Do the Jets actually have an internal cap?

[McDLT]

This is something that i'm genuinely curious about and I would like to see what everyone's perception is. I see the media and fans constantly refer to the Winnipeg Jets as a "Budget Team"or having an "internal salary cap".

I have always believed that the Jets had an internal salary cap almost purely because it was so heavily referenced by media sources and seemed to be generally accepted as fact. Recently, I discovered that there are at least some people who don't think that the Jets operate under an internal cap and the Jets are not more salary sensitive relative to other teams because of it. In an interview, Chipman HAS said that the Jets don't have an internal cap (he used more words and was more vague), but this could be a positive spin put on what most people would just call an internal cap.

Do the Jets have an internal cap that makes them salary sensitive, or do they not have an internal cap?

Click to read more...

 

[Hunter368]

Until they prove otherwise with their actions.......absolutely. Their actions to date say yes. I don't care how Chipman wants to spin it to the media, they have to date. Spent only close to cap once in five years.

 

[mcpw]

No reason to believe that they have one. Cap ceiling was hit in 13-14. The cap space we had this season was kept to protect against offer sheets. Prove me wrong.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

No evidence of an internal financial cap, at least that I can see. Possible evidence of an internal cap on useful, valuable hockey players.

This is actually one area where I have no problem with TNSE's approach. I have issues with how they've allocated the money, but I have no problem with the lack of money spent. Keep it available to sign your young core players.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Chipman said no. He did say they set a budget every year but said that in the right circumstance the budget would not be an impediment if more was needed. He also said that Chevy has for the most part stayed under budget as they won't spend if they don't find the value or the fit.

I think calling it an internal cap is incorrect terminology. They set a salary budget that changes year to year. It's not a hard cap per se.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

I believe that we do...... I also hope that that the difference between the high cap limit and our current internal cap will be expanded to the full amount allowalbe when we reach our goal of being a consistent yearly playoff participant. The playoff $ then could be budgeted to keep profits equal to current levels and wpg could have a special expieriencene as a city and our owners a healthy return on their investment. I would be dissapointed if TSNE choose a extended playoff run to pad their pocket more....... Than normal ..... Instead of re investing in our sucess.

The last 5 years can not be used as a example. Ask this question again in 7 years after we have 5 long runs in the play- offs...... I hope the answer then is positive.

 

[Hunter368]

Chipman said no. He did say they set a budget every year but said that in the right circumstance the budget would not be an impediment if more was needed. He also said that Chevy has for the most part stayed under budget as they won't spend if they don't find the value or the fit.

I think calling it an internal cap is incorrect terminology. They set a salary budget that changes year to year. It's not a hard cap per se.

I agree, that's how I voted also. To say there is no limits is false

 

[McDLT]

I think calling it an internal cap is incorrect terminology. They set a salary budget that changes year to year. It's not a hard cap per se.

I guess that everything depends on how "internal cap" is defined. This is where most disagreement probably comes from.

Based on everything that I've heard or read since I started following hockey, I thought that any team that uses a salary budget would be considered to have an internal cap.

Essentially the way I have always looked at it:
Internal cap or budget teams look at salary
Cap teams look at cap hit and mostly ignore salary

 

[Whileee]

I think they have a budget, like every well-run business does. A budget is different than a "cap", because a budget is often altered based on emerging realities, priorities and opportunities. A "cap" implies that it is inflexible and inviolable.

I think that the Jets' budget for hockey operations has a line for player salaries, and that it is based on the realities of their roster and the circumstances of the team vis-à-vis it's level of expected performance (i.e. expected SC contender gets more budget than a lottery team). I think that their spending is dictated more by the exigencies of their development plan and roster structure than by a "cap". I think that most of the Jets salary decisions are based on optimizing their player salary budget to promote future success, rather than to save money or generate a bit more profit.

So, since I don't agree with what I think is implied by the term "internal cap", and the implications, I vote no.

 

[McDLT]

So, since I don't agree with what I think is implied by the term "internal cap", and the implications, I vote no.

I'm trying to find a term to differentiate between teams like the original 6 and the teams that put more effort into controlling salary.

