Budgets tighter than some are thinking?

[Peter]

Well, accept for rookies.

What do you mean "except for rookies"?? Their bonuses are marginalized in the new CBA. They will not be scoring huge bonus windfalls at all. That was a key component in what the NHL was looking for.

 

[chara]

39M is the weighted average

Over the course of a season, a team's payroll can and will fluctuate depending on player movement. As long as the weighted average at season's end is under the cap figure, no problem.

What this means is a team can be well over the cap figure but so long as their season average is under 39M, no problem.

The Trade deadline could be extremely interesting.

Example with 2 Cup contenders

1. Team A: payroll 30M before the deadline
- loads up for the playoff run and adds on say 15M in salary...
-- Season Average: 38M

2. Team B: Payroll 39M before the deadline
- cannot do much at the deadline

Result: Team A wins the Cup with talent laden team with a pile of 'guns for hire'

Moral of the Story: Leave Cap Space for a 'rainy day'

 

[Timmy]

Example with 2 Cup contenders

1. Team A: payroll 30M before the deadline
- loads up for the playoff run and adds on say 15M in salary...
-- Season Average: 38M

2. Team B: Payroll 39M before the deadline
- cannot do much at the deadline

Result: Team A wins the Cup with talent laden team with a pile of 'guns for hire'

Moral of the Story: Leave Cap Space for a 'rainy day'

However, Team A was inferior to team B and wound up as a 7 to 10th place team as a result of its first-half performance, and had to play the three-game series and then face the top one or two teams in the conference with new players and unproven chemistry due to the late editions.

Team B stayed together most of the season, grew as a team, succeeded as a team, learned from their mistakes as a team, finished 2nd or 3rd in their conference, got the short-round bye, and played one of the winners of the short-round.

Furthermore, Team A players all know that they aren't going to be around as a team next year, since their payroll going into next season's going to be 45m. So, no loyalty to each other, the team, the coaching staff, or the fans...

Not a recipe for surefire success, IMHO.

EDIT: I do agee with your moral of the story, just not the reason.

 

[Jacob]

When did this thread become about Toronto? You know what's going to happen now. Moderators really should be moderating more.

It was a joke, big guy.

 

[chara]

However, Team A was inferior to team B and wound up as a 7 to 10th place team as a result of its first-half performance, and had to play the three-game series and then face the top one or two teams in the conference with new players and unproven chemistry due to the late editions.

Team B stayed together most of the season, grew as a team, succeeded as a team, learned from their mistakes as a team, finished 2nd or 3rd in their conference, got the short-round bye, and played one of the winners of the short-round.

Furthermore, Team A players all know that they aren't going to be around as a team next year, since their payroll going into next season's going to be 45m. So, no loyalty to each other, the team, the coaching staff, or the fans...

Not a recipe for surefire success, IMHO.

EDIT: I do agee with your moral of the story, just not the reason.

I do agree with your points. I often seen what you just described.

I created an exagerated hypothetical example. More likely, the 30M team would never add $15M in salary but they would have the cap space to add a couple of veterans knowing that a potential longer playoff run would offset the salaries. There are no guarantees in life but at least they would be sending a strong message to their fans that they're serious about winning the Cup, i.e. so come out and fill in the seats.

 

[Kill 'Em All]

The cap is $39 million, INCLUDING bonuses and benefits.

really?

this | http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=130274&hubName= | says otherwise.

"- a hard team-by-team salary cap with a payroll of range of $21 million to $39 million (in the first year), which excludes all player costs (benefits, insurance etc)."

So fo all you folks considering signing Lindros and Allison to $2 million contracts, laced with bonuses, this is not going to work.

you really picked two bad examples to use here.

McKenzie and the crew over at TSN reported (the day the CBA came out) that players coming off injury problems (i.e. allison, and maybe even lindros) will be allowed to sign for a base salary PLUS bonuses. standardized bonuses, if i remember correctly.

the league will allow an exemeption for such players, so that teams don't have to commit large amounts of dough to guys that may not play more than a shift, but on the other hand to allow players that have made full recoveries to earn what they're 'worth.'

 

[Morbo]

It was a joke, big guy.

Oh, it sure is.

