About the "20%-ers"

[JohnnyRyall]

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, or maybe this is one of those things that are handled at length in the hundreds of pages of the CBA ... but has anyone else started wondering about scenarios like this:

Take a Jarome Iginla, for example (maybe a good example, maybe not, but just an example): if anyone is, he's probably the calibre of player that would command, say, $7.8 M (the 20% of cap max for a player). So say Iggy gets signed to that kind of a deal by CGY, which would almost certainly be for more than 1 year, say 3. Does that effectively commit CGY to spending the cap max for the next 3 years? Additionally, what if league-revenues drop during that contract? Then Iggy is set to make more than the 20% allowable of the reduced cap ...

Again, maybe I'm just missing something, and maybe Iginla's not the perfect example ... but anyone have any thoughts here? (The over-riding problem would appear to be the fact that the "ceiling" spenders would be the only ones able to afford the high end FA's, since the "floor" spenders would only ever be able to offer/afford 60-70% of the 7.8 M) ... Then again, maybe we just won't see very many $7M players at all?

Click to read more...

 

[Drake1588]

The key would be whether the language of the CBA (which we have yet to see) effectively caps an individual player's salary at 20% of his team's payroll that year, or caps an individual player's salary at 20% of the league's salary cap ceiling.

I'm not sure it is yet clear whether a team can pay a player, for example, 33% of the team's payroll that year, provided that the salary is within 20% of the league's mandated salary cap for that year. Shrug. We'll get to read it, I imagine, on Friday. We'll see.

 

[Flukeshot]

Really good question, which I have not heard an answer to. I think that Calgary would be not be forced to pay Iginla more if the cap went higher. The dollar amount of 7.8 would be fixed in that sense. However I think Iginla would be shafted and make less if the cap lowered.

OR, lol, maybe he would be guaranteed his $7.8 for the duration of his contract, but would be able to be qualified for whatever the 20% of the cap would be when his contract ends. It could be gamble. Say Calgary is willing to pay Iginla the max. of $7.8 mil this year. But he thinks that the cap will go up next season, so he only takes a one year deal.

If the cap goes up, he wins, and can make a little more. However if it drops he makes less.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

It's 20% of the max possible cap, not the team's payroll. The other way doesn't even make sense.

I'd like to know how anyone managed to come to the idea it was team payroll...

 

[Sanderson]

The 20% have nothing to do with the individual budget of a team...

Every team can spend 20% of the salary cap (in this case 7.8 million) on a player, it doesn't matter how much they spend on the rest of the team. As long as they don't go over the cap, of course.

As for the cap going down, either such a contract would be handled like Jagr's contract now or they simply use the escrow count.

 

[JohnnyRyall]

The 20% have nothing to do with the individual budget of a team...

Every team can spend 20% of the salary cap (in this case 7.8 million) on a player, it doesn't matter how much they spend on the rest of the team. As long as they don't go over the cap, of course.

As for the cap going down, either such a contract would be handled like Jagr's contract now or they simply use the escrow count.

ok ... that makes sense ... thanks for the thoughts ...

 

[JohnnyRyall]

I'd like to know how anyone managed to come to the idea it was team payroll...

Careless thinking on my part.

 

[txomisc]

The 20% have nothing to do with the individual budget of a team...

Every team can spend 20% of the salary cap (in this case 7.8 million) on a player, it doesn't matter how much they spend on the rest of the team. As long as they don't go over the cap, of course.

As for the cap going down, either such a contract would be handled like Jagr's contract now or they simply use the escrow count.

Exactly, the excrow could play a huge role in this. On a side note, i think it would be absolutely foolish for any gm to pay any player 7.8 million per year. It could totally handicap a team. If i were a GM, i dont think id go any higher than 5 million per year until the cap goes up. With the way the marketplace would be, a 4 million dollar player plus a 3 million dollar player, would be much much much more valuable than a 7 million dollar player