Friedman: Cap to stay at around 81.5 million the next 3 years

[biotk]

The Players didn't unilaterally decide that on their own--the league agreed with them. The CBA says clearly if either the PA or NHL disagree with the default 5% escalator then they have to convene and agreed on a new %. The CBA doesn't say in the event the two can't agree then the escalator remains at 5%--it says they must agree. Therefore the default interpretation would be in the event the two parties couldn't agree that they'd take it to the arbitrator to hear their cases and make a ruling.

You can go back to the first time the escalator was not 5%. The NHL wanted it to remain 5% - they made that abundantly clear - but caved. Ever since then the NHL has put out cap projections and those have been later undermined by the NHLPA fighting for a lower escalator.

IMO the PA would have had a slam dunk win for a lower % if it ever went to the arbitrator. All they'd have to point to is the high levels of escrow they're experiencing.

In my opinion they would have almost no chance if the NHL took them to arbitration the first time because they seem to have no idea what they are talking about. Escrow is not tied to the escalator. It is tied to the cap formula that they wanted. They didn't want salaries rolled back when they went from 57% to 50% of league revenue. The NHLPA wanted the cap to be at 65M for 2013/14. In order to get there they agreed to a cap formula that they knew would lead to high escrow. Again - the escalator was, what? 1% this season. Not tied to escrow at all. And escrow was higher in the years after the CBA was signed. So higher escrow was completely fine - and preferred, until it wasn't. Following the CBA and what was previously done would have undoubtedly been the decision.

They would be laughed at arguing in front of an arbitrator. Want to lower escrow - change it to the proper formula - that is the only way it can happen. But the players won't allow that because it would lead to a salary rollback.

"The league is holding firm to its desire for a $60 million cap, down from a prorated $70.2 million this season. The league wants to protect the salary cap minimum for smaller-market teams (the floor would be $44 million), while the players would like to see the cap higher, about $65 million, to help the flood of free agents who will hit the market next summer, even though that has the potential to drive up player escrow pending revenues. The players are not seeking a cap on escrow, though."

The players got exactly what they demanded there - the cap was around 64.5M and with it they got the exact high escrow system that they demanded. Years later they tried to have it both ways by screwing over new UFAs and RFAs. They also fought for, and won, much longer contracts then the owners wanted. So they want long contracts, but then also want to pull the rug out from the teams when it comes to greater certainty over the cap numbers. Pure greed.

 

[biotk]

Based on past precedent and expected escalator usage the realistic target for the 2020-21 season cap before the shutdown would have been ~$83.5m-$84.5m. The $88m was never realistic as that would be based on the PA using the full 5% escalator, which they have declined to do for multiple seasons now.

So it would have based on following the CBA. And again, as is typical, in one response you admit that this has been the PA, while in the previous response you claim that it is both the PA and NHL.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I wonder if Hall/Pietrangelo will opt to take short term deals?

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

I wonder if Hall/Pietrangelo will opt to take short term deals?

Hall perhaps, But i doubt Pietrangelo will.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The amount of the salary cap and the fact that it has always gone up has nothing to do with escrow. Nothing at all.

To be fair ,you said what is above then this,
, escrow is not tied to the escalator , it is tied to the cap.

 

[mouser]

You can go back to the first time the escalator was not 5%. The NHL wanted it to remain 5% - they made that abundantly clear - but caved. Ever since then the NHL has put out cap projections and those have been later undermined by the NHLPA fighting for a lower escalator.



In my opinion they would have almost no chance if the NHL took them to arbitration the first time because they seem to have no idea what they are talking about. Escrow is not tied to the escalator. It is tied to the cap formula that they wanted. They didn't want salaries rolled back when they went from 57% to 50% of league revenue. The NHLPA wanted the cap to be at 65M for 2013/14. In order to get there they agreed to a cap formula that they knew would lead to high escrow. Again - the escalator was, what? 1% this season. Not tied to escrow at all. And escrow was higher in the years after the CBA was signed. So higher escrow was completely fine - and preferred, until it wasn't. Following the CBA and what was previously done would have undoubtedly been the decision.

They would be laughed at arguing in front of an arbitrator. Want to lower escrow - change it to the proper formula - that is the only way it can happen. But the players won't allow that because it would lead to a salary rollback.

"The league is holding firm to its desire for a $60 million cap, down from a prorated $70.2 million this season. The league wants to protect the salary cap minimum for smaller-market teams (the floor would be $44 million), while the players would like to see the cap higher, about $65 million, to help the flood of free agents who will hit the market next summer, even though that has the potential to drive up player escrow pending revenues. The players are not seeking a cap on escrow, though."

