Quoting: mondo
this is why players want ntcs and nmcs, by the way. so they don't get yeeted like this
This is a business, this is just a game, all those tired clichés are just…..tired. Grown men are playing a game in exchange for fame and money. Pretty good deal. They risk injury and plenty others make money or earn gainful employment in the process, so fair payment is duly justified.
The “business” excuse, though, is an undeveloped, non-considered platitude cop-out. On the players’ side, that is never uttered by the few to which it would apply: the fringe NHL/AHL players, making their prorated portion of the minimum each day they’re on the roster. They’re the ones worried about the business aspect, worried about what other job they’re going to get to support their family after their playing career.
(Some will get a lucky break and land an analyst job to stay in the game and feed their families. So glad Gretzky and Messier landed on their feet.)
The rest of the players are fine and will be fine. It’s more an “I’m better than him so I should be paid more” tug-of-war. Totally get wanting to be paid on a meritocracy, but it gets down to splitting hairs, comparing apples to oranges.
Owners, meanwhile, almost always make money. COVID and its (unnecessarily) excessive restrictions served as an anomalous blip, but even severely mismanaged, oft-losing teams can turn a profit {looking toward desert 🌵}
The major business restriction is artificial, that hard cap put in place to allow some level of parity. Otherwise, the Torontos, Bostons, and New Yorks would just outspend others by a mile and still make a profit. But without the parity, the league would suffer. I mean, I’m sure you could just have those three teams play each other 100 times a season and fill Foxboro for a daily viewing party, but the general public wants a little more drama. Hence different markets. Hence the cap. And hence “business” restrictions that would otherwise not limit the major market teams.
Yeah, I know, that all seems peripheral to the quote I included, but its really an inconsequential point in the grander scheme. The NHL by far has the best salary/cap system of any North American league. Massive deferred dead cap hits in the NFL subvert the system, and non-guaranteed contracts aren’t really contracts at all. All but four (five or take) NBA teams are over the cap; that doesn’t seem right. Players making $40M+/year sit and collect checks, showing up only to be traded in cap-matching moves. MLB’s non-cap—a luxury tax—mirrors the rift between the minimum salaried players and the top paid players. They could learn something from Ben & Jerry’s corporate salary structure. (I’m a full-blooded capitalist. The gap in MLB, though, isn’t proportional to the talent gap.)
So, without going over it in detail, the NHL has the best system in place. A few years on virtually identical ELCs for all players, with a path for the elite to earn more sooner. McDavid is making just shy of 17x as much as a player on the NHL minimum for a full season. Contracts are guaranteed. NMCs and NTCs are just excessive. Quick was free to sign a six or eight year deal and avoid this. As I said elsewhere, this would never happen if he was playing up to the value of his contract. NTCs should be reserved for special situations, like on year-to-year deals like Bergeron. The Kings promised Quick would get a paycheck for ten years. No statistical strings, milestones, or tripwires were attached. If you want commitment of X dollars for Y years, accept that you’re turning over a level of control to the team in return. They’ve purchased that right.
Shame that the least relevant player in this trade, as of 2023, has made this trade entirely about him. It’s not Blake that I’ve lost respect for…