go to McDavid, and 70% to the rest of the team, or 35% could go to McDavid and 65% to the rest of the team.  But within a range, the dollars will be paid out on that team.  McDavid's contract didn't change the total amount that Edmonton (or any other team) will be paying out.

 

Salaries will rise as revenues rise.  Not as McDavid's contract rose.

Edited July 6, 2017 by We've

[dudacek]

Re: Lehner's "Eichel" quote

Very clearly "we" not "Jack" not "they"

[3putt]

Re: Lehner's "Eichel" quote

Very clearly "we" not "Jack" not "they"

Yeah right.  I am pretty positive Robin never was supposed to dump it in.  At the time it was apparent Eichel was the reference.

[Sabel79]

There is a salary cap and a salary floor.  X number of dollars will be spent on salary.  30% of X could go to McDavid, and 70% to the rest of the team, or 35% could go to McDavid and 65% to the rest of the team.  But within a range, the dollars will be paid out on that team.  McDavid's contract didn't change the total amount that Edmonton (or any other team) will be paying out.

 

Salaries will rise as revenues rise.  Not as McDavid's contract rose.

Revenues will rise. Salaries will rise slower thanks to McTakingOneForManagement.

[Thorny]

Lehner's last shootout win was December 13, 2014. Just though that was interesting.

[TrueBlueGED]

Revenues will rise. Salaries will rise slower thanks to McTakingOneForManagement.

 

I'm not sure you're really understanding how this works. Whether McDavid gets $12.5M, $14.5M, or $2M, the owners are going to spend the same share of revenue on players. The only way for the players, as a group, to make more money, is for the league's revenues to grow.

[3putt]

I'm not sure you're really understanding how this works. Whether McDavid gets $12.5M, $14.5M, or $2M, the owners are going to spend the same share of revenue on players. The only way for the players, as a group, to make more money, is for the league's revenues to grow.

Or demand a higher %