The players got exactly what they demanded there - the cap was around 64.5M and with it they got the exact high escrow system that they demanded. Years later they tried to have it both ways by screwing over new UFAs and RFAs. They also fought for, and won, much longer contracts then the owners wanted. So they want long contracts, but then also want to pull the rug out from the teams when it comes to greater certainty over the cap numbers. Pure greed.

Escrow is based on how much compensation is paid to the players vs how much revenue is brought in by the league. Yes, the cap formula should be tweaked. In the absence of renegotiating a major part of the CBA, it's the escalator clause that is the CBA sanctioned method for effectively adjusting the cap formula. I would point out there's nothing in the CBA preventing the implementation of a negative % for the escalator in any given year.

The idea with the 2013 CBA was the cap would be frozen at the 2011-12 level, higher then it otherwise would have been until league revenues climbed enough to justify the new cap. The expectation being there would be higher escrow in those early years, but after the league revenue increased then escrow would be back down to historical ranges. However once league revenue caught up in 2013-14 and the cap began to rise again the escrow rates actually got worse. None of us know what went on during the CBA negotiations on the cap formula, and it really doesn't serve any purpose to try to blame one party or the other. All we know is they both negotiated it together and ended up making a mistake.

The PA's argument to the arbitrator would simply be: the Escalator is the process for adjusting the cap figure up or down for the next season. In the 2005 CBA the average final escrow was 4%. We don't believe the parties intended or expected there to be annual 10%+ final escrows over the lifetime of the 2013 CBA. It is appropriate to use a lower escalator to reduce these escrow amounts.

So it would have based on following the CBA. And again, as is typical, in one response you admit that this has been the PA, while in the previous response you claim that it is both the PA and NHL.

According to reports it has been the PA objecting to using the 5%, which is why I said PA declining. However the actual final number has been negotiated and agreed upon between the PA and NHL. And like many other private negotiations we have no idea if the NHL has simply accepted the PA's recommendation for a new % or negotiated a compromise to a different %.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

 

[Big Muddy]

Based on past precedent and expected escalator usage the realistic target for the 2020-21 season cap before the shutdown would have been ~$83.5m-$84.5m. The $88m was never realistic as that would be based on the PA using the full 5% escalator, which they have declined to do for multiple seasons now.

True. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Qwijibo]

You know what isn’t mentioned on a single one of those tweets? Compliance buyouts. That’s because no one other than GM’s and fans who like to play GM wanted them.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

It’s not even reasonable to suggest compliance buyouts. These owners are losing millions in revenue from these teams. That doesn’t even include the revenue they lost from their other business ventures which is likely even more thanks to Covid. Imagine after that asking these owners to pay money to a player to cut ties so they can then put that money into someone else.

 

[Whileee]

Putting aside constraints on some fans' favorite teams, I don't see a compelling reason for compliance buyouts. It would favor a few players that want bigger deals in their desired market, but at a cost to other players who would be forced out and lose money in the process. If players want to stay with a particular team that has substantial cap constraints, they can take less money to stay, and take shorter contracts if they want to gamble on the cap increasing in a few years. If they want more money or a longer contract, then there's still a free market across the league that has enough overall cap space to accommodate them. It's up to players and their agents to make rational decisions in the current market, just as teams will have to do.

 

[LeHab]

As expected, no compliance buyouts are considered.

 

[Curufinwe]

Makes sense. They had CBOs in 2013 because the cap ceiling was going down.

 

[biotk]

The idea with the 2013 CBA was the cap would be frozen at the 2011-12 level, higher then it otherwise would have been until league revenues climbed enough to justify the new cap. The expectation being there would be higher escrow in those early years, but after the league revenue increased then escrow would be back down to historical ranges.

If this was the idea (it wasn't - this is just some fairy tale you have invented) then the NHLPA is far more stupid then I could have ever imagined. Because you would think that at bare minimum the NHLPA would have read what is clearly written in the CBA and at least somewhat understood it.

It not only would not have worked out like that - it could not work out like that. When the cap stays flat more and more teams get nearer to the cap - increasing escrow. This is simple math. The reality was that this has always been about greed and only greed. If the NHLPA wanted low escrow exiting the last CBA there was only one way to get it. Set the cap formula at a point (such as placing all teams at the cap) which would have required salary roll backs. That was and always will be a non-starter for the players. Because of that the cap was always going to be high. But the NHLPA, with most members near UFA and RFA wanted really high escrow and a high cap so that they could get large contracts signed over long contract lengths and then as soon as they got that they magically became super concerned about the escrow. Greed.