 

[TexSen]

Hmm,


Here's a bold prediction:

Vancouver will not be signing any significant UFAs this summer.

Vancouver won't be doing any buyouts.

Nonis will be basically QOing the RFAs, with few raises of significance.

The core will remain, but without an improvement in net, we'll still be out by the second round.

Ditto for the Sens Timmy.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Over the course of a season, a team's payroll can and will fluctuate depending on player movement. As long as the weighted average at season's end is under the cap figure, no problem.

What this means is a team can be well over the cap figure but so long as their season average is under 39M, no problem.

The Trade deadline could be extremely interesting.

Example with 2 Cup contenders

1. Team A: payroll 30M before the deadline
- loads up for the playoff run and adds on say 15M in salary...
-- Season Average: 38M

2. Team B: Payroll 39M before the deadline
- cannot do much at the deadline

Result: Team A wins the Cup with talent laden team with a pile of 'guns for hire'

Moral of the Story: Leave Cap Space for a 'rainy day'

That's not the way things will work from what I have been told (sorry, no link). Teams will have to be under the cap ALL season and the average does not come into play. Teams will be monitored on a game-by-game basis and are legislated to be under the cap. Any time a team goes over the cap they will have 10 days to get under the cap, through trade or waivers, or the league will waive a player for them. Seems a little harsh, but that's what is supposed to be in the CBA and from the league meetings.

 

[Winger98]

Over the course of a season, a team's payroll can and will fluctuate depending on player movement. As long as the weighted average at season's end is under the cap figure, no problem.

What this means is a team can be well over the cap figure but so long as their season average is under 39M, no problem.

The Trade deadline could be extremely interesting.

Example with 2 Cup contenders

1. Team A: payroll 30M before the deadline
- loads up for the playoff run and adds on say 15M in salary...
-- Season Average: 38M

2. Team B: Payroll 39M before the deadline
- cannot do much at the deadline

Result: Team A wins the Cup with talent laden team with a pile of 'guns for hire'

Moral of the Story: Leave Cap Space for a 'rainy day'

A quick question, though: how many cup winners do you remember who made a significant pickup at the trade deadline, who went on to win the cup the same year?

94: rangers - Brian Noonan, Craig MacTavish, Stephane Mattaeu, Glenn Anderson
95: Devils - Neal Broten
96: Avs - Roy and Ozolinsh, but neither trade happened at the deadline.
97: wings - Larry Murphy and Thomas Sandstrom
98: Wings - Bob Rouse?, Dmitri Mironov
99: Stars - Derek Plante
00: Devils - Mogilny and Malakhov
01: Avs- Rob Blake
02: Wings- Jiri Slegr
03: Devils - Grant Marshall
04: TB - Daryl Sydor

While the deadline deals get a lot of publicity, I don't think making big deals at the deadline have that great of a track record. Roy and Ozolinsh were both acquired long before the deadline, and actually played more games with the Avs that season than their previous teams. None of the Ranger pickups were realy impact players. The Devils and Avs both saw immediate help when they picked up Mogilny and Blake, respectively. The last three cup winners all made relatively small deals before going on to win the cup, with Sydor being the biggest name but far from the level of someone like Rob Blake.

If there's a moral, I think it's that cup winners are built early in the season and that the deadline is best used for finishing touches rather than massive splurges of talant.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Oh, it sure is.

Come on, you have to admit that you all bring some of that down on yourselves when in thread after thread we hear how big market teams, and especially Toronto, is going to sign all these name FA's for a big mac, fries and a coke and that the teams, who have by their own admission $15 - $20 million in cap room to spend, and that they promise to spend, will sign no one. The little bit of good natured needling should have been expected just as when I say something silly (and yes of course I do at times) I fully expect the same back. For that reason I do not get the sensitivity over the joke though. You all give as good back and you do not see me crying about it. If it were an out of the blue dig it would be inappropriate but in this case it was a direct response to the topic at hand and as pointed out above brought on by incessant comments by fans regarding FA's and who is and who is not going to be signing virtually every name FA out there.

 

[Ronald Pagan]

None of the Rangers players were significant pickups? I'd contend with that one. Without Matteau would the Rags have advanced to the final?

