Would the NHLPA try and veto if a team's stars all took 75% mkt value so the team could compete?

[Fivealive5]

I have to imagine other plays wouldn't be pleased at their own value being dragged down if, say, MacKinnon and Landeskog took massive underpayments to keep the core together.

Click to read more...

 

[CupInSIX]

They have Vito power?

 

[Rafafouille]

Stamkos Kucherov and Hedman did exactly that. All 3 did a solid to Tampa. Nobody cared at the NHLPA.

 

[Jeremy2020]

Players for your team don't care as much as you want them to about 'keeping the team together by taking a steep discount'. I'm sorry.

 

[Richard]

I think you underestimate how badly most players want to win a cup-they do they do indeed. However, they want money and the ability to take care of their family more.

1) Money
---
--
-
...
..
.
*
#
2) Stanley cup

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

They have no say, hence the "free" part of free agency.

Happens all the time, guys take less for the good of the team.

Just on the Bruins you have Pastrnak signing for "only" 6.67 a year over 8, Marchand for 6.125 and Bergeron at 6.875. Even McAvoy signed for only 4.9

You can make an easy case that Pastrnak and McAvoy took 75%. Marchand signed his right when he was breaking out so that's a little different

 

[Dr Pepper]

I think you underestimate how badly most players want to win a cup-they do they do indeed. However, they want money and the ability to take care of their family more.

1) Money
---
--
-
...
..
.
*
#
2) Stanley cup

Funny, I think if you ask around here most of us would say we'd be able to take care of our respective family just as well with $5 million as we would with $10 million.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

NHLPA has no legal rights and no one cares. They would only care if there's money under the table. Also we really can't treat players as if they are commodities or fungible assets so the concept of market value is kinda dumb.

 

[Web In Front]

They have no say, hence the "free" part of free agency.

Happens all the time, guys take less for the good of the team.

Just on the Bruins you have Pastrnak signing for "only" 6.67 a year over 8, Marchand for 6.125 and Bergeron at 6.875. Even McAvoy signed for only 4.9

You can make an easy case that Pastrnak and McAvoy took 75%. Marchand signed his right when he was breaking out so that's a little different

Pastrnak had one good season at the time of signing. That was not a discount especially considering he was a RFA who didn't have arbitration rights.

 

[BLNY]

I have to imagine other plays wouldn't be pleased at their own value being dragged down if, say, MacKinnon and Landeskog took massive underpayments to keep the core together.

Seems to be going off without a hitch in Tampa. If I heard from a rep that the executive was pissed I took X instead of Y, I'd be telling them to go f*&^ themselves and start donating my dues to charity.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Funny, I think if you ask around here most of us would say we'd be able to take care of our respective family just as well with $5 million as we would with $10 million.

No offense intended but that is exactly the kind of comment that a non-millionaire would make.

 

[COHawk]

Funny, I think if you ask around here most of us would say we'd be able to take care of our respective family just as well with $5 million as we would with $10 million.

Yeah but imagine having the opportunity to make $10M instead of $5M.... you would turn that down? Doubtful.

 

[orby]

While the idea of a bunch of highly skilled players coordinating team-friendly deals on the same team to load up for a championship is fun from a fan's perspective, the NHLPA does not exist to help teams win championships. It exists to help the players get more favorable contracts. Millionaire or otherwise, pro athletes, like all workers, should ideally be paid as close to the actual market value of their labor as possible. In a scenario where athletes take worse deals in the hopes of winning a championship, from the NHLPA's perspective, the only real winners are the owners.

 

[Emerz]

Pastrnak had one good season at the time of signing. That was not a discount especially considering he was a RFA who didn't have arbitration rights.

Pasta's first 2 seasons were excellent as well, while he wasn't a PPG player he was consistently making the type of plays that only the leagues premier players make, it was apparent that he was going to continue to improve on his 34G/36A season.

 

[OppositeLocK]

I dunno look at Tampa. Lowest tax rate, nice weather, great state to be in, good management, and seems like a good group of players that are focused on winning. They all took discounts to be part of a better team.

If I was a hockey player and the difference between $9.5M and $12M was all of the above plus I got to consistently compete for the cup, it would be a no brainer to me.

Another $20M when you already make $100M won't change your life in any measurable way. But being in a stable, good environment definitely will.

 

[Fourier]

I have to imagine other plays wouldn't be pleased at their own value being dragged down if, say, MacKinnon and Landeskog took massive underpayments to keep the core together.