Because they set up a cap formula that must lead to high escrow that is what they have. And they could have easily changed it at any point in time - including now - but it would come with a salary roll back.

The cap for 2019/20 was set with the formula outlined in the CBA - which the players wanted - where the average team is estimated to spend 70.85M. Not a single team spent that little and the average was probably 80M (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations, but are counted as part of the players share - like non-insured portions of LTIR). That is where your escrow is - period.

That doesn't even count the upcoming travesty of a likely deal which is flat out massive theft from young and future players by current established players under contract - enabled by the NHL which will allow it to happen because they don't want to risk losing the kinds of revenues that could be at risk if they don't get the league back going (Seattle expansion and the next TV deal).

The escrow is capped at 20% for next year. With the cap remaining at 81.5, the average team will move even closer to the cap (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations) which would result in escrow of roughly 15% even if the league managed next season to generate as much money as they had projected for 2019/20 (pre-covid). But they will undoubtedly fall far short of that - probably by around 30% and without the cap on escrow it would probably end up being around 50%. The players will not be covering that money - instead it will be punted to future players.

The year after that the cap will remain at 81.5M and even with a new team coming in, the average team will still probably move even closer to the cap (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations). The escrow cap will be lower (I think they said 18%) which would mean that maybe that escrow could cover their shortfall for that season IF they generate as much revenue as they had been projecting to in 2019/20, but that is also unlikely as the economy is going to be weak for years. Again that short fall will be punted to future players.

Simple greed on a massive scale by multi-millionaires screwing over those who are younger.

 

[Golden_Jet]

If this was the idea (it wasn't - this is just some fairy tale you have invented) then the NHLPA is far more stupid then I could have ever imagined. Because you would think that at bare minimum the NHLPA would have read what is clearly written in the CBA and at least somewhat understood it.

It not only would not have worked out like that - it could not work out like that. When the cap stays flat more and more teams get nearer to the cap - increasing escrow. This is simple math. The reality was that this has always been about greed and only greed. If the NHLPA wanted low escrow exiting the last CBA there was only one way to get it. Set the cap formula at a point (such as placing all teams at the cap) which would have required salary roll backs. That was and always will be a non-starter for the players. Because of that the cap was always going to be high. But the NHLPA, with most members near UFA and RFA wanted really high escrow and a high cap so that they could get large contracts signed over long contract lengths and then as soon as they got that they magically became super concerned about the escrow. Greed.

Because they set up a cap formula that must lead to high escrow that is what they have. And they could have easily changed it at any point in time - including now - but it would come with a salary roll back.

The cap for 2019/20 was set with the formula outlined in the CBA - which the players wanted - where the average team is estimated to spend 70.85M. Not a single team spent that little and the average was probably 80M (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations, but are counted as part of the players share - like non-insured portions of LTIR). That is where your escrow is - period.

That doesn't even count the upcoming travesty of a likely deal which is flat out massive theft from young and future players by current established players under contract - enabled by the NHL which will allow it to happen because they don't want to risk losing the kinds of revenues that could be at risk if they don't get the league back going (Seattle expansion and the next TV deal).

The escrow is capped at 20% for next year. With the cap remaining at 81.5, the average team will move even closer to the cap (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations) which would result in escrow of roughly 15% even if the league managed next season to generate as much money as they had projected for 2019/20 (pre-covid). But they will undoubtedly fall far short of that - probably by around 30% and without the cap on escrow it would probably end up being around 50%. The players will not be covering that money - instead it will be punted to future players.

The year after that the cap will remain at 81.5M and even with a new team coming in, the average team will still probably move even closer to the cap (not counting other monies that are not included in the cap calculations). The escrow cap will be lower (I think they said 18%) which would mean that maybe that escrow could cover their shortfall for that season IF they generate as much revenue as they had been projecting to in 2019/20, but that is also unlikely as the economy is going to be weak for years. Again that short fall will be punted to future players.

Simple greed on a massive scale by multi-millionaires screwing over those who are younger.

Not sure they will miss the 2-3% increase, the cap would of gone up. So the get 2-3% less, not terrible considering what’s happening in the world.

 

[North Cole]

No it works out the exact same as it works out essentially the exact same as now, but managing the units is much, much easier because you don't have to guess how many will there 3 years down the road.

