Do the Jets actually have an internal cap?

[Whileee]

While I agree with your tl;dr conclusion, I don't accept the premise that the Jets budget/cap hasn't hurt the team.

In the last calendar year, we've lost Michael Frolik over a rounding error and traded away our captain because he wanted something close to market value (Remember when we were going to build our team around character players who wanted to be here??) While we may never attract UFAs like Stamkos but we might consider trying to sign the top 6 players who build homes here and publicly declare their desire to stay.

Our 99 point team turned into a 76 point one at least partially because of money. They've also refused to buy out Pavelec or bring in meaningful competition that costs more than league minimum. Even the bankrupt Coyotes have more buyouts than us. So yes, I think you can make a good case to say that not spending has definitely hurt the competitiveness of the team. Cheapman strikes again!

Not signing Ladd and holding the line on Frolik was likely due to a real (NHL) cap. It would have been financially cheaper to buy out Pavs and sign a cheap goalie than to pay out his full contract. It would however have push some cap hit into a later year or two, which might have constrained them.

The Coyotes bought out players to save money. How does not making a move to save money make the Jets cheap?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It's pretty simple. A budget is soft and can be exceeded. A cap cannot be exceeded. The Jets have a salary budget. I don't consider it an internal cap. I disagree with the terminology

Have to agree. The implications of those words are different. An internal cap is not as hard as the league cap but it is harder than a budget. A budget is an estimate of expectations. It is not a limitation although some organizations choose to treat it as one.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

While I agree with your tl;dr conclusion, I don't accept the premise that the Jets budget/cap hasn't hurt the team.

In the last calendar year, we've lost Michael Frolik over a rounding error and traded away our captain because he wanted something close to market value (Remember when we were going to build our team around character players who wanted to be here??) While we may never attract UFAs like Stamkos but we might consider trying to sign the top 6 players who build homes here and publicly declare their desire to stay.

Our 99 point team turned into a 76 point one at least partially because of money. They've also refused to buy out Pavelec or bring in meaningful competition that costs more than league minimum. Even the bankrupt Coyotes have more buyouts than us. So yes, I think you can make a good case to say that not spending has definitely hurt the competitiveness of the team. Cheapman strikes again!

I don't accept your characterizations of losing Frolik and Ladd. We lost Frolik because Chevy tried to low-ball him the year before. Or if you want to be more generous to Chevy because Chevy simply valued him lower at that time. We lost Ladd because he thought his fair market value was higher than what Chevy thought his fair market value was. Perhaps that value had changed.

The refusal to buy out Pav proves that they are prepared to spend not the other way around. A buyout is a way to cut your loses and recover some spent money. It is spending less not more.

Those decisions may have hurt the team but not because of budget restrictions. eeeeughh Just had a powerful deja vu moment there. Have I said that before?

 

[sully1410]

I don't accept your characterizations of losing Frolik and Ladd. We lost Frolik because Chevy tried to low-ball him the year before. Or if you want to be more generous to Chevy because Chevy simply valued him lower at that time. We lost Ladd because he thought his fair market value was higher than what Chevy thought his fair market value was. Perhaps that value had changed.

The refusal to buy out Pav proves that they are prepared to spend not the other way around. A buyout is a way to cut your loses and recover some spent money. It is spending less not more.

Those decisions may have hurt the team but not because of budget restrictions. eeeeughh Just had a powerful deja vu moment there. Have I said that before?

I still don't get why they didn't want to buy out Pavelec. They must really not have a clue when it comes to goaltenders.

 

[KingBogo]

What were you prepared to offer him? If the Jets had re-signed him for $6x6 (as was rumoured his ask to be), would you have been content with that contract?

That contract for Ladd would haunt us for years. IMO a great non-signing. It is yet to be determined if it turns out to be a great asset conversion, but I remain pretty hopeful at this point.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I was prepared to offer him $50/month, a leisure guide and a free ride to home games, which is my personal max internal budget cap for Andrew Ladd.

That wouldn't have done it. I'm pretty sure he'd have held out for an additional wad of Canadian Tire money, a stick of gum, and a Timmy's card. Guess you're not all that serious about signing him.

 

[Board Bard]

Budget, cap, same difference. Just terminology for media and fans to chat about. Cap?, no way, we don't have a cap. Budget, of course, every business has a budget.

