Flyers fan with a legitimate complaint.

[Anksun]

The Kings and Habs didn't have a cap to deal with.

Not to disagree but... i do.

The Flyers were pre-lockout one of very few teams without a maximum-salary cap...

You really think the habs didnt had a cap? The only different thing was that the cap was made from themselves.
____________

Flyers are the unlucky right now, another team will somedays. The only difference is, you are actually restrained with the same limits the other teams are (arguably since some teams still have an auto-cap lower than you...).

This is more fair than ever i would say. Pre-lockout, Flyers would have been one of a top-5 elites teams to be able to cover those injuries with money which WAS unfair to an extend. Now they cant LIKE ALL OTHER TEAMS, Very, very far from a legitimate complaint imo.

 

[kdb209]

If a player is injured, his salary does not come off the books. It always counts against the team's cap.

If a team is at $34 million and a player making $4 million gets hurt, the team does not get to exceed the salary cap by $4 million automatically, nor do they get a $4 million injury allowance. The injury allowance only comes into play if the addition of a replacement player(s) would put the team over $39 million.

From there, it gets murky. My understanding of how this works: If a team is at $38 million and a player making $2 million gets hurt, the team could get up to $1 million in injury allowance (the first $1 million gets them to the upper limit, the other $1 million is the actual injury exemption amount). If they sign/call-up/acquire replacement player(s) adding to $1.5 million, the team would only get $500,000 in injury "relief", not the full $1 million.

Also keep in mind: all of this is pro-rated depending on how many days the injured player is out. If the injured player is out 49 days this year, the team would get $125,000 in "relief" in the above scenario, not $500,000 or $2 million. However...if you've been at $36 million up until the trade deadline, you can load up on salaries and carry $48 million for the final 40 days and still make it under $39 million.

Your understanding is correct - well at least it matches my understanding.

The most authoritative info we have is a quoted section of Article 50.10 of the new CBA that appeared on a canucks blog:

http://www.canuckscorner.com/weblog/nhllog/archives/2005/08/it_hurts_it_hur.html

(a) All Player Salary and Bonuses paid to Players on an NHL Active Roster, Injured Reserve or Non Roster that are Unfit to Play -- being either injured or suffering from an illness -- shall be counted against a Club's Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, as well as against the Players' Share. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a Club shall be permitted to exceed the Upper Limit by virtue of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception set forth in subsection (d) below.

(d) In the event that a Player...becomes unfit to play...such that the Club's physician believes, in his or her opinion that the Player...will be unfit to play for at least (i) 24 calendar days and (ii) 10 NHL Regular Season games and such Club desires to replace such Player, the Club may add an additonal Player or Players to its Active Roster, and the replacement salary and bonuses of such additional Player(s) may increase the Club's Averaged Club Salary to an amount up to and excluding the Upper Limit, solely as, and to the extent and for the duration, set forth below.

(ii) The Player Salary of the Player that has been deemed unfit-to-play shall continue to be counted toward the Club's Averaged Club Salary as well as count against the Players' Share...

(iii) The total replacement salary and bonuses for a Player or Players that have replaced an unfit-to-play player may not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the unfit-to-play Player who the Club is replacing;

(iv) The replacement salary and bonuses for any Player(s) that replace(s) an unfit Player may be added to the Club's Averaged Club Salary until such time as the Club's Average Salary reaches the Upper Limit. A Club may then exceed the Upper Limit due to the addition of replacement salary and bonuses of Players who have replaced an unfit-to-play Player...

Illustration: A Player with a Player Salary of $1.5 million becomes unfit to play for more than 24 days and 10 games. At the time the Player becomes unfit to play, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $39.5 million, and the Upper Limit is $40 million. The Club may replace the unfit-to-play Player with another Player of Players with an aggregate Player Salary and Bonuses of up to $1.5 million. The first $500,000 of such replacement salary and bonuses shall count toward the Club's Average Club Salary, bringing the Averaged Club Salary to the Upper Limit. The Club may then exceed the Upper Limit by up to another $1 million as a result of the replacement salary and bonuses. However, if the unfit-to-play Player once again becomes fit to play, and the Club has not otherwise created any Payroll Room during the interim period, then the Player shall not be permitted to rejoin the Club until such time as the Club reduces its Averaged Club Salary to below the Upper Limit.

