Cap Scenario Question ... How Would This Work?

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You are an NHL GM.
You've got a bunch UFAs and RFAs you want to keep, plus you've already got a ton of money tied up in players for next season.
So you've got 12 Million to play with.
You sign all of your UFAs and most of you're RFA's, but now you've only got $400,000 left and your RFA is a 25-year-old kid who just scored 28 goals and 30 assists.
What happens?
Not even getting into qualifying offers.

Is that guy still a restricted free agent if you can't sign him?

I guess it comes down to qualifying offers. However that may work.

But what if you've already met the qualifying offer (he was already making $400,000 a year and you don't have to give him a 10 percent raise under the new CBA)

Is he stuck with you?
I mean, he can simply stay home, I guess. But if you can't go over, you can't go over right?

I'll tell you what. It's gonna take YEARS for the markets to adjust to the new CBA if there is a hard cap. Years.
The first few years are going to be interesting.

Click to read more...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Frankly a player like you suggest is not going to be hung out to dry like that. Just like right now he will become a priority to sign. The team will have a budget number placed on his services and that will be the target for his services. If he happens to come a little cheaper, then you have a few dollars left to spend. If he comes a little more expensive than you thought, then you have a decision to make and likely have to dump a player. Those players that get dumped will likely be older veterans that are easy to replace (Mike Keane, Dave Lowry, etc.) with young up and comers who are cheap and have potential to surpass the vets. Its all about decisions and making the most of your budget. I think this is going to be very interesting and will be a great water cooler subject on a daily basis.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You are an NHL GM.
You've got a bunch UFAs and RFAs you want to keep, plus you've already got a ton of money tied up in players for next season.
So you've got 12 Million to play with.
You sign all of your UFAs and most of you're RFA's, but now you've only got $400,000 left and your RFA is a 25-year-old kid who just scored 28 goals and 30 assists.
What happens?
Not even getting into qualifying offers.

Is that guy still a restricted free agent if you can't sign him?

I guess it comes down to qualifying offers. However that may work.

But what if you've already met the qualifying offer (he was already making $400,000 a year and you don't have to give him a 10 percent raise under the new CBA)

Is he stuck with you?
I mean, he can simply stay home, I guess. But if you can't go over, you can't go over right?

I'll tell you what. It's gonna take YEARS for the markets to adjust to the new CBA if there is a hard cap. Years.
The first few years are going to be interesting.

Everything will depend on how they set-up the cap, if we haev one.

Are signing bonuses spread out or just factores into the first year ???

Are contracts guarunteed ???

Is it a true hard cap ??? or are there any exceptions ???

There are a million of separate questions that need to be answered before deciding how to handle each hypothetical.

 

[SuperUnknown]

That's how the system works. If you offer the qualifying offer, a player is stuck with you. I don't see what's the difference with situations in the current system. To be responsible owners, the teams should never pay more than the qualifying offer regardless of the players performance (current system).

 

[PecaFan]

You are an NHL GM.
You've got a bunch UFAs and RFAs you want to keep, plus you've already got a ton of money tied up in players for next season.
So you've got 12 Million to play with.
You sign all of your UFAs and most of you're RFA's, but now you've only got $400,000 left and your RFA is a 25-year-old kid who just scored 28 goals and 30 assists.
Is that guy still a restricted free agent if you can't sign him?

That's pretty much your textbook example of poor cap management. Signing guys without having room for them, non-prioritising the signing order, you name it. I'd say basically this is a team that just went over the cap, and will be paying penalties.

 

[me2]

That's pretty much your textbook example of poor cap management. Signing guys without having room for them, non-prioritising the signing order, you name it. I'd say basically this is a team that just went over the cap, and will be paying penalties.

He who runs a smart system and drafts well will prosper.
He who prioritises re-signing overpriced UFAs will not.

Imagine that, asking a GM to manage a team and not just cheque book any problem.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

To be responsible owners, the teams should never pay more than the qualifying offer regardless of the players performance (current system).

Oh, so this is the kind of NHL you want.
Guy scores 28 goals, get's paid crumbs. No way out.
And that's Responsible?

That's downright fascist.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

He who runs a smart system and drafts well will prosper.
He who prioritises re-signing overpriced UFAs will not.

Imagine that, asking a GM to manage a team and not just cheque book any problem.

Well, considering that GMs didn't fair to well.

IMO, you're going to see a lot of this in transition.

Teams that have two or three or more guys signed to long term deals, even with a rebate, are going to have a difficult time.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

He who runs a smart system and drafts well will prosper.
He who prioritises re-signing overpriced UFAs will not.

Sounds like you're describing the current system.

 

[Slats432]

You are an NHL GM.
You've got a bunch UFAs and RFAs you want to keep, plus you've already got a ton of money tied up in players for next season.
So you've got 12 Million to play with.
You sign all of your UFAs and most of you're RFA's, but now you've only got $400,000 left and your RFA is a 25-year-old kid who just scored 28 goals and 30 assists.
What happens?
Not even getting into qualifying offers.

Is that guy still a restricted free agent if you can't sign him?

I guess it comes down to qualifying offers. However that may work.

If you have a bunch of RFA and UFAs, I am sure that the 25 year old kid with 58 points is a guy that you are going to sign first, not last. A more detailed analogy is going to have to be made before this is a realistic problem.