 

[Mess]

Sorry, it was just an example, and I guess a bad one. Consider it with a $5.5 million salary and a $2 million bonus then, so the numbers jive with the 20% max.

I have actually read reports that suggest performance bonuses are virtually wiped out in this CBA .. Only winning a major trophy might be included now .. They mentioned Schedule A & B bonuses that are predetermined for all teams and the same for all .. If you score 50 goals or end up in the top dozen scorers you get a pre-defined bonus as a example the TSN panel used as an example..

However under your example above say it was a 1 year deal ..

It would depend if the bonus is Signing or Performance .. However either way even though the base is $5.5 then the bonus would count against the cap and for all intensive purposes this player counts 7.5 mil against the cap ..

A performance bonus is also a bit of an advantage to a team if they exist .. At the trade deadline if the player in question here will not achieve that bonus $$, then the NHL team I would guess would be able to recapture that cap space and reutilize it for the new player ..

As per Bob McKenzie though you can go over the cap in theory just your spending at the end of the year can't be more then the ceiling .. So a performance bonus would be a perfect example this situation ..

 

[Winger98]

None of the Rangers players were significant pickups? I'd contend with that one. Without Matteau would the Rags have advanced to the final?

and the Wings wouldn't have won without Larry Murphy, but at the time of the trades, neither player were "big" pickups. Matteau was, what, a 3rd or 4th liner? He came through in the clutch, but 3rd or 4th liners aren't significant trades.

 

[kdb209]

How do you know this? Other leagues classify bonuses as either likely to be earned or not. Only the ones that are likely to be earned count against the cap.

Actually, in the NFL the Not Likely To Be Earned bonuses do count against the cap - but not until the next year. The Likely to Be Earned ones count in the current year, but in case they are not achieved, the team get's a cap rebate the following season.

The NBA only counts Likely bonuses against the cap.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

After seeing some of the threads that outline the shopping sprees that some teams are going to be going on (hahahaha) I thought I would burst a hole in these balloons early. The cap is $39 million, INCLUDING bonuses and benefits. This means that any player that has substantial bonus clauses in their contracts will have that full value placed under the cap. For example, John Smith has a base salary of $6.5 million, and has bonus clauses in his salary that could add another $2 million to his earnings, that whole amount will be included under the cap. In other words, Smith's contract would cost his team $8.5 million against the cap. With each individual bonus clause a team has on the books, it shrinks the amount a team may spend in reality. So fo all you folks considering signing Lindros and Allison to $2 million contracts, laced with bonuses, this is not going to work. The economic reality of the new NHL should start to hit hard in the next 10 days.

See this is what I had heard as well, but then we see projected salaries being thrown around and Hasek is listed as a base of $3 Million - 24% rollback, but he also has numerous bonuses in his contract that could elevate his salary to $6 Million based on personal and team performance goals, so if this is the case, why do none of the lists show this?

 

[Captain Ron]

That's not the way things will work from what I have been told (sorry, no link). Teams will have to be under the cap ALL season and the average does not come into play. Teams will be monitored on a game-by-game basis and are legislated to be under the cap. Any time a team goes over the cap they will have 10 days to get under the cap, through trade or waivers, or the league will waive a player for them. Seems a little harsh, but that's what is supposed to be in the CBA and from the league meetings.

Actually Bob McKenzie stated on TSN that the cap refered to year end revenue not a game-by-game cap.

So either he was misinformed or you are.

 

[kdb209]

That's not the way things will work from what I have been told (sorry, no link). Teams will have to be under the cap ALL season and the average does not come into play. Teams will be monitored on a game-by-game basis and are legislated to be under the cap. Any time a team goes over the cap they will have 10 days to get under the cap, through trade or waivers, or the league will waive a player for them. Seems a little harsh, but that's what is supposed to be in the CBA and from the league meetings.

That contradicts what Bob McKenzie and TSN have been reporting - $39M is the aggregate spending max for the year, not a day-by-day never to exceed cap.

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.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Actually Bob McKenzie stated on TSN that the cap refered to year end revenue not a game-by-game cap.

So either he was misinformed or you are.