 

[shaner8989]

Now Flyer fans feel the pain Leaf fans were in. we had 3 of our top players and out with Mccabe, Tucker and Lindros not to mention 3 other starting dman and Sundin for 20 games. its not fun but Flyers have alot of points so they have no need to worry except they will frop in the standing a bit but not enough to miss playoffs.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

No sympathy at all from a Rangers fan.

We've been missing Ruchinsky, Betts, and now Prucha all at various times during the year.

No sympathy here. Suck it up. Injuries are part of the game.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

How can a Flyer fan be complaining about the CBA when they have such a luxury around it. They can send their players up / down to the Phantoms between every game to save money and not have to worry about jet lag / travel costs seeing as the Spectrum is down the street.

 

[MountainHawk]

I thought I had a reasonable solution to some cap loopholes here:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=208513

I don't like the way injuries are handled OR the way teams can add or drop players to save on the cap.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

No sympathy at all from a Rangers fan.

We've been missing Ruchinsky, Betts, and now Prucha all at various times during the year.

No sympathy here. Suck it up. Injuries are part of the game.

Certainly not looking for any sympathy, as we'll still win the division, but your above statement is laughable at best. The Rangers have been about as healthy as humanly possible.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Why is it CBA's fault Bobby Clarke didn't know what he was getting into signing those injury prone players.

Which is worse: 5th in your conference with lots of injuries or 7.1 million bucks of dead cap space next year?

 

[william_adams]

I'm one of the more knowledgeable people on this board. Just because I come across like a jackass doesn't mean I'm off-base.

...ah the sweet smell of hubris...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I thought I had a reasonable solution to some cap loopholes here:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=208513

I don't like the way injuries are handled OR the way teams can add or drop players to save on the cap.

In addition to the points raised in that thread, the current IR has a minimum 7-day stay, and players on IR don't count toward the team's 23-man active roster.

So really the only changes you're proposing that would be different from the way it is now are the 15-day minimum stay on the IR, calculating each player's contribution to the salary cap based on games instead of days, and the last point about designating a player who clears waivers. I'll pick apart the "days vs. games" argument quickly:

Phoenix has played 56 games as of last night, Buffalo has played 52. Suppose the Yotes and Sabres work out a deal to trade Curtis Joseph for Martin Biron straight-up. (The cap numbers are nearly identical, we'll call it $2.2M for both.) Under your scenario, CuJo has counted just over $1.5M and thus only counts $700K for the rest of the season; Biron has counted just under $1.4M and counts $800K for the rest of the season. But if they trade, Phoenix would end up getting charged for $2.3M and Buffalo just $2.1M ... unless you're going to just charge Phoenix with 26/30 of Biron's remaining salary, in which case Buffalo should logically get charged 30/26 of Joseph's remaining salary to make it even. But why should Buffalo get charged with $800K on Joseph when he's already counted $1.5M for Phoenix and, had he stayed in Phoenix, would have only counted another $700K?

That's *way* too messy, and this is just one example. Imagine doing this for 100-150 players a year. Leave it at days, it's much simpler to work with and it applies evenly to all teams.

 

[grapeshine]

Some of you are missing the point of the rule. If a team loses a high priced player to injury, this rule isn't in place so that the team can go out and sign or trade for another high priced player. You can, of course, attempt to manipulate the rule in order to do this, but that's acting outside of the spirit of the rule. What the rule does address, however, is a scenario where calling a player up to fill in for an injured player would cause a team to exceed the cap. Philosophically the rule ensures that injury will never a force a team to play shorthanded. It does not, however, seek to recuperate a loss of team "skill" through injury.

 

[Bubba Thudd]

1) You (GM) have a star player, who is making top dollar.

2) You (GM) have a player that is injury plagued.

A) You (GM) have Peter Forsberg. (Fits both descriptions above...)

Now do you see why Lacroix let him walk, instead of tying up a huge chunk of cash on him?

