Quote:
Originally Posted by D as in David
It was an honest question since it's difficult to find evidence of something "not" happening.
There's only one pie. If Draisaitl or McDavid is getting a bigger piece of it, it will leave less for other players. What benefit does the NHLPA receive by promoting a higher salary for individual players? Why put effort (which is limited) into something that doesn't move the needle?
|
Not sure if it actually applies in the NHL, but I think it’s supposed to be some twist on the trickle-down economics theory. If McDavid is worth $17.5 million, then Draisaitl is worth $14.7 million. If Draisaitl is worth $14.7 million, Keller is worth $12 million. If Keller is worth $12 million, Jarvis is worth $10 million. And so on until you get to Blake Coleman being worth $7 million.
I know that’s not an exactly how it ends up working but I think that’s the thought process for the argument that the Players Association would push the top guys to take as much as they can.