Are there any teams in the NHL that have an internal cap (by your definition)? Do you think that all teams look at player salaries similarly? I'm not arguing against you or anything, i'm just really curious about this sort of thing now and I want to gather different viewpoints and as much information as possible.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Budget, yes, like any well run business. Internal cap? Incorrect terminology. Budget is likely based on overall cap and likelihood to make noise in the post season, or to ensure they can sign UFAs and RFAs. We've already seen them run at the league cap, for instance.

All IMO, of course.

 

[Whileee]

I'm trying to find a term to differentiate between teams like the original 6 and the teams that put more effort into controlling salary.

Are there any teams in the NHL that have an internal cap (by your definition)? Do you think that all teams look at player salaries similarly? I'm not arguing against you or anything, i'm just really curious about this sort of thing now and I want to gather different viewpoints and as much information as possible.

I do think that some teams have a more firm internal salary budget (closer to a "cap"). Arizona Coyotes might be a prime example. I would guess that they have a pretty firm salary limit. Rumors have it that some other teams might. I'm not sure if that's true. Regardless, I think that any constraints on the Jets' player salary budget at this point is likely related more to considerations regarding the future cap situation and the recognition that investing substantially in short-term vets isn't justified for a team that won't be a true contender regardless. I also think it is fungible within the year. If the Jets had spent to a firm "internal cap" in 2014/15, how did manage to go out and add Harrison, Tlusty and Stempniak for a playoff run. It seems most plausible that their ownership was willing to be flexible with the budget for a team that was competing for a playoff spot.

This past year is a complete anomaly because of the pending RFA status of key players and the pending UFA status of Buff and Ladd. It's actually pretty easy to understand if you consider multi-year budgeting under the cap.

 

[blues10]

I think they have a budget, like every well-run business does. A budget is different than a "cap", because a budget is often altered based on emerging realities, priorities and opportunities. A "cap" implies that it is inflexible and inviolable.

I think that the Jets' budget for hockey operations has a line for player salaries, and that it is based on the realities of their roster and the circumstances of the team vis-à-vis it's level of expected performance (i.e. expected SC contender gets more budget than a lottery team). I think that their spending is dictated more by the exigencies of their development plan and roster structure than by a "cap". I think that most of the Jets salary decisions are based on optimizing their player salary budget to promote future success, rather than to save money or generate a bit more profit.

So, since I don't agree with what I think is implied by the term "internal cap", and the implications, I vote no.

It was either Chipman or Chevy that was on H&L and the exact term "budget" came up. It was discussed that the Jets did not spend to budget this season. It was then further discussed that that was a good thing as the RFA"s were due some raises. It was implied that the unspent budget would roll over to next season.

 

[McDLT]

I do think that some teams have a more firm internal salary budget (closer to a "cap"). Arizona Coyotes might be a prime example. I would guess that they have a pretty firm salary limit. Rumors have it that some other teams might. I'm not sure if that's true. Regardless, I think that any constraints on the Jets' player salary budget at this point is likely related more to considerations regarding the future cap situation and the recognition that investing substantially in short-term vets isn't justified for a team that won't be a true contender regardless.

Cool, thanks.

 

[SKODEN]

We do have a budget. But its a situational budget. The internal cap wil rise the closer we get to being a contender.

 

[TheDeuce]

No they don't have an internal cap. When there's an opportunity available and said opportunity adds value to the team the Jets will take advantage.

I have one question for those who bewail the fact that we're not spending to the cap: who would you have us spend it on? Who was the coveted UFA we missed out on who would be a difference maker in the here and now?

The proof will be shown once we're perennial playoff contenders who are one or two pieces away.



m.

 

[McDLT]

Budget, yes, like any well run business. Internal cap? Incorrect terminology. Budget is likely based on overall cap and likelihood to make noise in the post season, or to ensure they can sign UFAs and RFAs. We've already seen them run at the league cap, for instance.

All IMO, of course.

Does anybody know if most other NHL teams have a budget like this to follow, or are the Jets part of a minority in this regard?