Sure but then you also can't sign UFAs ever, unless you offload cap units because your current roster just keeps floating up to the maximum salary every year, as the % allocation of units remains unchanged. Also much more difficult to take into consideration ELC performance bonuses, and the movement of players up or down between leagues.

Teams can add players because they get a little more cap room each year, if you dole out 95% of your cap in units, then the only turnover happens as contracts fall off. Even more restrictive than the current situation.

Under the current system if someone, say, signed a deal 5 years ago for 5M x 5 back when the cap was say 70M it would have been about 7.1% of the cap when signed and down to 6.1% now when it is expiring. If they sign a new contract for 5 years x 7M then that new contract would cost 8.6% of cap now and might be projected to cost 7.8% at the end of the contract when the cap might be 90M (we will pretend the pandemic doesn't exist for this scenario).

Under my system 5 years ago they would have signed for 6.5% of the cap (which would have been about 4.6M in year one and 5.3M in year 5) and then signed this summer for another 5 years at 8% of the cap. Under normal circumstances it works out essentially the exact same, but there are a couple differences:

If they are signing for the same dollar value in year 1 under both systems, with the same cap, how do you calculate a different % of the cap? 5million is still 7.1% of 70M whether its in $ or units.

1) My system seamlessly deals with large increases or decreases in HRR.
2) Under the current system, teams generally suffer during the beginning years of a major player contract because both sides need to adjust their contract upwards to deal with the expected increase in HRR. In mine they would not have too. Teams don't suffer at any point during the contract because they know exactly what percentage of the cap each player is going to take up for the length of each players contract.

It might deal with large increases or decreases, but it just introduces more complexity and uncertainty for the parties involved. Just because they know how much the % is, doesn't mean they know how much they are going to spend. Cash burn and FCF are pretty important financial measures in a business, which you pretty much eliminate by moving their payroll (biggest expense) to a percentage system. Have you ever seen a statement of cash flows as a %? I haven't, it's always in dollar amounts.

I don't see why the players would sign on for that either, escrow can be uncertain, but at least the real $ value is fixed to a degree each year. Now they would have to calculate the real $ year over year which floats with the cap, and adjust for escrow, which is also floating. Agent/Accounting fees going up! Not good from a tax planning perspective...

I guess your method adjusts salaries for inflation, which is a bonus, but not that enticing at their income level.

You will notice that over the 10 year length of the made up player he went from 7.1% to 6.1% during the first contract and then from 8.6% to 7.8% during the second. There was a jump from 6.1% to 8.6% with the new contract. With my system they went from 6.5% for the first contract to 8% for the second contract - a much smaller jump - because again projecting league HRR growth is not a factor.

System doesn't solve the UFA problem that you seem to think exists in the current model, because it effectively freezes rosters. Unless you believe teams would change their spending habits, I don't. A GM who blows his full cap bank account is going to blow the full cap % account too. Doubt many GM's would want to retain salary anymore, if you are "loaning" cap units, can the other team spend them, and get more players?

It seems to over-complicate the system with little benefit IMO. Salaries will float to the upper threshold, and escrow will still exist, since the players pay escrow on amounts over the midpoint. Having a unit based system doesn't move the midpoint and if the static salaries keep moving up with HRR every year, then escrow just punches them down again. Might even be worse since a team can currently choose not to take on more salary each year.

Edit - this really just seems like a salary roll back/forward tool, which they already have with escrow.

 

[biotk]

Not sure they will miss the 2-3% increase, the cap would of gone up. So the get 2-3% less, not terrible considering what’s happening in the world.

50/50 revenue split. Increase the cap by 2-3%. Increase the escrow cap by the same amount. UFAs and RFAs don't get completely screwed over. Players currently contract don't get to shift quite as much of the losses to others as they are currently doing.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Pietrangelo and Dadonov, come to NJ!

 

[Legion34]

I never thought that they would do compliance buyouts. Adding more money to the system like that makes no sense.


I don’t see how there wouldn’t be some sort of balancing remedies in the PA.

how can half the league just get these big contracts and huge bonuses and the other half just get squeezed......


Teams that have cap trouble wouldn’t be able to pay players due to cap

Teams that are broke won’t be able to pay players.

it will be haves and have nots.

the PA would be insane.

 

[biotk]

Sure but then you also can't sign UFAs ever, unless you offload cap units because your current roster just keeps floating up to the maximum salary every year, as the % allocation of units remains unchanged. Also much more difficult to take into consideration ELC performance bonuses, and the movement of players up or down between leagues.

This is not what happens at all. It works out the same. You can easily model it.

