Get Ready for McDavid Hype Machine

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Crosby signed his contract in the summer prior to the 2007-08 season. The cap ceiling during the 2007-08 was 50.3 million, Making Crosby's cap hit 17% of the cap. If McDavid signed the 13.25 contract today it would also be 17% of the cap hit. I'm getting my information from doing pretty simple math.

Again, this salary is almost exactly comparable to Crosby's percentage of cap-wise. Do you think Crosby signed a non-team friendly contract in 07? 

That isn't entirely accurate.

While the numbers are correct based off the 07-08 season cap, the contract didn't go into effect until 08-09, when the cap was $56.7M, making it ~15.34% of the cap. McDavid's deal might be the similar at the time of signing, but in order for it to be similar when it goes into effect, the cap would have to go up to ~$86.3M for 18-19 (and $114.2M by 21-22, in order for the deal to "age" like Crosby's has). Unlikely to say the least. You can argue that no one knew the cap would go up like it did, but given the first two years of the cap era it was probably a safer bet than it is today, when recent cap increases have been smaller.

Also, Crosby's current deal was actually signed when the cap was $70.2M (~12.4 of the cap) and went into effect when the cap was $64.3M (~13.5%). Though it is also for 12 years. 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

3 hours ago, toby91_ca said:

Where did you get that information?  I don't think it's even close.  Max deal Crosby could have signed was $14M I think....max for McDavid is $15M.  If I look at cap history, the cap for the up coming year when Crosby signed was $60M or so, but I think that was post-CBA adjustment (was actually $70.2M when he signed).  Even if you were to use a cap of $60M, Crosby's deal was significantly more discounted than McDavid's....if he actually gets 13.25M.

I originally posted that info in another thread. It was a claim from this sportsnet article:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/connor-mcdavids-new-contract-extension-makes-sense-everyone/

They say Crosby's 2nd deal (13-14) was 17.3% of the cap (64.3). that seems to be wrong, though. It's 13.5%. The only way you get their number is if you use the cap number from the year before Crosby's 1st deal took effect. For the actual comparison between their first years of crosby's 1st deal and Mcdavid's rumoured number, it's:

Crosby's 1st big deal (08): 8.7 mill = 15.3% of 56.7 mill (salary cap)

McDavid's 1st big deal?: 13.25 mill = 17.6% of 75 mill (reported cap number)

[Buppy 1,720]

4 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

...McDavid's 1st big deal?: 13.25 mill = 17.6% of 75 mill (reported cap number)

Footnote to that: McDavid's deal won't take effect until 18-19 season, which of course is an unknown cap.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

7 minutes ago, Buppy said:

That isn't entirely accurate.

While the numbers are correct based off the 07-08 season cap, the contract didn't go into effect until 08-09, when the cap was $56.7M, making it ~15.34% of the cap. McDavid's deal might be the similar at the time of signing, but in order for it to be similar when it goes into effect, the cap would have to go up to ~$86.3M for 18-19 (and $114.2M by 21-22, in order for the deal to "age" like Crosby's has). Unlikely to say the least. You can argue that no one knew the cap would go up like it did, but given the first two years of the cap era it was probably a safer bet than it is today, when recent cap increases have been smaller.

Also, Crosby's current deal was actually signed when the cap was $70.2M (~12.4 of the cap) and went into effect when the cap was $64.3M (~13.5%). Though it is also for 12 years. 

Correct, but I haven't made that argument.

Crosby's first deal took up 17% of the cap when signed. No one knew where the cap would go from there.

McDavid's deal (if rumors are true) will take up 17% of the cap when signed. No one knows where the cap will go from here.

I think the Oilers and McD's agent are likely looking at Crosby's first deal as the best comparable, and the numbers seem to reflect that.

[kliq 3,755]

3 hours ago, frankgrimes said:

Why should he? It's not the job of a player to manage the cap, period.

Players give hometown discounts and then a few years later they are traded, asked to lift their nmc/ntc clauses and what not.

You're not wrong, but what it does is it hurts the teams chances of winning a cup. What it comes down to is what means more to McDavid. Winning cups or maxing out his contract.

He could get both, but its going to make it harder to win. With that being said, he has every right, and I'm sure he is getting pressure from the union as his contract sets the bar for other top players.

What sucks about this, is in a cap world where certain guys get paid this much, the teams won't lose as the cap is what it is, the guys that lose are those 4th liners who would have gotten 1.5mil, but now will be paid 800K etc. The enforcers, the 4th liners, the backups, the journeymen take the hit.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

10 minutes ago, kliq said:

You're not wrong, but what it does is it hurts the teams chances of winning a cup. What it comes down to is what means more to McDavid. Winning cups or maxing out his contract.

