TSN - CBA details begin to filter out

[Kritter471]

http://www.tsn.ca

Starts with the already-mentioned percentage increasing as the revenues increase.

Another key thing to understand is the cap figure. Yes, it's $39 million, but that doesn't mean you can't have players on your roster whose annual salaries add up to more than $39 million.

You just can't have them on your roster for the whole year. That $39 million figure is not some mythical paper-number, it's how much a team can actually spend on salaries in one year.

So a team that runs way below the cap for most of the year could conceivably add a big salary player at the trade deadline and, on a paper payroll, go over the cap - so long as the actual money spent on salaries stays below $39 million, it's not a problem.

A team could conceivably go into the playoffs with a roster whose salaries add up to more than $39 million. It's all a matter of balancing the books.

Mentions the trade deadline and still-fuzzy revenue sharing.

Some of the lower revenue teams are a little nervous right now, waiting to see how much they'll get and whether that allows them to close the $17.5 million gap between the low and high ends of the new payroll range.

By the way, that gap will close to $16 million after the first year of the deal.

Doesn't that almost definitely mean the floor will move up? Because the cap is set in relation to league revenues and cannot really be predicted this specifically.

Also mentions a drop dead date for RFAs - if they're not signed by Dec. 1, they can't play that season.

The players will have their membership meeting on Wednesday with a ratification vote on Thursday. The NHL Board of Governors will meet and vote on Thursday as well, at which time the draft lottery will be done and the rule changes will be revealed.

Assuming the deal is ratified, then there will be the week-long transitional period for the buyouts and the signing of 2003 draftees to be completed, with the full-up free-agent signing period and unfettered business starting on or around August 1.

Click to read more...

 

[FLYLine27*]

Seems like a big loop hole no? Im kinda confused by what its saying though.

 

[X8oD]

ill tell ya what bugs me about that article

the "small market teams" still appear to be whining, and now they are "hoping" that their cut of the revenue sharing deal will allow them to spend close to the high end of the cap.

Honestly, if your team cannot afford 39 mil, you SHOULDNT have a team at all. Move it, Sell it, Contact it i dont care.

This cap was supposed to bring the haves closer to the have nots. If you Still cannot afford to spend somewhere around 35 mil, You should just fold your deck and move on.

 

[Spungo*]

ill tell ya what bugs me about that article

the "small market teams" still appear to be whining, and now they are "hoping" that their cut of the revenue sharing deal will allow them to spend close to the high end of the cap.

Honestly, if your team cannot afford 39 mil, you SHOULDNT have a team at all. Move it, Sell it, Contact it i dont care.

This cap was supposed to bring the haves closer to the have nots. If you Still cannot afford to spend somewhere around 35 mil, You should just fold your deck and move on.

I agree. They really are still *****ing and crying.

 

[Kritter471]

Direct link now, because I was lazy earlier. http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=130373

It's by our favorite HF Poster, Mr. McKenzie.

 

[FLYLine27*]

ill tell ya what bugs me about that article

the "small market teams" still appear to be whining, and now they are "hoping" that their cut of the revenue sharing deal will allow them to spend close to the high end of the cap.

Honestly, if your team cannot afford 39 mil, you SHOULDNT have a team at all. Move it, Sell it, Contact it i dont care.

This cap was supposed to bring the haves closer to the have nots. If you Still cannot afford to spend somewhere around 35 mil, You should just fold your deck and move on.

I agree, get the hell out of the league if your still whining. I bet its Boston also, with that idiot running the show.

 

[Spungo*]

Another key thing to understand is the cap figure. Yes, it's $39 million, but that doesn't mean you can't have players on your roster whose annual salaries add up to more than $39 million.

You just can't have them on your roster for the whole year. That $39 million figure is not some mythical paper-number, it's how much a team can actually spend on salaries in one year.

So a team that runs way below the cap for most of the year could conceivably add a big salary player at the trade deadline and, on a paper payroll, go over the cap - so long as the actual money spent on salaries stays below $39 million, it's not a problem.


I didn't understand that in the least, but it just dawned on me. In case anyone else in confused, it is not a loophole.

e.g.

- Leafs have 38.1 million dollars payroll at trade deadline.

- New York is willing to trade Jagr and his 4.8 or whatever salary to the Leafs.

- Well, the Leafs would be at 42.9 and above the salary cap, right?

- No, they wouldn't because the Leafs are only responcible for paying Jagr for the last 15-20 games of the season. Which would be about 1.2 million so they would still be under the cap at 39.3.

 

[Captain Ron]

- No, they wouldn't because the Leafs are only responcible for paying Jagr for the last 15-20 games of the season. Which would be about 1.2 million so they would still be under the cap at 39.3.

