Brooks:NHL's Salary Cap was actually less

[Steve L*]

Bettman was going around telling everyone that the cap was $42.5 million.It was not.This is the same guy who proposed the trigger offer to the NHLPA knowing that those triggers would be meet as soon as the NHL reopened their doors.The guy is a blinking clown

Goodenow was going round saying they made an offer of $49m when in fact is was more like $52-53m, I take it you think Goodenow is a clown too?

 

[Steve L*]

If the NHLPA would have accepted that offer from the NHL it would have ment serious consequences for it memebers. What team would have been willing to give a injury prone player a chance?

The Kings?

 

[AM]

In general

its a good idea to have everything count under the cap.


Its a bad idea to have any other arangement.

If all the revenue streams in should be counted, then all the revenue streams out should be counted too.

 

[NewGuy]

Why has no one from the NHL side addressed the issue of how a hard cap will work with guaranteed contracts?
Example. Ottawa is gearing up for a run to the cup. They are close to the cap. Come the offseason, Redden and Chara both go to arbitration and get raises. Now they can't fit both players under the cap. Because everyone else has guaranteed contracts, they will have to walk away from one of these 2.
In the NFL teams would cut a couple of over-priced veterans, and keep their young core intact.

That would be terrible management by Ottawa and they would only have themselves to blame. Alternatively they could buy out enough players at 2/3 of their contract to make room for Redden and Chara and fill the empty spots with lower paid players.

This does bring up the point of how arbitration and qualifying offers will be handled. Arbitration probably needs to come first in the new system so that teams have an idea of what their payroll is before they have to hand out qualifying offers.

 

[mackdogs*]

Tell that to the LA Kings. "Sorry about your luck, but you have 10 guys and $25 million on the IR, so now put together a full team with the $17 million you have left, but leave a few million just in case more guys get hurt. What a wonderful way of maintaining competitive balance. Instead of complaining, what you should do is go back in time and hire a more expensive strength coach so that Jason Allison doesn't get a concussion."

Okay, so total payroll for the year can't exceed $42.5 million? Is that the only rule? If you used a crap team with a $20 million payroll for the first half of the season, can you then sign up an all-star $65 million team for the second half and playoffs? Total would be $42.5 million, is that okay?

Just curious where in your example these players would be coming from? If the L.A. Kings lost 10 players to injury you are making it to be like they could snap their fingers and replace all 10 with equivalent players - this is impossible. The other 29 teams would not feel sorry for the Kings and turn over 10 of their better players for the sake of competitive balance.

Could they seriously load up their team halfway through with all stars? Why would so many other teams be willing to part with their all stars halfway through the season?

Please try posting with common sense, these devil's advocate once in a million scenarios are not the norm but the extreme exception. Some of you here are grasping at straws so much you're nothing but an embarassment. On the bright side at least you're not ending every post with 'bla bla bla'

 

[Old Hickory]

Tell that to the LA Kings. "Sorry about your luck, but you have 10 guys and $25 million on the IR, so now put together a full team with the $17 million you have left, but leave a few million just in case more guys get hurt. What a wonderful way of maintaining competitive balance. Instead of complaining, what you should do is go back in time and hire a more expensive strength coach so that Jason Allison doesn't get a concussion."

It happened to the Kings and they did the best they could with what they had. They skated with mostly AHL players and almost made the playoffs.
The Kings are also the most extreme example you could use. They had a record number of injuries and most of them were to their star players.
If you used the average number of man games lost and applied it to Buffaloed's post it works.

Okay, so total payroll for the year can't exceed $42.5 million? Is that the only rule? If you used a crap team with a $20 million payroll for the first half of the season, can you then sign up an all-star $65 million team for the second half and playoffs? Total would be $42.5 million, is that okay?

Why not?

The Oakland A's do something similiar to this and have very good results for the payroll limitations that they have.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

It happened to the Kings and they did the best they could with what they had. They skated with mostly AHL players and almost made the playoffs.
The Kings are also the most extreme example you could use. They had a record number of injuries and most of them were to their star players.
If you used the average number of man games lost and applied it to Buffaloed's post it works.