 

[MountainHawk]

In addition to the points raised in that thread, the current IR has a minimum 7-day stay, and players on IR don't count toward the team's 23-man active roster.

So really the only changes you're proposing that would be different from the way it is now are the 15-day minimum stay on the IR, calculating each player's contribution to the salary cap based on games instead of days, and the last point about designating a player who clears waivers. I'll pick apart the "days vs. games" argument quickly:

Phoenix has played 56 games as of last night, Buffalo has played 52. Suppose the Yotes and Sabres work out a deal to trade Curtis Joseph for Martin Biron straight-up. (The cap numbers are nearly identical, we'll call it $2.2M for both.) Under your scenario, CuJo has counted just over $1.5M and thus only counts $700K for the rest of the season; Biron has counted just under $1.4M and counts $800K for the rest of the season. But if they trade, Phoenix would end up getting charged for $2.3M and Buffalo just $2.1M ... unless you're going to just charge Phoenix with 26/30 of Biron's remaining salary, in which case Buffalo should logically get charged 30/26 of Joseph's remaining salary to make it even. But why should Buffalo get charged with $800K on Joseph when he's already counted $1.5M for Phoenix and, had he stayed in Phoenix, would have only counted another $700K?

That's *way* too messy, and this is just one example. Imagine doing this for 100-150 players a year. Leave it at days, it's much simpler to work with and it applies evenly to all teams.

Huh?

Phx would be charged with 56/82 of Joseph's salary, and 26/82 of Biron's. Buffalo would be charged with 52/82 of Birons and 30/82 of Joseph's. It's just a cap calculation, not the actual money going to the player. That, of course, will still be based on days.

Also, injured players do sort of count towards the cap while they are injured, which my proposal would eliminate.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Huh?

Phx would be charged with 56/82 of Joseph's salary, and 26/82 of Biron's. Buffalo would be charged with 52/82 of Birons and 30/82 of Joseph's. It's just a cap calculation, not the actual money going to the player. That, of course, will still be based on days.

Also, injured players do sort of count towards the cap while they are injured, which my proposal would eliminate.

So you're saying that for the season 86/82 of Joseph's salary would be counted, while 78/82 of Biron's would count. Now imagine if we're talking about Alexei Yashin instead of Curtis Joseph and Wade Skolney instead of Martin Biron.

 

[joshjull]

Gents you are making this too complicated. Let me simplify. Don't spend a lot of money on injury prone players and leave some cap space to account for injuries. GM's will eventually figure this out. This is new to them as well.

As for the Flyers problem, the cap system is flawed because they f'd up?

 

[Kluivert4Ever]

Certainly not looking for any sympathy, as we'll still win the division, but your above statement is laughable at best. The Rangers have been about as healthy as humanly possible.

I agree that the Rangers have been healthy but the Flyers winning the division?
The Philadelphia Flyers are not a good team, I acctually believe the Devils will take the Atlantic when its all said and done with the Rangers finishing second.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I agree that the Rangers have been healthy but the Flyers winning the division?
The Philadelphia Flyers are not a good team, I acctually believe the Devils will take the Atlantic when its all said and done with the Rangers finishing second.

the Flyers are not a good team? Do you even watch hockey?
good grief.
the Flyers are obviously not playing well right now, But they will bounce back take the division. It wont be a runaway but Philly will win the Atlantic. the Rangers and Devils have both shown they will be in this race until the end.

 

[Kluivert4Ever]

the Flyers are not a good team? Do you even watch hockey?
good grief.
the Flyers are obviously not playing well right now, But they will bounce back take the division. It wont be a runaway but Philly will win the Atlantic. the Rangers and Devils have both shown they will be in this race until the end.

Perhaps I was a bit to harsh, they might be good but they are not an elite team by any means, they are a team that will get around 90 points in the end however and I guess that qualifies as good so I withdraw my previous statement.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Perhaps I was a bit to harsh, they might be good but they are not an elite team by any means, they are a team that will get around 90 points in the end however and I guess that qualifies as good so I withdraw my previous statement.