39.3 would still be over the cap. Unless I missed something.

 

[Spungo*]

39.3 would still be over the cap. Unless I missed something.

Ok, Jagr only has 900,000 remaining on his contract and the Leafs are right at 39 now. Happy?

 

[GSC2k2*]

39.3 would still be over the cap. Unless I missed something.

flawed example, but the point is made.

 

[Captain Ron]

Ok, Jagr only has 900,000 remaining on his contract and the Leafs are right at 39 now. Happy?

I am extremely happy now!

 

[GSC2k2*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by X8oD
ill tell ya what bugs me about that article

the "small market teams" still appear to be whining, and now they are "hoping" that their cut of the revenue sharing deal will allow them to spend close to the high end of the cap.

Honestly, if your team cannot afford 39 mil, you SHOULDNT have a team at all. Move it, Sell it, Contact it i dont care.

This cap was supposed to bring the haves closer to the have nots. If you Still cannot afford to spend somewhere around 35 mil, You should just fold your deck and move on.

I agree, get the hell out of the league if your still whining. I bet its Boston also, with that idiot running the show.

What an argument! Is there something magical about those particular numbers? Can the boys not quite feed their pets on anytihng less? Enlightne me please. If you cna't afford $35 mil, get out of the league. Why $35? Why not $50? 60? Why not a Steinbrenneresque $200 mil?

Why not $15 mil?

 

[Captain Ron]

.

Honestly, if your team cannot afford 39 mil, you SHOULDNT have a team at all. Move it, Sell it, Contact it i dont care.

As I said on a post in another thread if the average team payroll goes over $30.6 million the overall payroll for the league will exceed 54% of $1.7 billion.

 

[shakes]

oh good.. so the trade deadline isn't going to suck after all...

 

[Hedberg]

This deal keeps looking better.

 

[me2]

I like it!

 

[ti-vite]

A mid level team unexpectingly making into the playoffs can load up and make a run.

Trade deadline is gonna crazy.

 

[rabi]

A mid level team unexpectingly making into the playoffs can load up and make a run.

Trade deadline is gonna crazy.

as long as that mid-level team's owner approves expanding the budget to include the payments for those new "rent-a-players"...

Just because a team has cap-room doesn't mean they will spend it...

 

[ti-vite]

Playoff cash is a powerfull incentive...

 

[Levitate]

it's not really a loophole...mainly because teams will still have to deal with the consequences of those salaries next year if they load up for a playoff run. they couldn't load up and then expect to be able to keep everyone together

plus like someone mentioned, you still have the linkage at 54% that will ultimately keep money coming back to the owners anyways

 

[Cole Caulifield]

as long as that mid-level team's owner approves expanding the budget to include the payments for those new "rent-a-players"...

Just because a team has cap-room doesn't mean they will spend it...

Playoff cash is a powerfull incentive...

Exactly !

Like others have said, the deadline is going to be wilder than it's ever been. Particularly considering how many players would turn UFA the following year.

And it's never been as important to have a good GM.

 

[Tawnos]

it's not really a loophole...mainly because teams will still have to deal with the consequences of those salaries next year if they load up for a playoff run. they couldn't load up and then expect to be able to keep everyone together

Generally, the high price players traded at the deadline are in the last year of their contract unless one of the teams is unloading to start rebuilding. It is a loophole, but not an inflationary one for the players.

Also, this answers part of the question about injuries. If a guy goes down in January and you're $3mil under the cap, then you can try to trade for a guy that has a $5mil/year contract with $3mil remaining.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Generally, the high price players traded at the deadline are in the last year of their contract unless one of the teams is unloading to start rebuilding. It is a loophole.

Also, this answers part of the question about injuries.

It's not a loophole for the players. It's a loophole for the teams.

Players aren't going to profit from this at all. All it does is give more flexibility to the playoffs teams. It's good for the league because the playoffs are really going to be interesting. All the best players will be there and the quality of play will be amazing.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Also, this answers part of the question about injuries. If a guy goes down in January and you're $3mil under the cap, then you can try to trade for a guy that has a $5mil/year contract with $3mil remaining.

Yeah it's really great.

With this rule, I fully expect teams and GMs not to spend the full amount. It would be really stupid to do so.

 

[Tawnos]

It's not a loophole for the players. It's a loophole for the teams.

Yeah, before you responded I edited my post to make that more clear.

Also, about teams having to get under the Cap for the next season... I'm not positive about this, because I don't follow it closely enough, but isn't that what happens in the NBA every off-season? There are teams that have to make moves to get under the Cap before the season starts?