.

Thats true, but its not just that the Kings used AHL players, its that they were able to make a few deals to aquire Straka, Dempster(think that was his name), and others... They patched holes with AHLers, and kept the team moving with a few good moves, shrewed managment.. which would be elminated by this deal.

 

[Old Hickory]

Thats true, but its not just that the Kings used AHL players, its that they were able to make a few deals to aquire Straka, Dempster(think that was his name), and others... They patched holes with AHLers, and kept the team moving with a few good moves, shrewed managment.. which would be elminated by this deal.

Straka was acquired pretty early on, before the bulk of the injuries hit(plus Pittsburgh picked up salary)
Dempsey was making well under a million a year and was acquired shirtly before the deadline.
They traded Brennan for Cowan at the Deadline, acquired Carter at the deadline.

They still could have done the same moves if they left themselves some cap room for injuries

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

That would be terrible management by Ottawa and they would only have themselves to blame. Alternatively they could buy out enough players at 2/3 of their contract to make room for Redden and Chara and fill the empty spots with lower paid players.

This does bring up the point of how arbitration and qualifying offers will be handled. Arbitration probably needs to come first in the new system so that teams have an idea of what their payroll is before they have to hand out qualifying offers.

I don't think it's fair to say that would be terrible management, it happens all the time in the NFL. The Patriots (who everyone uses as the model of how to operate under a hard cap), just released Ty Law and Troy Brown.
It's hard to look that far into the future when planning your team budget. 2-3 years ago, no one would have thought Chara would turn into one of the top D-men in the league.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

That would be terrible management by Ottawa and they would only have themselves to blame. Alternatively they could buy out enough players at 2/3 of their contract to make room for Redden and Chara and fill the empty spots with lower paid players.

This does bring up the point of how arbitration and qualifying offers will be handled. Arbitration probably needs to come first in the new system so that teams have an idea of what their payroll is before they have to hand out qualifying offers.

But buyout still count against the cap under Bettmans plan. So that bought out contract still is on the cap along with the player you signed to replace them.

 

[X8oD]

One exemption for a player on permanant IR as I outlined, and exemptions for player's salaries that are being paid by insurance adequately addresses this issue. .

the NBA also though calls Owners on it who throw money at Oft-Injured Players. Which is the right thing to do.

Alonzo Mourning keeps signing 4-5 million dollar deals. And he keeps being unable to finish the season. When teams IR him, and ask for a Special Injury exception, The NBA has stopped allowing it.

the last 2 teams hes been on [exception of Toronto Obviously] Have attempted to do this. You should be called on it. They come cheaper than they could because of thier injury history. If you are offering money for them, you risk the penalty.

 

[CGG]

Just curious where in your example these players would be coming from? If the L.A. Kings lost 10 players to injury you are making it to be like they could snap their fingers and replace all 10 with equivalent players - this is impossible. The other 29 teams would not feel sorry for the Kings and turn over 10 of their better players for the sake of competitive balance.

Could they seriously load up their team halfway through with all stars? Why would so many other teams be willing to part with their all stars halfway through the season?

Please try posting with common sense, these devil's advocate once in a million scenarios are not the norm but the extreme exception. Some of you here are grasping at straws so much you're nothing but an embarassment. On the bright side at least you're not ending every post with 'bla bla bla'

These examples aren't extreme, not even hypothetical, it happened to the Kings. They had at least 10 players out, and had to bring in 10 players. If they only had $3 million in cap room, they could only bring in 10 players at the league minimum ($300k). If they only had $2 million in cap room, they'd have to get rid of one or two higher priced guys to create more cap room, then bring in 12 ridiculously cheap players.

As for loading up for the playoffs, use a $30 million payroll up until the trade deadline, then acquire like crazy. If you're paying $30 million for 3/4 of the season, you can pay $70 million for the last quarter, and it averages out to $40 million for the year. Boston grabbed up Gonchar, last year, who knows, maybe they could have got Kovalev, Leetch and Hasek all at the same time. They'd be way over $40 million, but is that okay?