If they are signing for the same dollar value in year 1 under both systems

They wouldn't be. Currently when a player signs an 8 year contract they estimate what the cap is going to be in 8 years and factor that in. So idea under the current system that their cap hit is too high for year one which is tough on the team and then too low in the final year which is good for the team. The middle years (4 and 5 in this case) are where the cap hit is designed to be just right if their future cap projections end up being correct. In the unit system players and teams would be negotiating for that sweet spot to occur across contract length.

System doesn't solve the UFA problem that you seem to think exists in the current model, because it effectively freezes rosters.

It doesn't. You simply don't understand it.

Currently if a player signed a contract for 6 years at 6.43M in 2013 then it was 10% of the cap in 2013, but by the time the cap expired in the summer of 2019 that 6.43 was now only 7.9% of the cap. Over the 6 years it averaged 9% of the cap, but while when the player signed that amount of money was 10% of the cap, a player signing the exact same contract in 2019 would be signing for only 7.9% of the cap - a 21% decrease in pay. That is why the cap needs to continually increase with revenue - which it has by 21% in this case - so that it can make up for that shortfall - which in this case is about 1.7M.

Under my system the same player would sign a contract for 6 years at 9% of the cap in 2013. When that contract ends 9% is freed up. It works out exactly the same. In the first case the player signed for 10% of the cap in 2013 and when the contract ended it freed up 7.9% of the cap, which was supplemented by a 21% increase in the cap over those 6 years. They both result in the exact same thing, but with small differences - in the current system the player costs more against the cap early in the contract and less against cap in the final years. In my system they cost the same % against the cap in all years. In the current system the GM needs to hope that the cap goes up as much as projected or else they have over-paid the player based on their expected value. If the cap goes up more than expected then they have under-paid the player based on expected value. In my system whether they over or under pay a player is based solely on the teams' ability to assess the player. In the current system UFAs and RFAs have their pay prospects based largely on how much the cap is raised that summer.

Unless you believe teams would change their spending habits, I don't. A GM who blows his full cap bank account is going to blow the full cap % account too. Doubt many GM's would want to retain salary anymore, if you are "loaning" cap units, can the other team spend them, and get more players?

This is completely irrelevant. Under the current system GMs spend to the cap. Their contracts leaving the system are worth less than they were when they were signed because the cap has gone up. So usually a cap team might have 16% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 20% of the cap at the time they were signed. They make up for that additional 20% through the cap rising over the length of those contracts. Under my system the same cap team would have the 1*% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 18% of the cap at the time they were signed. There is no difference.

It seems to over-complicate the system with little benefit IMO. Salaries will float to the upper threshold, and escrow will still exist, since the players pay escrow on amounts over the midpoint. Having a unit based system doesn't move the midpoint and if the static salaries keep moving up with HRR every year, then escrow just punches them down again. Might even be worse since a team can currently choose not to take on more salary each year.

You have done a whole of talking based on knowing nothing about the system I outlined and being completely wrong about every single thing you have said about it.

 

[korrowan]

This may help the royally screwed by the 'lottery' Red Wings.

 

[Golden_Jet]

This is not what happens at all. It works out the same. You can easily model it.



They wouldn't be. Currently when a player signs an 8 year contract they estimate what the cap is going to be in 8 years and factor that in. So idea under the current system that their cap hit is too high for year one which is tough on the team and then too low in the final year which is good for the team. The middle years (4 and 5 in this case) are where the cap hit is designed to be just right if their future cap projections end up being correct. In the unit system players and teams would be negotiating for that sweet spot to occur across contract length.



It doesn't. You simply don't understand it.

Currently if a player signed a contract for 6 years at 6.43M in 2013 then it was 10% of the cap in 2013, but by the time the cap expired in the summer of 2019 that 6.43 was now only 7.9% of the cap. Over the 6 years it averaged 9% of the cap, but while when the player signed that amount of money was 10% of the cap, a player signing the exact same contract in 2019 would be signing for only 7.9% of the cap - a 21% decrease in pay. That is why the cap needs to continually increase with revenue - which it has by 21% in this case - so that it can make up for that shortfall - which in this case is about 1.7M.

