2007's Salary Cap (will we match NHL's)

[Wildman]

Will we copy the NHL's salary cap next year? It has been estimated that the 2007-08 NHL season will have a salary cap between $43 to $45 million. Im hoping we do, epecially since we usually have to match or exceed NHL salaries when trying to keep our own UFA's and RFA's.

Please let me know your opinions. Thanks

Barry Corras (NYI AGM)

Click to read more...

 

[Ville Isopaa]

IIRC it was said earlier that the cap would stay the same next season. not sure though..


A little off topic, but I think that some of the demands by RFA players are really silly. They should be tied closer to the NHL salaries, instead of picking the salary demands from the sky or some place higher.
A player shouldn't be allowed to ask for more than his NHL salary is, unless there's some very good motivation behind it, like a long term low salary deal and he has since improved a lot but still is on the low salary, or if the player in question is in a contract-year in the NHL.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I believe it will stay the same this year and then go up the following year - so we'll basically trail the NHL by a year. As such, you'll see the general contract demands of pending free agents fall in line with the past year versus the most current UFA market. If the admin team does decide to make the change, they'll have to do so before July 1st so team's know where they stand (similarly, NHL teams still don't know what the cap will be, so this isn't totally unrealistic).

In terms of restricted free agents, keep in mind most restricted free agents don't sign until July or August in the NHL. While plenty of RFA's have already signed contracts in the HFNHL, don't be dismayed by some of the demands when you're talking about offers of $450-$1 million - those are the guys hoping to get a RFA offer sheet. Obviously 90% of them won't, which will lead to their demands potentially curbing a bit, but for those who do get an offer sheet, it can mean a lot more money (especially with so many league minimum offers coming in). Also, keep in mind any NHL team can make an offer sheet of ~$650k without any compensation going back to the team holding their rights. So the question you need to ask yourself is this player of interest to another team at that rate? Are they waiver exempt so they can stay in the minors and only receive 10% of that salary? These are just a couple of considerations.

With respect to NHL salaries you reference, while they are definitely a consideration for market value, often these listed salaries don't include lucrative signing bonuses and also might be one-way deals. Meanwhile in the HFNHL, there are no signing bonuses and all deals are two-way, so a $500,000 contract offer might just mean $50,000 for the guy in the HFNHL, where as in the NHL, a $450,000 contract might be one-way, so they can almost 10x as much money. Or, it is a two-way deal and included $100,000 SB so they still get 3x as much money. These are just a couple of the considerations.

The last consideration is obviously performance. If a player earned the league minimum this past year in the NHL, but scored 20+ goals, don't be surprised if they reject the 10% mandatory raise you offered them, even though their NHL salary from this PAST season was league minimum (and you cry, 'but that's what they make in the NHL!'). They are poised for a major raise at their next NHL contract and we all know that. What is particularly baffling is GM's offering a 4 year deal at the 10% raise, which doesn't make much sense for the player at all, at least for the player who just had a great break through type year. The good news is once you do sign a player, they don't ever hold out or demand a new contract in the HFNHL, no matter how unjust or how long the contract is for. Just look around at some of the contracts and you'll see where GM's timing was very good in getting a guy to sign long term. Reggie makes sure NO clients hold out, so give him that much.

What is MUCH more relevant than their past contract is when a player re-signs with their team in the NHL at a certain rate for next year. With that as a reference, you have a very strong case to get the player to sign a similar deal in the HFNHL.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Another thing to keep in mind regarding the salary cap is the fact that our rvenues are fairly fixed - the revenue mechanism only changes if we adjust the revenue factor in the sim, and its increments are actually fairly large in practice, so that one notch up and everyone is flush with cash, one notch down and most teams are losing money...

As far as contract values go, I agree by and large with Reggie's position. I was wondering about the impact of not having signing bonuses, etc., though - the fact is since all our player compensation is loaded directly into the contract value, then that player actually has a bigger impact against our salary cap than they do in the NHL. To my mind, this is an argument for either a) increasing our salary cap slightly, keeping in mind my reservation above, or b) scaling back the comparative index so that, for example, an NHL salary benchmark of $1,000,000 might translate to $800,000 in the HFNHL. Just a suggestion - my math skills are sufficiently unreliable that I could be entirely off base.

Overall, I have to congratulate Reggie for sticking with a difficult task. Kudos, my suave friend!

 

[kasper11]

Two points:
1) You can't always go by a player's NHL salary. If an NHL team is smart enough to lock a player up long term before they breakout, you don't deserve to get a discount on that player. The player is often in a different situation when we sign them then when the NHL team signs them.

2) Didn't the NHL get rid of signing bonuses? I thought that was why we did.

 

[SPG]

See HFNHL Rulebook

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

The NHL has not gotten rid of signing bonuses from what I understand, it's just a portion of the bonus gets applied to the cap (at least I think that's how it works).

On that note, I think signing bonuses might be something we consider bring back at some point. I know I was one of the main advocates of getting rid of them because Reggie didn't want to keep track of the SB's for cap sake and GM's kept using listed salaries (that didn't include some big bonuses) as comparisons in contract negotiations, but after a year without signing bonuses, I realize it does limit GM's (and the players) in terms of creative contracts. Especially younger players who are likely to be dispatched to the minors for a few years and receive only 10% (not to mention some of the UFA's and RFA's).