He could get both, but its going to make it harder to win. With that being said, he has every right, and I'm sure he is getting pressure from the union as his contract sets the bar for other top players.

What sucks about this, is in a cap world where certain guys get paid this much, the teams won't lose as the cap is what it is, the guys that lose are those 4th liners who would have gotten 1.5mil, but now will be paid 800K etc. The enforcers, the 4th liners, the backups, the journeymen take the hit.

Yeah that sucks and at some point there will have to be changes made. The enforcers are almost faced out, next up will be the grinders and bottom 6 guy. I honestly believe we'll see a lot of players sign in the KHL,Sweden or Switzerland if this trend continues.

That being said even at his young age McDavid IS the Edmonton Oilers, Katz will laugh out loudly on his way to the bank this kid will make him an even richer person than he already is. The thing is, Eichel will now for sure get 10, Matthews maybe even more than that if he has another stellar season which means it's very unlikely that the Leafs can keep their big 3 (Matthews, Marner, Nylander) together.

Said it before and I'll say it again if the Oilers can get McDavid and Draisaitl under 24 mill combined that's still great and very workable. Man I wish I was McDavid, young rich and the best player in the NHL must be nice to be him.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

25 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Footnote to that: McDavid's deal won't take effect until 18-19 season, which of course is an unknown cap.

Totally forgot about that. The cap would have to go above 85 mill for McDavid's caphit to be a comparable % of the cap to Crosby's 1st deal in the first year they took effect. Damn Sportsnet for their bad fact checking!!!

There have been deals that aren't that far of percentage wise. Ovechkin's 9,538,462 was 16.8% of the 08-09 cap. McDavid's rumoured number is probably the highest % of the cap, though.

Looking at this stuff suggests what I orginally thought: McDavid's number should be a bit lower unless you think he's a better player than OV and Crosby that stage of their careers.

Edited June 29, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[chaps80 1,591]

Again, this salary is almost exactly comparable to Crosby's percentage of cap-wise. Do you think Crosby signed a non-team friendly contract in 07? 

That's fine if teams want to sign players to expensive deals. Not my money. Doesn't make $15 million dollars a season to play hockey any less ridiculous. If he gets close to that, I hope he donates half of it to a good charity or helps out people struggling or something. Then he can buy himself a mansion and some cars and hookers and whatever else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Ever work a union job?  These guys are getting pushed to get big contracts so other players can get paid more.

[kliq 3,755]

47 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Ever work a union job?  These guys are getting pushed to get big contracts so other players can get paid more.

Nope, but I figured that was the case. Definitely helps the elite, doesn't help the low end guys though.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Nope, but I figured that was the case. Definitely helps the elite, doesn't help the low end guys though.

Yeah the rank and file players get screwed in a lockout or strike. The elite guys might make up most, or at least some, of their losses back, but the guys making low end money won't. The most it does is push mid level guys out because the money all goes to the top players and the rest is paid to younger cheaper players. You see it in the NFL all the time. Why have a vet making $1.8 mil when you can have a kid making $900k for similar production?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[e_prime 1,936]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:57 PM, chaps80 said:

 

That's fine if teams want to sign players to expensive deals. Not my money. Doesn't make $15 million dollars a season to play hockey any less ridiculous. If he gets close to that, I hope he donates half of it to a good charity or helps out people struggling or something. Then he can buy himself a mansion and some cars and hookers and whatever else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and then The Warriors made quick work of agreeing to a new 10-year Designated Player Veteran Extension “supermax” contract with Steph Curry, worth around $200 million over five years.

Making $15 million/year seem like chump change.

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Thr NBA knows what it's doing.  The NHL does not.

If every NHL team had a roster of 11 players, the top guys would make much more as well. Also the NBA just signed a crazy TV contract.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

On 6/29/2017 at 6:57 PM, chaps80 said:

That's fine if teams want to sign players to expensive deals. Not my money. Doesn't make $15 million dollars a season to play hockey any less ridiculous. If he gets close to that, I hope he donates half of it to a good charity or helps out people struggling or something. Then he can buy himself a mansion and some cars and hookers and whatever else.

Rinaldo made 58 million last year to play football.These sports bring in a lot of revenue. Stars are responsible for a lot of that.

Edited July 1, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[kliq 3,755]

As much as we all love it, in the US hockey is a niche sport.

[kickazz 5,459]

43 minutes ago, kliq said:

As much as we all love it, in the US hockey is a niche sport.

Definitely lol.

Not as bad as NFL or MLB though. At least Hockey is a major Winter Olympic sport. 

I'd say the only sport that's popular in the US that is popular around the entire world is Basketball. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by kickazz

[Barrie 900]

On 6/29/2017 at 2:58 PM, frankgrimes said:

 

Why should he? It's not the job of a player to manage the cap, period.

