All three members of the Toronto Maple Leafs’ Core Four – Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner and William Nylander – face a choice. When they negotiate their contracts, they weigh their individual gains against their team’s success.
There is a lot of talk within the squad about ‘love’ in the dressing room. However, the stars are taking the money away from the players by signing themselves high value contracts. I don’t see much in the way of wealth sharing between the team.
Contract negotiations are a zero-sum game
It seems absurd to say it that way, right? But the reality is that – with a limited amount of money a team can spend on all of its players – it’s a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is a situation in which any gains made by one player are offset by equivalent losses suffered by other players, resulting in a net balance of zero.
Specifically, for every million Matthews gets in his next contract, there’s another player (or two or three) who will get that exact amount of his salary. Or there is another player who can help the team can’t get him because they ran out of money.
Related: The Maple Leafs will miss Jason Spieza’s loyalty
Find the highest salary in return for helping the team
Contract negotiations between elite athletes like Matthews, Marner and Nylander are always problematic. There are implications far beyond what each player will receive in the contract. These are the total salaries combined to build the list.
Yet hardly anyone questions the “get all you can” aspect of these negotiations. The players then strive for the highest salary without prioritizing the team’s chances of winning and collective success. This is the case, and it is acceptable. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It could be very different.
History of Mitch Marner: No Homecoming
Marner has two more years left on his contract. The last time the Maple Leafs negotiated with him, there was an attitude and threat from his agent. The bottom line is, Marner has (proudly) never come close to getting a discount in his hometown. His agent seemed to enjoy the fact that he was able to pressure his team and talked about the engagement he had with the team.
However, what if Marner considered a different option? If he gets a discount from his hometown, that will involve him accepting a lower salary. This lower salary would provide the team with greater flexibility in setting salary caps. The decision can help the Maple Leafs build a stronger roster, increasing their chances of winning championships.
Marner’s negotiation tactic could involve balancing the long-term benefits of a team’s success against maximizing his individual earnings. If he accepted a lower salary, Marner could contribute to creating a more balanced and competitive team. Will he think about it?
History of William Nylander: He deserves a raise, but…
William Nylander currently receives the lowest salary of the three players. He must have a significant increase. If he wants to boost his team’s chances of winning during the postseason, Nylander can engage in a negotiating tactic that includes accepting a salary increase below his full market value. If he did, it would provide the team with additional salary cap flexibility to acquire or retain other key players.
Such a strategy can realize the value of collective success and team harmony. Nylander’s decision could also reflect his long-term financial planning, considering that the team’s success and goodwill (possibly endorsements) could lead to higher earnings in the future.
Related: Final Scores for Kyle Dubas’ Job with the Maple Leafs
History of Auston Matthews: Balancing maximum salary and team needs
Auston Matthews is widely seen as the cornerstone of the Maple Leafs team. It is expected that he will receive a contract extension with a high average annual value (AAV). Probably the highest in the NHL. However, assuming he has already signed a contract extension, the length of such an extension may not be of a maximum duration, allowing flexibility for future negotiations.
Matthews’ decision could become a balancing act between maximizing his individual wealth and providing the team with the financial space to build a strong support team. By negotiating a contract that balances high AAV with a manageable term for the team, Matthews can contribute to the team’s success by ensuring adequate resources to build a competitive roster.
All three players have options that can help the team
There are options facing Matthews, Marner and Nylander. These choices are complex and resist tradition. However, they are viable options to “make all the money you can for yourself.”
Each player can weigh individual financial gains, the team’s chances of winning, and the collective success the team can build. In fact, striving for the highest personal salary is usually the way things are done. And who really blames the three?
Imagine if a player made a friendly deal with the team
But why don’t we think differently? It may only take one to start rolling the ball. Can you imagine the goodwill these players could gain by playing softball in their next decades? Such a move would endear them to the fans and the city.
Their agents will push and pull to get the deal for the players. But what is the best deal? Is it more personal money or is it the success of the team? Will each of these players leave an extra million on the table to help the team win the Stanley Cup?
There is another option than team pressure
There is no other option than to pressure the team for whatever it is worth. This selection will be for each of these three players to consider the team’s salary cap needs and collaborate by leaving some money on the table. This will allow the team to build a stronger roster which can lead to long term benefits for both the players and the organization.
Each player’s decision will be shaped by their personal priorities, negotiation strategies, and long-term planning. Negotiating the balance between individual gains and team success can be crucial to a team as it pursues championships.
Related: Was Kyle Dubas’ Wife Responsible for His Move to the Penguins?