In fact, it should be exactly the opposite reaction since this would benefit the majority of players at the expense of a relatively small number. The NHL salary pool is a fixed pot. The less one player gets the more that goes to everyone else.

 

[Volica]

Hockey's not a sport where guys are going to shave 75% off of their salaries.
So far the most we've seen in the market is maybe 20% or so. In that case the PA has no issues, and agents have no issues.

Some people need to remember, the average length of an NHL players' career is 5 years. If you're an average player, you'll get 5-7 years out of your NHL career, if you're a good player, you can get 8-12 kind of thing; if you're an excellent player you can get 15 or so... and if you're a genetic freak, journeyman who people want to keep on their teams for cheap or generational talent you can get 15+.

Even on the high end, 15 years is a short window to make as much money as possible. Remember, most these guys have very little skills outside of the sport itself. It's not like you can retire after 6 years and just walk into being a lawyer or something. These guys essentially play hockey since they were like 14; if they don't get into coaching, conditioning or things like that there's not much space there for them.

Plus the endorsement deals in the NHL are really shitty. If you don't play in a mega market that loves hockey or you aren't the face of the game, there's not much money there. Check this example: Exceptional players like Artemi Panarin have endorsement deals in the ~500K range; Rookies like RJ Barrett in NBA get 10+M endorsement deals from show companies before they step foot on the court in the NBA.

TL;DR, players don't make enough money in the NHL, zero chance any of them cut their salary by 75%.

 

[TLEH]

do you know how much is the difference between 20 million and 25 million when your career might end at any minute.

A lot.

 

[Cup or Bust]

The big issue is you can take a discount and there is no guarantee you will ever win the cup or even that the team will be any better for it. There is no guarantee that the same GM will still be working for your team and will make wise moves for the franchise, so taking a massive discount is a massive risk. Even the Oilers for example, I am not saying McDavid or Draisaitl took discounts, but their contracts are not even an issue, it is how terribly the GM spent the rest of their cap, so the team was not going to be good regardless. If McDavid was only making 9 or 10 million a season, I doubt the Oilers would be much better, likely another 3 million dollar 40-50 point man maybe and that's assuming the GM made a good decision with that cap space. The Tampa Bay example is a bit different due to taxation and the fact the team was built so well to compete at the time their players contracts came up. They knew the team was keeping an amazing core together, so taking a million or so under market value would make more sense in that scenario.

 

[SomeDude]

If I remember correctly, the PA wasn't thrilled when Kariya and Selanne did their stint in Colorado. There was also some issues with how much Mario would make when he came back, but I think that had more to do with him playing for a team that he owns.

Regardless, they can't veto anything. All they can do is lobby to the stars that them taking less money hurts the rest of the players. Not sure I agree, especially with the cap. Teams are going to spend the same amount of money regardless of if it gets spread between 2 players or 3.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because the players get 50% of revenue regardless. If anything, it helps the NHL's "middle class" if star players take a smaller piece of the pie.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Yeah but imagine having the opportunity to make $10M instead of $5M.... you would turn that down? Doubtful.

Obviously there's no way of truly calculating this, but $5 mil with a far greater chance of a Cup win (more money saved, to improve the team in other ways), over $10 mil with less flexible surrounding cast and - quite possibly - inferior team?

Not as cut and dry as just picking the higher number.

To you and I, sure, since we're not pro athletes and we'll never see this kind of money. I would think that a pro athlete gives it more thought.

Look at Tavares, he turned down an extra $2 million or so, per season, offered by San Jose, because he wanted to sign in Toronto.

That kind of thing happens every year.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

In fact, it should be exactly the opposite reaction since this would benefit the majority of players at the expense of a relatively small number. The NHL salary pool is a fixed pot. The less one player gets the more that goes to everyone else.

Exactly. And not only that the whole reason a player takes a discount is so the money goes to another player. Less gap between star and other player salary is only good for the NHLPA where every player has the same vote/value.

 

[LeHab]

No, NHLPA gets 50% of hockey revenues regardless of what individual players manage to negotiate. That is all they care.

All NHL players could sign for minimum or max as prescribed by CBA (within cap space) and at the end of the day they will get 50% of all hockey revenues. NHL/NHLPA will intervene if there are CBA circumvention shenanigans.

 

[Flukeshot]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because the players get 50% of revenue regardless. If anything, it helps the NHL's "middle class" if star players take a smaller piece of the pie.

Winning answer here.

The PA used to care. There's examples. I could be wrong but I think they were frustrated Brodeur didn't test free agency to push up salaries.

But now? Doesn't matter. The $ amount is fixed.