 

[Board Bard]

Until they prove otherwise with their actions.......absolutely. Their actions to date say yes. I don't care how Chipman wants to spin it to the media, they have to date. Spent only close to cap once in five years.

Yep. A salary budget comes with a budget cap, just like any expense will have an anticipated max value. When the Jets first came back didn't Chipman himself say they were going to a mid-cap team until circumstances warranted spending more? Now he's using the word budget instead of cap because he perceives there to be negative connotations in the marketplace with the word cap, especially after spending so little this past season while delivering a crappy team. The league cap changes every year, and so will the Jets' salary cap, but it's a cap all the same. Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the budget is exactly the same as Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the cap.

 

[Exiled Jets Fan]

Yep. A salary budget comes with a budget cap, just like any expense will have an anticipated max value. When the Jets first came back didn't Chipman himself say they were going to a mid-cap team until circumstances warranted spending more? Now he's using the word budget instead of cap because he perceives there to be negative connotations in the marketplace with the word cap, especially after spending so little this past season while delivering a crappy team. The league cap changes every year, and so will the Jets' salary cap, but it's a cap all the same. Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the budget is exactly the same as Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the cap.

Budget is a much more accurate word than cap. If a business doesn't follow a budget for all of their budget lines (major and minor) it doesn't stay in business long. Hockey also has the added complexity of the league cap so that teams have to manage that budgetary expenditure to stay under a league wide line and overspending in one year, regardless of current and projected revenues, could set up a situation in which personnel decisions could be limited in the future. Both of those financial restraints need to be planned for years into the future and they each afect the other.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Its nothing that formalized. They will spend what is necessary when it is necessary. They ponied up with 7.6 mil AAV for Buff. They will pat Scheif this year. They would pay Trouba too if he had better established his value. They may anyway.

They are not going to be careless with money. They are not going to spend big money on a big name to try to sell tickets. Obviously the tickets are already sold but I doubt they would do that kind of thing even if tickets were harder to sell.

 

[allan5oh]

There's tons of indications that they are very "real money" conscious:

- acquiring myers for bogo was a big time real salary savings
- moving Harrison and Fraser in the lads deal. They swapped cap space do actual salary
- lots of rising salaries (back loaded instead of front loaded) contracts. Buff is the exception not the rule.
- very little ufa spending over the years.

 

[Exiled Jets Fan]

There's tons of indications that they are very "real money" conscious:

- acquiring myers for bogo was a big time real salary savings
- moving Harrison and Fraser in the lads deal. They swapped cap space do actual salary
- lots of rising salaries (back loaded instead of front loaded) contracts. Buff is the exception not the rule.
- very little ufa spending over the years.

Again, those all appear to be prudent decisions both in terms of business and in running an NHL team. I think people are skating around a perception that the Jets are underfunded as opposed to they are making careful financial decisions. I see no reason to believe that they won't spend money when it's warranted. Not blowing money on unnecessary UFAs is good hockey business. Spending money when the player, either one of ours or a UFA, can actually help benefits both the hockey and financial bottom line.

 

[Winnipeg Jets]

The way I remember it being pitched when the Jets returned was they would have no problem spending to the cap when they thought the team had a chance to make some noise. At the moment I wouldn't doubt there was some type of internal budget set as the team is in a transitional period.

 

[SKODEN]

The jets have spent alot of money on upgrades to the MTS Center and Iceplex. That money came from profits earned from the team, which could of been spent on players if they chose. This tells us that the money was there to spend if need be. A situational budget

 

[Whileee]

Yep. A salary budget comes with a budget cap, just like any expense will have an anticipated max value. When the Jets first came back didn't Chipman himself say they were going to a mid-cap team until circumstances warranted spending more? Now he's using the word budget instead of cap because he perceives there to be negative connotations in the marketplace with the word cap, especially after spending so little this past season while delivering a crappy team. The league cap changes every year, and so will the Jets' salary cap, but it's a cap all the same. Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the budget is exactly the same as Chipman saying Chevy spent less than the cap.

You can go over a budget line, but not a cap. Jets player budget might be mid-cap in most seasons until they have a roster that warrants a budget close to or at the cap.