Drew had proposed including signing bonuses with 50% of the SB applied to the next year's cap I believe, and that might not be a bad idea to consider going forward. If not this UFA season, then perhaps down the road.

 

[Ohio Jones]

See HFNHL Rulebook

Thanks, Sean. The relevant passages I found were in Contracts:

Please note that any unsigned, undrafted players under the age of 20 (as of
September 15th, 200X) are NOT eligible for free agency in the HFNHL. Rather,
undrafted 18 year-olds will be eligible for the following HFNHL draft.
Meanwhile, since the HFNHL draft takes place prior to the start of the free
agency period, 19 year-olds will be eligible for the following draft, and
subsequently eligible for free agency should they remain undrafted.

Previously Drafted European Players
All European-born players drafted in the NHL after 1999 must be drafted in the
HFNHL. As reviewing old draft lists to see if a player has been drafted and
subsequently released in the HFNHL is time consuming, the GM of the team trying
to sign the player is responsible for proving that the player had been previously
drafted in the HFNHL. The league's draft history can be found at this location:
http://www.hfnhl.com/history/draft/

Between these two statements, it seems to suggest that non-North American players aged 20+ who have not been drafted in the NHL can be signed as UFAs. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, but I could have misinterpreted the statement.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I believe non-drafted Euro's can be signe as UFA's, but only once they've come to North America.

 

[kasper11]

I believe non-drafted Euro's can be signe as UFA's, but only once they've come to North America.

But there are no signings between now and whenever free agency begins, correct?

 

[Ohio Jones]

But there are no signings between now and whenever free agency begins, correct?

Except of players whose rights you already hold (signed players and prospects).

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Sorry, Douglas is correct, I should have been more clear. No UFA's can be signed at this time period, although pending UFA's and RFA's on your team can made offers.

You can still draft the Euro's, but after July 1st, any undrafted Euro's can be signed as soon as they make their way to North America (where in past, you had to wait to draft them, now you can tender an offer during the year).

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

i am fairly certain there are no signing bonus's in the NHL, period. the only players who are allowed any bonus's are rookies and vets coming off an injury year.

 

[HFNHL Red Wings]

You can still draft the Euro's, but after July 1st, any undrafted Euro's can be signed as soon as they make their way to North America (where in past, you had to wait to draft them, now you can tender an offer during the year).

This point is an important one to emphasize. I'm pretty sure we announced this change earlier in the season but to be clear GM's cannot sign European born players that are not currently playing in NA. This is simply intended to prevent teams from stockpiling prospect lists by signing guys that by HFNHL rules would be moved immediately to the prospect lists without having to pay a dime.

The thing I don't remember (someone help jog my memory please) is whether we agreed to use the 48 hour rule after the player played his first NA game or if was based on date of signing. There was some debate over this especially as it related to false reports of signings (ie would we only count signings officially announced by NHL.com or other reputable sources) and I can't remember the final decision.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

The thing I don't remember (someone help jog my memory please) is whether we agreed to use the 48 hour rule after the player played his first NA game or if was based on date of signing. There was some debate over this especially as it related to false reports of signings (ie would we only count signings officially announced by NHL.com or other reputable sources) and I can't remember the final decision.

Yeah, that is an important point.

I'd say we opt on the side of the player playing their first game in NA to make it easier (including exhibition). That might make the pre-season all the more interesting and eliminates the whole issue of when the signing is official (what is the time stamp to start the 48 hours) and what sources to we acknowledge as official. It also leaves free agency this summer to players in North America last year.

And at least with a player playing it is easy to go back and see the data and there is no doubt over what is official and what is not. For instance, the Blackhawks announced the signing of a few players several days and in one case, a full week, after TSN reported it. And in the end, I think it's more appropriate to have GM's scanning the exhibition box scores and write-ups, rather than transaction summaries and press releases.

My 2 cents.

 

[SPG]

Yeah, that is an important point.

I'd say we opt on the side of the player playing their first game in NA to make it easier (including exhibition). That might make the pre-season all the more interesting and eliminates the whole issue of when the signing is official (what is the time stamp to start the 48 hours) and what sources to we acknowledge as official. It also leaves free agency this summer to players in North America last year.

And at least with a player playing it is easy to go back and see the data and there is no doubt over what is official and what is not. For instance, the Blackhawks announced the signing of a few players several days and in one case, a full week, after TSN reported it. And in the end, I think it's more appropriate to have GM's scanning the exhibition box scores and write-ups, rather than transaction summaries and press releases.

My 2 cents.

I'm with Nick.

 

[Ohio Jones]

I agree the player should be available once they've actually played a pro game in North America, but the 48 hour reference is confusing me. I thought the 48 hour count started once the first offer was received for a player... so the player would be eligible to be signed once they had been confirmed to have played a pro game in North America, but the 48 period still wouldn't start until someone submitted an offer for that player. once that offer is received, Reggie would wait for 48 hours to see if any other offers were forthcoming before deciding whether to accept the first team's offer.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

 

[HFNHL Red Wings]

That's correct. The 48 hour clock starts with the first offer submitted.