Still I dont know how anyone can judge the Flyers on where they are. With the key injuries they have had. IF the Flyers get healthy and make a deal for a 2nd line winger which more then likely will happen I think the Flyers will be a threat in the East.
Like i said the Devils play of late and the Rangers play pretty much all season have shown they are not a fluke or whatever you want to call it. This will be a 3 team dogfight until probably the last weekend of the season. I would not count out the Flyers once the Olympics are over.
You take 3 of the top 4 defenseman off any team and you are going to struggle, your going to elave your goaltenders hung out to dry and leave them out there for high quality scoring chances against. That has been the Flyers main problem this year, that and not having a consistant scorer on the 2nd line.

 

[MountainHawk]

So you're saying that for the season 86/82 of Joseph's salary would be counted, while 78/82 of Biron's would count. Now imagine if we're talking about Alexei Yashin instead of Curtis Joseph and Wade Skolney instead of Martin Biron.

Again I ask, so what?

Joseph was available for 86 games, Biron for only 76. It's not affecting the money in the pocket of the players, just the 'cap number'. I still see no problem at all.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Again I ask, so what?

Joseph was available for 86 games, Biron for only 76. It's not affecting the money in the pocket of the players, just the 'cap number'. I still see no problem at all.

It's 86 and 78, but what's a few games here and there?

When the NHL counts how much the players were paid in aggregate to see if the players forfeit escrow money, it's going to count quite a bit. As I said, consider Yashin being available for 86 games and Skolney for 76. That's a difference of almost $700,000 right there, and while it may not make a hill of beans worth of difference in the long run you can bet the NHLPA isn't about to make that swap if $700,000 could mean the difference between escrow and no escrow.

Do you also propose that Joseph get paid 86/82 of his contracted salary while Biron get paid just 78/82 of his? After all, Biron was available for only 78 games, why should he get paid for 82? If you think *that* is going to fly, think again.

 

[MountainHawk]

No ... I've said a few times the real money is the real money ... this is only for the purposes of the cap calculation.

As far as the escrow, that's a 'real money' issue; not a cap issue, so it obviously is unaffected.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

No ... I've said a few times the real money is the real money ... this is only for the purposes of the cap calculation.

As far as the escrow, that's a 'real money' issue; not a cap issue, so it obviously is unaffected.

You're right about one thing: the cap issue and the 'real money' issue are two separate things, but I guarantee when push comes to shove the players are going to worry about the 'real money' issue a whole lot more than the cap issue. And if changing how the cap is calculated potentially means less money in their pockets, they *will not* go along. That's something I haven't seen you address yet.

 

[MountainHawk]

How does it do that at all? They will get the amount of money they contracted for, exactly. The escrow will be for the amount paid out to players, exactly. The other adjustments are for cap calculations purposes only. My way may or may not make salary dumping trades between teams with different # of games more difficult, but that's about it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Perhaps I need to illustrate the effects of your proposed change....

Suppose we have Toronto and Minnesota. Toronto sits at $38 million in salary, Minnesota sits at $24 million. The only change the two teams will make all season long is that Mats Sundin (counting $6.333M towards the cap) gets traded for Curtis Foster (counting $450,000 towards the cap) on February 10. Both have been in the NHL all season long. At that point in time, Toronto has played 56 games and Minnesota only 52, and 125 days have passed in the season out of 196. (Pretty close to the actuals for this season, except for the GP part.)

Before: Toronto would have been charged with $4,039,115 of Sundin's salary (125/196 of the season) toward the cap and would pick up $163,010 (71/196 of the season) of Foster's, putting them at $35,868,793 for the season. Minnesota would have been charged with $268,990 of Foster's salary (125/196) toward the cap and would pick up $2,294,218 of Sundin's salary (71/196), putting them at $26,131,207 for the season.

Under your proposal: Toronto would have been charged with $4,325,203 of Sundin's salary (56/82) and would pick up $142,683 of Foster's (26/82), putting them at $36,134,553. Minnesota would have been charged with $285,366 of Foster's salary (52/82) and would pick up $2,317,073 of Sundin's salary (30/82), putting them at $26,152,439.

Combined salaries currently: $62,000,000
Combined salaries under your proposal: $62,286,992

So no - the salaries don't match. And therein lies the problem.