Players give hometown discounts and then a few years later they are traded, asked to lift their nmc/ntc clauses and what not.

Also to put things in perspective Crosby's contract is worth 114 million, McDavids would be 106 million... don't like it add things like franchise tags for players

I'm all about making money, but what are they going to have to pay Draisaitl when it's his turn to cash in?

[The Datsyukian Deke 127]

At least 10 I guess. After this playoffs, with that PPG...there'll be huge offer sheets. If not, every GM with enough cap space should just be fired..

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Good deal, he could've gotten max contract on the open market

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

Was just about to post that. Good on him for leaving money on the table. With the lower cap hit, it slightly increases his chance of winning a Stanley Cup in that time.

[kliq 3,755]

If Towes and Kane set the bar at just over 10, this is more then fair for him the more I think about it.

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Shame on the NHLPA.  McDavid is the best player in the league, and perhaps the best the game has ever seen.  Allowing the owners to underpay its best player does NOTHING to get salary caps raised and force owners to promote the sport more efficiently to drive larger revenues to pay for bigger cap numbers.  The NHLPA shot themselves in the foot AGAIN today and bricked a fricking slam dunk.  The oilers would have caved in about 12 seconds if McDavid, his agent, and the head of the NHLPA said "We're all in.  8 years, max pay, no movement clause.  Final offer."  Every time I think the owners are greedy bastards and aren't doing what's good for hockey, something like this happens and I just shake my head.

Bob McKenzie reported 

"Original deal was expected to be $13.25M but hearing McDavid wasn't comfortable with the number and may have insisted on lowering it..."

Not sure if you are being serious or not, the comment about him being perhaps the best player ever already makes be think you are just trolling people. 

Assuming you are being legit, if this is the case, how does this reflect poorly on the PA or even the owners? Hats off to McDavid for doing what's best for the team and the players on the bottom.

Not sure why you are linking this to the salary cap, the Salary cap is directly linked to overall revenue, not the salary of the top player. With that being said, if I am McDavid I am pretty pissed if the Oilers don't spend to the cap now.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

34 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Im being dead serious.  McDavid isnt Tom Brady.  He's Steph Curry.  He needs to do whats good for the 800 other guys and take max.  The NHLPA got worked over AGAIN.

Again....as Kliq stated. The Cap is linked to overall revenue.  Not the top salaries. By taking less he is actually leaving more for his peers. 

But you keep spinning whatever it is you're trying to spin.

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Im being dead serious.  McDavid isnt Tom Brady.  He's Steph Curry.  He needs to do whats good for the 800 other guys and take max.  The NHLPA got worked over AGAIN.

I still don't see how McDavid's contract effects the PA when the salary cap is effected by revenue.

Think of it like a pie chart, the higher % McDavid gets, the lower % someone else gets. You are making it sound like if McDavid get a higher wage, everyone gets a higher wage. If it were MLB a sport with no cap, then I would agree with you, the NHL is different. 

[kliq 3,755]

11 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

You guys are failing to grasp that decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners 1) making less money, or 2) genrating more revenue to maintain/increase profit.  It is up to the NHLPA to make sure tbe players are compensated as much as possible.  It is up to the commisdioner and the owners he represents to make sure the league generates as much revenue/profit.  Dont feel bad, though.  The head of the NHL doesn't understand the business side of his job, either.

I understand what you are trying to say, this is the world I work in every day, but it doesn't work that way in the NHL. The salary cap is not linked to net profit, it is linked to overall revenue or gross sales.

IF what you are trying to say, is that by McDavid taking a pay cut, IF the Oilers do not spend to the cap ceiling, then McDavid is basically leaving money on the table so his owner can get richer, then yes that is a valid point. If the Oilers spend to the cap ceiling, nobody is making more money because of it as the Oilers would then be capped. It would just likely mean that their 3rd and 4th liners are making a bit more as the money is simply being distributed differently.

Not to mention, the PA cannot force McDavid to sign or not to sign a contract.

As far as #2 goes:

"Decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners generating more revenue to maintain/increase profit."

My interpretation of this statement is that you are saying that if the owners are making less money, they will then in turn generate more revenue. (I'm guessing you are implying they will be more motivated).

I'm pretty sure that NHL ownership has motivation to increase their revenue's with or without their net profit being above or below a certain point. They may struggle in certain aspects of it, but I just can't see the NHL NOT exploring new revenue streams, or NOT increasing existing revenue's based on their net profit. These teams ALWAYS want to increase their net profit. And in the case of a cap world where salary cap is linked to revenue, it is advantageous to both the player and the league to increase revenue's, not just one side.