Don't accuse me of using far-fetched examples, to dismiss something that is entirely possible as "lacking common sense" or "grasping at straws" is a little close minded. You want a cap without loopholes, you better figure out all the possibilities before teams discover these loopholes.

 

[Old Hickory]

These examples aren't extreme, not even hypothetical, it happened to the Kings. They had at least 10 players out, and had to bring in 10 players. If they only had $3 million in cap room, they could only bring in 10 players at the league minimum ($300k). If they only had $2 million in cap room, they'd have to get rid of one or two higher priced guys to create more cap room, then bring in 12 ridiculously cheap players.

Your examples are extreme. The Kings injury situation was a record. Not the norm.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Even though I'm heavily favoured towards the owners, I still feel that they haven't really thought out how everything will work. A Hard Cap can only really work with unguaranteed contracts. I hope they think their plans through better before they sign anything...otherwise we could end up with half the league on IR and replacement players anyways...

 

[NewGuy]

I don't think it's fair to say that would be terrible management, it happens all the time in the NFL. The Patriots (who everyone uses as the model of how to operate under a hard cap), just released Ty Law and Troy Brown.
It's hard to look that far into the future when planning your team budget. 2-3 years ago, no one would have thought Chara would turn into one of the top D-men in the league.

You should at least have the foresight to have more than 2 contracts expiring. Ideally you would have a number of contracts expiring each year (1/3 of your team would work), and have those contracts belong to a diverse group of players of different skill levels and at different points in their career. This would give a team enough flexibility to give raises to their core players while replacing their complementary players with lower paid alternatives or having the complementary players take a pay cut.

 

[NewGuy]

But buyout still count against the cap under Bettmans plan. So that bought out contract still is on the cap along with the player you signed to replace them.

Only the 2/3rds buyout counts against the cap.

Example:

Contract: 3,000,000
Buyout: 2,000,000
Extra cap space: 1,000,000

Split the extra cap space between a raise for one player and the contract of a new player.

 

[CGG]

Your examples are extreme. The Kings injury situation was a record. Not the norm.

...and yet they barely beat the record set by Montreal a few years ago, who slightly out-injured the Washington Capitals from a few years before that. Allowing that 10 players can in fact be hurt all at once on the same team isn't that much of a stretch. It does happen.

 

[Steve L*]

Only the 2/3rds buyout counts against the cap.

Example:

Contract: 3,000,000
Buyout: 2,000,000
Extra cap space: 1,000,000

Split the extra cap space between a raise for one player and the contract of a new player.

It seems that the buy outs will be a lower % in the new CBA, possibly as low as 50% of the remaining contract.

 

[kerrly]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that there are still such things as trading your high priced talent (to help fit under the cap) for young talent still earning a reasonable salary. This will be the norm in the new NHL. Teams looking to improve their rosters will be looking for some veteran help, while in the reality of the situation, teams will have to trade their high priced guys that they can no longer afford because of a number of reasons. There also will be alot less big contracts compared to NHL as is for reasons like have been stated in this thread. Personally, I will not feel sorry if a team runs out of cap room because they have two players making $6 million plus a year and then lose a ton of man games to injury over the whole roster. Its about planning for the future under this new system, and anything else, is inept management.

 

[Old Hickory]

...and yet they barely beat the record set by Montreal a few years ago, who slightly out-injured the Washington Capitals from a few years before that. Allowing that 10 players can in fact be hurt all at once on the same team isn't that much of a stretch. It does happen.

FYi- They passed the record with more than a month to go in the season. They didn't barely beat it out.

During the 1999-2000 season a statistic that was focused on greatly was the "man games lost to injury" stat.The Montreal Canadians amassed almost 550 man games lost

http://www.calgarypuck.com/ManGamesLost.htm

Instead, the Kings were whacked even harder by the injury bug in '03-'04, suffering over 600 man-games lost to injury, setting a new single-season record by one team.

http://www.hockeypundits.com/2004/05/kings-look-to-recovery-ward-and-then.html

You're saying it youself. It's something that happens once every few years to one team
Once again, It's an extreme example, not the norm.