This information came out of a league meeting from yesterday, so there is a possibility that McKenzie is wrong. It would not be the first time, nor be the last. The CBA is a very complex document and the teams are being schooled on exactly how the league is doing things, not on one man's interpretation. So there is inded the possibility that what I have heard is wrong, but I tend to believe this source more than Bob McKenzie (and that is no slight meant to Bob McKenzie). It would make no sense for a team to be allowed to spend all year long, and be over the cap, and then dump a body or two at the trade deadline to be under. That doesn't make sense and based on what has been said by the league is not the case. We'll see how it shakes out in the next 10 days. Who knows, TSN may be wrong on something, AGAIN.

 

[Captain Ron]

This information came out of a league meeting from yesterday, so there is a possibility that McKenzie is wrong. It would not be the first time, nor be the last. The CBA is a very complex document and the teams are being schooled on exactly how the league is doing things, not on one man's interpretation. So there is inded the possibility that what I have heard is wrong, but I tend to believe this source more than Bob McKenzie (and that is no slight meant to Bob McKenzie). It would make no sense for a team to be allowed to spend all year long, and be over the cap, and then dump a body or two at the trade deadline to be under. That doesn't make sense and based on what has been said by the league is not the case. We'll see how it shakes out in the next 10 days. Who knows, TSN may be wrong on something, AGAIN.

I actually prefer the be under the cap on a game by game basis. I think this prevents teams from keeping low payrolls most of the year and then beefing up at the end.

 

[Steve L*]

Over the course of a season, a team's payroll can and will fluctuate depending on player movement. As long as the weighted average at season's end is under the cap figure, no problem.

What this means is a team can be well over the cap figure but so long as their season average is under 39M, no problem.

The Trade deadline could be extremely interesting.

Example with 2 Cup contenders

1. Team A: payroll 30M before the deadline
- loads up for the playoff run and adds on say 15M in salary...
-- Season Average: 38M

2. Team B: Payroll 39M before the deadline
- cannot do much at the deadline

Result: Team A wins the Cup with talent laden team with a pile of 'guns for hire'

Moral of the Story: Leave Cap Space for a 'rainy day'

That was my thinking too, the Flyers have a very good base for the future and will make the playoffs for sure, they could sign 2 UFAs now or sign 1 now and trade for 2 big earners at the deadline.

Going into the playoffs its easy to see that they would be in a stronger position that way.

 

[missK]

A quick question, though: how many cup winners do you remember who made a significant pickup at the trade deadline, who went on to win the cup the same year?

94: rangers - Brian Noonan, Craig MacTavish, Stephane Mattaeu, Glenn Anderson
95: Devils - Neal Broten
96: Avs - Roy and Ozolinsh, but neither trade happened at the deadline.
97: wings - Larry Murphy and Thomas Sandstrom
98: Wings - Bob Rouse?, Dmitri Mironov
99: Stars - Derek Plante
00: Devils - Mogilny and Malakhov
01: Avs- Rob Blake
02: Wings- Jiri Slegr
03: Devils - Grant Marshall
04: TB - Daryl Sydor

FYI - Darryl Sydor was traded to Tampa on January 27, 2004 which is almost two months BEFORE the trade deadline.

Sydor trade Press Release

 

[bcrt2000]

Pittsburgh made quite a few deadline additions when they won their cups.. i think the biggest was ronny francis

 

[Mess]

Player bonuses to be severely restricted under new NHL pact

Globe and Mail article ..

According to several NHL team officials who are still sifting through the new agreement, players will no longer receive team bonuses, money that used to be paid out if a team recorded a specific number of wins or made the playoffs. Individual performance bonuses will be paid to players who have existing contracts (minus the 24-per-cent rollback) but players negotiating new deals will be subjected to limitations.

For example, if a player leads the league in scoring or is voted the top goaltender, he will receive a bonus payment from the NHL. The standardized bonus money would not count against the individual team's cap of $39-million (all figures U.S.) but would instead count against the league-wide cap that guarantees 54 per cent of all revenue to the players.

The value of the bonus payments has not been released but it is certain that players will have to be among the best in the league to receive any money.
"You can't be the top scorer on your team or the best defenceman to collect," one NHL source said. "Those days are gone. You have to be a high-end player."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050720.wxnhlbonuses20/BNStory/Sports/

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

"Dead cap space" makes its way to the NHL?





3rd paragraph from the bottom