With your analogy, some older UFA will get cut loose, not your kid.

 

[hockeytown9321]

That's pretty much your textbook example of poor cap management. Signing guys without having room for them, non-prioritising the signing order, you name it. I'd say basically this is a team that just went over the cap, and will be paying penalties.

What about a situation where a team like Detroit drafts Lidstrom and Fedorov? Lets say they both become RFA's the same year, but Detroit only has the cap room to sign one. Both are just hitting their prime. Who should they sign?

I guess my point is that its not only poorly managed teams that would have cap trouble.

 

[Morbo]

Oh, so this is the kind of NHL you want.
Guy scores 28 goals, get's paid crumbs. No way out.
And that's Responsible?

That's downright fascist.

Yeah, but that's "winning with brains under the cap", right?

They'll find out what that's all about when the cap is actually in place.

 

[SENSible1*]

Yeah, but that's "winning with brains under the cap", right?

They'll find out what that's all about when the cap is actually in place.

Looks like some big market teams are a little worried about their team's ability to match up.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Looks like some big market teams are a little worried about their team's ability to match up.

Not likely.
Fans of some big market teams pay more for tickets and other items. We've been supporting the Red Wings in Detroit, and we've been rewarded with high-flying teams.
Now we're going to be on the same playing field some of these minor league markets in the NHL.

I agree that salaries are out of control.

But I can't believe how many people have the attitude that every team should have the same financial ability to put a team together.
Sorry dude, but get the Nashville fans to pay Detroit prices. Get the Carolina fans to pay Detroit prices if you want the players Detroit has.

Unbelievable.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What about a situation where a team like Detroit drafts Lidstrom and Fedorov? Lets say they both become RFA's the same year, but Detroit only has the cap room to sign one. Both are just hitting their prime. Who should they sign?

I guess my point is that its not only poorly managed teams that would have cap trouble.

There is no way Detroit could have kept Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Kozlov et al on their roster.
It would have been impossible with a hard cap.

 

[PecaFan]

What about a situation where a team like Detroit drafts Lidstrom and Fedorov? Lets say they both become RFA's the same year, but Detroit only has the cap room to sign one. Both are just hitting their prime. Who should they sign?

I guess my point is that its not only poorly managed teams that would have cap trouble.

If they run into this problem, it *was* poor cap management. They knew guys were coming up for re-signing, but didn't make room for it. They're spending too much money on the lesser players.

But all is not lost, they can still sign them both if they want to. They can make cap room by trading someone. They can structure the contracts with deferred money or signing bonuses, etc, depending on how the cap rules are set up. They can tell both of them, if you want this team to stay together and win, you'll each have to sacrifice.

It's a myth that the only way of dealing with a cap is just let all your best players you want to keep walk.

And by the way, in the *real* world, most teams have been having to make this kind of decision for years now. So your argument basically sums up to "See how terrible it would be if Detroit had to worry about the same things as Vancouver, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, etc?"

 

[me2]

Sounds like you're describing the current system.

Some teams still prioritise overpriced UFAs and do very well for themselves. Some don't. A lot more GMing and a lot less buying will be a shock for some of these.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Some teams still prioritise overpriced UFAs and do very well for themselves.

Name me one team that does that, and is successful.

 

[PecaFan]

I think Detroit is a decent example, a team that hadn't won the Cup in several years, so went out and bought Hull and Hasek, and won the Cup.

Colorado is a good example as well, with guys like Bourque and Blake etc. Yes, they traded for them a couple of months early, but they were still guys that were going to be unrestricted free agents in a few days or weeks when they signed them.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I think Detroit is a decent example, a team that hadn't won the Cup in several years, so went out and bought Hull and Hasek, and won the Cup.

Colorado is a good example as well, with guys like Bourque and Blake etc. Yes, they traded for them a couple of months early, but they were still guys that were going to be unrestricted free agents in a few days or weeks when they signed them.

That's one way to look at it.
Another way is this:
Buffalo no longer was a contender. Hasek wasn't happy and he was expensive. The whole league knew Hasek was on the block.
Detroit sent Kozlov and a 1st to Buffalo. Not much for a hall of fame goalie. But then again, considering Buffalo's leverage, it wasn't bad.
Apparently, St; Louis made a better offer. But Hasek wanted Detroit. So Buffalo's hands were tied.


As for Hull, if I remember correctly, he was a UFA. Nobody other than Montreal showed any real interest in the hall of famer.
Detroit signed him very late in the summer, I believe.
And he signed for $4 Million a year, I think. Which is a bargain for a UFA 30 goal scorer.

I have a question:
What the hell are all the incompetent GMs in the league going to do when a salary cap prevents them from shipping off overpaid busts to big-market teams?

 

[me2]

I think Detroit is a decent example, a team that hadn't won the Cup in several years, so went out and bought Hull and Hasek, and won the Cup.

Colorado is a good example as well, with guys like Bourque and Blake etc. Yes, they traded for them a couple of months early, but they were still guys that were going to be unrestricted free agents in a few days or weeks when they signed them.

While they didn't win the cup every year, they were mildly successful

2001-02 won Div, conference,presidents trophy

2002-03 won Div, lost conference by 1 point despite 2 more wins than Dallas (3rd in NHL)

2003-04 won Div, conference,presidents trophy