Flyers fan with a legitimate complaint.

  • Thread starter Roger's Pancreas*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
The cap hits don't match. Toronto would still pay $4,039,115 to Sundin and $163,010 of Foster's salary. However, they will have a cap hit of $4,325,203+$142,683 = $4,467,886.

Minnesota pays $268,990 to Foster and $2,294,218 to Sundin. However, they take a cap hit of $285,366+$2,317,073 = $2,602,439.


Total salary paid to players: $6,765,333
Total monies counted against escrow: $6,765,333

Total 'cap hit', a mythical score that happens to have units of dollars: $7,070,325.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
MountainHawk said:
The cap hits don't match. Toronto would still pay $4,039,115 to Sundin and $163,010 of Foster's salary. However, they will have a cap hit of $4,325,203+$142,683 = $4,467,886.

Minnesota pays $268,990 to Foster and $2,294,218 to Sundin. However, they take a cap hit of $285,366+$2,317,073 = $2,602,439.


Total salary paid to players: $6,765,333
Total monies counted against escrow: $6,765,333

Total 'cap hit', a mythical score that happens to have units of dollars: $7,070,325.
So both teams pay less than the cap hit they take? Why would Toronto agree to take a $4.47M cap hit if they only paid $4.2M in salaries? Why would Minnesota agree to take a cap hit of $2.6M if they only paid $2.29M in salaries? That makes *no* sense whatsoever, and no GM or owner is going to buy into it.

Either you're completely turned around with the numbers you're trying to use, or you're trying to hybrid the current system with your idea; either way, your numbers don't compute. Seeing both teams pay less than the cap hit they take should tell you there's a problem with how you're putting your pieces together.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
Never mind - I figured out your problem(s):

1. Foster's charged salary as you stated isn't $268,990: it's $286,990. ($450,000*121/196) However, the real problem is...

2. Your idea was this:
MountainHawk said:
(3) Every day, you calculate the projected cap hit of the current 23 man roster as 'future games'/82 * sum of 23 man roster salarys + used cap space already. This can also never exceed the cap.
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=208513

So I read this as saying the cap space consumed to date is calculated normally; the future cap space is computed on games remaining. So you are trying to hybrid the two methods, meaning the numbers become:

PRIOR TO TRADE
TORONTO PAYROLL = $38,000,000
CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS CAP: $24,234,694 (125/196 of season)

MINNESOTA PAYROLL = $24,000,000
CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS CAP: $15,306,122 (125/196 of season)


AFTER TRADE
TORONTO PAYROLL = $32,116,667
PROJECTED CAP HIT: $10,183,333 (26 GR / 82 games * payroll)
TOTAL CAP HIT: $34,418,027

MINNESOTA PAYROLL = $29,883,333
PROJECTED CAP HIT: $10,932,927 (30 GR / 82 games * payroll)
TOTAL CAP HIT: $26,239,049

COMBINED CAP HIT, TORONTO AND MINNESOTA: $60,657,076

Now...if we take the payrolls out to the end of the season, THEN it finally hits $62 million towards the cap because yes - Toronto finishes just under $36 million and Minnesota finishes just over $26 million. But, your calculations for "how much room do we have under the cap?" overstates how much both teams in fact have at the time of the trade; if the cap was $38 million and Toronto decided to bump payroll to the cap knowing the projected cap number under your calculation said "you're at $38 million by the end of the season," I don't think they'd be very happy if at the end of the season they discovered they were in fact over by $1.4 million (the difference between the "indicated cap number" at the time of the trade and the actual final cap number at the end of the season).

In short: you have a nice idea in theory, but when applied it won't work.
 
Last edited:

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
OK ... I see you found it.

However, the spent cap space is computed on games played, just and future cap space is.

All cap calculations are done based on the games played. All 'real money' calculations are done based on days. I don't have time tonight, but if I have time tomorrow at work, I'll throw together a spreadsheet dealing a simplified from of it, and either email it or post it on the other boards depending on size.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
MountainHawk said:
OK ... I see you found it.

However, the spent cap space is computed on games played, just and future cap space is.

All cap calculations are done based on the games played. All 'real money' calculations are done based on days.
Then the cap hits are still going to add to $62,286,992 even though the payrolls only added up to $62 million; cap hits of $36,134,553 for Toronto and $26,152,439 for Minnesota.

Look at it this way: figure out the payrolls for Toronto and Minnesota before and after the trade. Put 56/82 weight on the pre-trade payroll for Toronto, and 26/82 weight on the post-trade payroll for Toronto. Then put 52/82 on the pre-trade payroll for Minnesota, and 30/82 weight on the post-trade payroll for Minnesota. I think that's what you'd be doing under your idea. Add the numbers and see what you get.

;) The concept is tied to credibility. (Yes, I realize that 98% of the people who see this will have *no* idea what I just said...and that makes it even funnier.)
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
I have no issue with the cap hit <> the actual money paid. Like I said, I view the cap as just a scorekeeping system that happens to have units of dollars. We could call them cap points and do the same thing.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
MountainHawk said:
I have no issue with the cap hit <> the actual money paid. Like I said, I view the cap as just a scorekeeping system that happens to have units of dollars. We could call them cap points and do the same thing.
Right now, the cap hit and the actual salary paid aren't the same because of how the cap numbers are calculated (see: Keith Tkachuk, Mats Sundin, Jason Allison, etc. etc. etc. etc.); however, if I'm at $35 million towards the upper limit and you're at $25 million towards the upper limit, we add to $60 million. If 47 days into the season we trade 11 players, afterwards our cap numbers will still add to $60 million even if mine goes to $39 million and yours goes to $21 million, or if mine goes to $30 million and yours goes to $30 million. That's because "days in a season" applies uniformly to all teams; no matter how many games have been played, right now every team is 127 days into the season and so I can take 69/196 of a player's salary off Team A and slap it onto Team B and the totals before are the same as the totals after.

"Games played" doesn't apply uniformly because it's quite common to have one team with more games played than an opponent; when you switch to "games played" and "games remaining", you lose the balance because now not everyone is on the same level field. See: the example above. In one trade, we go from $62 million to $62.28 million because the number of games isn't the same.
 

MountainHawk

Registered User
Sep 29, 2005
12,771
0
Salem, MA
But what real effect on the players doesn't that have? All it does is constrain those teams further from making other deals. They can't change a player's salary midseason, so no player is hurt by that.
 

salty justice

Registered User
May 25, 2004
7,194
0
Los Angeles
It is up to the GM to give himself some breathing room in the cap world. If a GM puts himself up against the ceiling of the cap he risks hurting his team when there are injuries, and there always are. If he wants to replace an injured player then he better not over pay to get that player or bring in another player he cant fit under the cap, otherwise it is going to cost him.

Sorry your complaint is not legitimate, your GM just needs to learn from his mistakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->