TSN - CBA details begin to filter out

[Brewleaguer]

Here is a question from the reports out of how this was structured, it's been reported that "Revenue-sharing where the top 10 money-making clubs donate to a fund shared by the bottom 15 teams."

What happened to the other 5?? They get to skate on by?

 

[rabi]

Here is a question from the reports out of how this was structured, it's been reported that "Revenue-sharing where the top 10 money-making clubs donate to a fund shared by the bottom 15 teams."

What happened to the other 5?? They get to skate on by?

That's actually a mis-print...it's the bottom '10' teams..
and, yes, the middle 10 teams don't get any...they're the median revenue,
that all teams will be at after this sharing...

 

[HockeyCritter]

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.

I thought there was a provision where a team can go over the cap at the trade deadline (give a team a chance to “go for itâ€) but must be back under the cap come training camp.

 

[Timmy]

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.

Do you think that's why 15% of players' salaries are being put into escrow to deal with an overage?

 

[Spungo*]

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

How is it a loophole at all? Each team has 39m to spend on player salaries per year, and not a penny more. This doesn't change anything.

 

[Tawnos]

It allows the teams that can afford it to load up at the deadline. As I said, it's a loophole for the team, not the players. And it's a loophole that really has very little to do with actual salary and rather just player movement.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Do you think that's why 15% of players' salaries are being put into escrow to deal with an overage?

Well ... yeah ...

 

[speeds]

Will trades be allowed during the "week long transitional period"?

The reason I ask is that it might be that a better deal can be made for teams making buyouts.

for instance, instead of STL having to buy Weight out at(what's the rate, 2/3 of salary, right?) a cost 3.8 mil, maybe they could make the following trade:

Weight and 3 mil to EDM for a 7th round pick.

Would save STL 800K plus get them a 7th rounder, and gets EDM a C for 2.7 mil and a 7th. Edm will have the cap room, so that isn't an issue for them.

Will this sort of deal be allowable?

 

[Number 57]

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.

If a guy goes down in January, teams can bring in a player to replace him and his salary won't count against the cap, since he's just a replacement. Heard it on TSN.

 

[shakes]

Will trades be allowed during the "week long transitional period"?

The reason I ask is that it might be that a better deal can be made for teams making buyouts.

for instance, instead of STL having to buy Weight out at(what's the rate, 2/3 of salary, right?) a cost 3.8 mil, maybe they could make the following trade:

Weight and 3 mil to EDM for a 7th round pick.

Would save STL 800K plus get them a 7th rounder, and gets EDM a C for 2.7 mil and a 7th. Edm will have the cap room, so that isn't an issue for them.

Will this sort of deal be allowable?

Is that how its going to work though? Is it what the team who gets him has to pay that counts against the cap or is it what his contract is worth? And the team would really really have to want a player to do that when they could just sign him after he gets bought out instead of giving up a pick.

 

[Tawnos]

If a guy goes down in January, teams can bring in a player to replace him and his salary won't count against the cap, since he's just a replacement. Heard it on TSN.

That's not nearly as specific as it needs to be. What if the player who you bring in has a 2 year contract? Does the severity of the injury matter at all? You can designate any player you want as a replacement? Does that mean that applies even if the player puts you over the Cap for the year? That sounds a little ridiculous to me.

 

[rabi]

Will trades be allowed during the "week long transitional period"?

It's my understanding that all league transactions(other than unrestricted free agency signings) are going to be allowed as soon as next Thursday..

On a side note, I think you'll see all 2003 draftees that can't(read: come to an agreement) be signed will end up going back into the pool for this July 30 draft...
I doubt you'll see any 2003 draft picks that aren't signed being traded...No GM will trade for a unsigned-2003 draft pick that they just would be able to draft on July 30th...

 

[rabi]

That's not nearly as specific as it needs to be. What if the player who you bring in has a 2 year contract? Does the severity of the injury matter at all? You can designate any player you want as a replacement? Does that mean that applies even if the player puts you over the Cap for the year? That sounds a little ridiculous to me.

If the player coming in is making less than the player who is on IR, then the transaction will not count against the CAP...

If the player coming in is making more than the player who is on IR, then it will count against the CAP...

 

[kdb209]

How is it a loophole at all? Each team has 39m to spend on player salaries per year, and not a penny more. This doesn't change anything.

Actually each team does not have $39M to spend. The max that any single team can spend is $39M. If every team spent to the max, the league would blow well past the 54% league wide cap and the players would be returning a lot of $$$'s to the owners.

Rumor has it the cap is based on estimated revenues of $1.7B. This corresponds to an average team payroll of $30.6M. Note that the 54% linkage cap includes benefits (~$2.2M/team), so the average team payroll before players start giving money back is only about $28.4M.

 

[Timmy]

Actually each team does not have $39M to spend. The max that any single team can spend is $39M. If every team spent to the max, the league would blow well past the 54% league wide cap and the players would be returning a lot of $$$'s to the owners.

Rumor has it the cap is based on estimated revenues of $1.7B. This corresponds to an average team payroll of $30.6M. Note that the 54% linkage cap includes benefits (~$2.2M/team), so the average team payroll before players start giving money back is only about $28.4M.

Well, now I'm really confused.

Hockeytown says that player salaries were 1.2b, and that player costs were 300m, or 10m per team, and that was what made up the 75% of salaries/revenues in the last full season.

Now you're saying that it's only 2.2m. What's the other 7.8m consist of?

 

[Spungo*]

Actually each team does not have $39M to spend. The max that any single team can spend is $39M. If every team spent to the max, the league would blow well past the 54% league wide cap and the players would be returning a lot of $$$'s to the owners.

I'm talking about the cap rules. Every team spending 39 isn't something to worry about as it wont happen, unless revenue sharing is through the roof.

 

[Tawnos]

If the player coming in is making less than the player who is on IR, then the transaction will not count against the CAP...

If the player coming in is making more than the player who is on IR, then it will count against the CAP...

If that's the case... awesome. Where did you hear/read that?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well, now I'm really confused.

Hockeytown says that player salaries were 1.2b, and that player costs were 300m, or 10m per team, and that was what made up the 75% of salaries/revenues in the last full season.

Now you're saying that it's only 2.2m. What's the other 7.8m consist of?

It is rather straightforward, Timmy.

Hockeytown was way, way, way, WAY wrong.

In 02-03, player benefits were $64 million for the league. That is where the $2.2 mil per team comes from. Player salaries/bonuses were $1.42 billion in that year.