 

[CGG]

FYi- They passed the record with more than a month to go in the season. They didn't barely beat it out.


http://www.calgarypuck.com/ManGamesLost.htm



http://www.hockeypundits.com/2004/05/kings-look-to-recovery-ward-and-then.html

You're saying it youself. It's something that happens once every few years to one team
Once again, It's an extreme example, not the norm.

Okay fine, the Kings smashed the injury record by 10%. If it does happen once every few years to one team, as you stated, then it stands to reason it could quite easily happen at least once in a 6 year CBA. Maybe only 8 guys injured at once. Point being, some team could easily be screwed with a bunch of injured guys and zero cap room. The league has to think of and prepare for every possible scenario, no matter how seemingly unlikely, when it goes through the small print of a final CBA.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

You should at least have the foresight to have more than 2 contracts expiring. Ideally you would have a number of contracts expiring each year (1/3 of your team would work), and have those contracts belong to a diverse group of players of different skill levels and at different points in their career. This would give a team enough flexibility to give raises to their core players while replacing their complementary players with lower paid alternatives or having the complementary players take a pay cut.

So, ideally you are saying that player contracts should be 3 years (another reason why players don't like the cap). It gets very hard to manage this, as expiring contracts become valuable trading tools for teams looking to make a run.

 

[PecaFan]

Now that we have the dirty details from the league's offer I would like to see some of the dirty details from the player's offer. We know about section 7 and upwards linkage but I'd also like to know what kinds of things didn't count against the PA's 49 mil cap offer - I would bet signing bonuses didn't.

Yep. Yet more evidence why the PA didn't like the NHL offer.

<dougandwendywhiner>
"They slammed all the loopholes SHUT! How are we going to get massive pay raises NOW?"
</dougandwendywhiner>

Can't say I'm surprised at all the hand-wringing here, but there's really no reason for it. The proposal is fair. All the money that goes to the players is counted in the cap. Gosh, what a travesty! Who would have expected that?

Bonuses are counted so that you can't pay a guy $50 million in bonuses, and $34 in annual salary.

Buyouts are counted so that you can't go wild signing guys, then just jettison them when they suck.

Injured players are counted because you're still paying them. This prevents little "you're still hurt, aren't you? <wink wink, nudge nudge>" games.

High paid minor league players are counted so that you can't "hide" an overpaid useless guy in the minors.

Remember when everyone bristled at the "cap is a magnet" comments of Bettman? Yet most comments here are assuming that teams will be right at the cap level, and won't be able to deal with injuries, etc?

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that there are still such things as trading your high priced talent (to help fit under the cap) for young talent still earning a reasonable salary. This will be the norm in the new NHL. Teams looking to improve their rosters will be looking for some veteran help, while in the reality of the situation, teams will have to trade their high priced guys that they can no longer afford because of a number of reasons. There also will be alot less big contracts compared to NHL as is for reasons like have been stated in this thread. Personally, I will not feel sorry if a team runs out of cap room because they have two players making $6 million plus a year and then lose a ton of man games to injury over the whole roster. Its about planning for the future under this new system, and anything else, is inept management.

Right, and who's going to take on your high-priced talent in a cap world?
In the old system Toronto, Philly, and others were there to take on other teams mistakes (ex. Owen Nolan), in a cap system no team is going to want to take on a high priced veteran for young talent (especially since the team taking on the high-priced veteran would have to be sufficiently under the cap to afford him which would rule out most of the teams who would have taken him on in the old system as they will be close to the cap).

 

[Tinordi24*]

Simple solution:

Abolish guaranteed contracts (after the owners bring the NHLPA to their knees ofcourse)

Then you can have a cap structure like the NFL (outside of signing bonuses which would be not allowed)

BAM!

The injury thing will have to be worked out. I'm not sure if you can cut an injured player under the NFL system.