To say that TSNE could decide to spend over the budget if the timing is right, but not a 'cap' is just semantics. This is not a publicly traded company. It's the same decision from a TSNE perspective. So if it makes you feel good, call it a budget instead of a cap. It's the same difference.

Exactly.

It's pretty simple. A budget is soft and can be exceeded. A cap cannot be exceeded. The Jets have a salary budget. I don't consider it an internal cap. I disagree with the terminology

The Jets can exceed their player budget if they wish. It takes only a decision. The Jets can exceed their salary cap if they wish. It takes only a decision.

Exactly the same thing.

When a team is up against a real cap, they have to make decisions that often reduce the quality of the team (e.g. Hawks trading Sharp, Lightning not able to sign Stamkos).

A team that has a budget can increase the salary budget line if and when needed to maintain or improve the quality of the team.

That distinction is more than semantic.

The Hawks' and Bolts' caps are functions of their budgets. Their salary cap represents the top level of their player budget.

You say a team that has a budget can increase the salary budget line if and when needed to maintain or improve the quality of the team, but the exact same thing holds true for a team that admits it has a cap -- it can increase that cap whenever it wants, provided it is not already at the league cap.

The distinction is nothing more than semantic.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Exactly.



The Jets can exceed their player budget if they wish. It takes only a decision. The Jets can exceed their salary cap if they wish. It takes only a decision.

Exactly the same thing.



The Hawks' and Bolts' caps are functions of their budgets. Their salary cap represents the top level of their player budget.

You say a team that has a budget can increase the salary budget line if and when needed to maintain or improve the quality of the team, but the exact same thing holds true for a team that admits it has a cap -- it can increase that cap whenever it wants, provided it is not already at the league cap.

The distinction is nothing more than semantic.

c'mon mister Bettman. We have a chance to win.. Please let us exceed the salary cap....just this one time.

This is like saying murder and mansaughter by negligence is exactly the same thing. Well someone died so the end result is the same but the terminology is important to some.

 

[Board Bard]

c'mon mister Bettman. We have a chance to win.. Please let us exceed the salary cap....just this one time.

This is like saying murder and mansaughter by negligence is exactly the same thing. Well someone died so the end result is the same but the terminology is important to some.

Pretty much the kind of fatuous comment I'd expect. The subject is team cap, not league cap.

It's nothing like murder and manslaughter. It's like murder and the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Pretty much the kind of fatuous comment I'd expect. The subject is team cap, not league cap.

It's nothing like murder and manslaughter. It's like murder and the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

The point was on the use of the term cap as it pertains to internal cap. A cap is a cap. you can't decide to exceed the CBA salary cap. If it was an internal cap it would never be exceeded

The owner of the team said on the radio they don't have an internal cap. I believe him

 

[SKODEN]

The point was on the use of the term cap as it pertains to internal cap. A cap is a cap. you can't decide to exceed the CBA salary cap. If it was an internal cap it would never be exceeded

The owner of the team said on the radio they don't have an internal cap. I believe him

Why would he admit that? Thats like admitting they are going into a gunfight with a knife. No budget teams win stanley cups. Why wuld he admit that to the fanbase? Im not saying they do have a cap. I just think the Chipman, Chevy and maurice give the fluffiest interviews in the NHL

 

[Aavco Cup]

The point was on the use of the term cap as it pertains to internal cap. A cap is a cap. you can't decide to exceed the CBA salary cap. If it was an internal cap it would never be exceeded

The owner of the team said on the radio they don't have an internal cap. I believe him

Why would he admit that? Thats like admitting they are going into a gunfight with a knife. No budget teams win stanley cups. Why wuld he admit that to the fanbase? Im not saying they do have a cap. I just think the Chipman, Chevy and maurice give the fluffiest interviews in the NHL

You don't have to believe him. Most here agree that the Jets set a salary budget every year. Most also believe the team when it says that can be exceeded if necessary. If it can be exceeded it is not really a cap. It's a guideline.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The distinction is nothing more than semantic.

Yes but that is not nothing. The 2 words have similar but not identical meanings. The implications of 'cap' are harder than budget IMO. Everyone has a budget. Not everyone chooses to frame it as a 'cap'.

Are we arguing semantics? Clearly yes.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

This thread has become a pretty pointless. Closed.