Under my system the same player would sign a contract for 6 years at 9% of the cap in 2013. When that contract ends 9% is freed up. It works out exactly the same. In the first case the player signed for 10% of the cap in 2013 and when the contract ended it freed up 7.9% of the cap, which was supplemented by a 21% increase in the cap over those 6 years. They both result in the exact same thing, but with small differences - in the current system the player costs more against the cap early in the contract and less against cap in the final years. In my system they cost the same % against the cap in all years. In the current system the GM needs to hope that the cap goes up as much as projected or else they have over-paid the player based on their expected value. If the cap goes up more than expected then they have under-paid the player based on expected value. In my system whether they over or under pay a player is based solely on the teams' ability to assess the player. In the current system UFAs and RFAs have their pay prospects based largely on how much the cap is raised that summer.



This is completely irrelevant. Under the current system GMs spend to the cap. Their contracts leaving the system are worth less than they were when they were signed because the cap has gone up. So usually a cap team might have 16% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 20% of the cap at the time they were signed. They make up for that additional 20% through the cap rising over the length of those contracts. Under my system the same cap team would have the 1*% of their cap coming free based on contracts that were worth 18% of the cap at the time they were signed. There is no difference.



You have done a whole of talking based on knowing nothing about the system I outlined and being completely wrong about every single thing you have said about it.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

So if HRR goes down like over the next few years, players would have a rollback of salaries?

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

This may help the royally screwed by the 'lottery' Red Wings.

Most definitely.

 

[biotk]

So if HRR goes down like over the next few years, players would have a rollback of salaries?

Under my system players would not have designated salaries (which they don't under the current system - as per escrow). If your share of the total players' salaries would entitle you to, say 8M, if the HRR was the equivalent of say what it was for 2018/19 and then HRR fell by 30% the next year your compensation would fall by 30% to 5.6M. If instead HRR increased by 20% one season because of a new TV deal then your compensation for that season would also rise by 20%. This assumes that you are under a contract which extends throughout those years.

The same thing should be happening with the NHL under the current system. As per their CBA if they estimate that HRR should fall by an additonal 30% next season then players compensation should be dropping by that much (which does not necessitate a rollback of salaries as uncapped escrow - which they had in 2013/14 - would take care of it) that is on top of the escrow% for this season, which is why they were saying that without a deal that the players could lose 50% next year. That is the way it should be. The deal is just pushing those currently accrued shortfalls onto players under contract in future years instead of the players under contract when those shortfalls occurs - as is supposed to happen.

In reality what is happening is that there is a large current shortfall. Players under contract said we don't want to pay our share of that shortfall (to get us to the 50/50 split) and because the next TV contract is supposed to provide a big boost to players starting 2 years down the road. You can give us more than our share now (more than the 50/50 split) and then have that repaid to you later when the big tv contract is in place (less than 50/50 split until the money owed is repaid). But on top of that because the cap is flat and will be for years the players under contract now are not even sharing it with the current UFAs and RFAs who will be scrounging for contracts far below what they otherwise would have been.

Mitch Marner, for instance, with a heavily front loaded contract that has him down for 16M next season would have been losing around 8M for that season, but now it will only be around 3.2M because they have capped escrow next season. That shortfall will paid off by players 3 - 5 years down the road. Now Marner will still be under contract then, but because the contract was front loaded he is only making 8M in the later years. If they are paying 20% at that time to return this shortfall then Marner saved 4.8 in 2020/21 and probably saved another 3+M in 2021/22 and then during the payback in 2022/23 - 2024/25 would have to pay back say 1.6, 1.2 and 0.8 for those three years. He gained over 4M - but that was taken from other players - in the future. And players who retire over the course of those 2 seasons make out even better - keeping money they should have had to pay, and instead having future players "repay" that money to the owners for them - which is completely asinine.

Quinn Hughes on the other hand would be making around 1M next year, so he will be losing around 200K now instead of 500K. But a few years down the road when he is signed to a (guess?) 7M contract (which will be lower than it should be because of the flat cap - costing him millions) but then he will also be paying, say 20%, to re-pay back the shortage that accrued in 2020/21 and probably 2021/22 then he is also paying say 1.4M in 2022/23 and around another 1.4M over the following two seasons. So Hughes loses over 2M (on top of getting a lower second contract due to the flat cap which will also cost him millions).

 

[Qwijibo]

I never thought that they would do compliance buyouts. Adding more money to the system like that makes no sense.


I don’t see how there wouldn’t be some sort of balancing remedies in the PA.

how can half the league just get these big contracts and huge bonuses and the other half just get squeezed......


Teams that have cap trouble wouldn’t be able to pay players due to cap

Teams that are broke won’t be able to pay players.

it will be haves and have nots.

the PA would be insane.

You are literally the only one I’ve seen proclaiming teams are broke and can’t pay their players. I’ve yet to see a single hockey pundit mention it.