Something people have missed in LA Times Report

[Ted Hoffman]

Times reported $37 million hard salary cap, 20% would be $7.4 million.

The following players after 24% rollback make more than $7.4 million
Jaromir Jagr - $8.36 million
Keith Tkachuk - $7.6
Alexei Yashin - $7.6
Niklas Lidstrom - $7.6

Rangers would be saved by Washington taking on $4 million of Jagr's salary cap hit. The Blues are expected to buyout Tkachuk and Doug Weight to have a clean slate financially with the cap.

I'm not trying to be an antagonist here, but why is it that when "salary cap" and "buyout" come up in the same breath, comments about the Blues buying out Weight, Tkachuk, Pronger, Demitra, Gary Unger, Barclay Plager, Philippe Bozon, .... come out more than comments about all the other teams buying out players combined (with the possible exception of Toronto) ??? Are the Blues backed into a corner b/c of their contracts with Weight and Tkachuk? Sure they are...but are you trying to tell me that the Blues are the only team facing this situation? I doubt it. Even if they are, everyone is saying that "salary cap" implies "buyout" and that implies that X player *will* be bought out. That's not necessarily true - it might make sense to do that, but as we've seen over the years...what a team should do and what a team does do are usually 2 different things.

I'll put $10 down that when it's all said and done, at least 3 other teams buy out more contracts than the Blues. I'll put another $10 down that the Blues don't buy out both Weight and Tkachuk outright - they may buy out one but will restructure the contract for the other. I don't mind the speculation on who buys what players out....but PLEASE - quit acting like it's the Blues who are going to be the ones benefiting from this option the most. If there weren't other teams who were going to benefit, this option wouldn't even be mentioned when details of the possible new CBA are discussed.

As I've said many times now....how 'bout we (gasp!) wait for the CBA to be agreed upon, ratified by the NHLPA, and then find out what the details are before we start rampant uninformed speculation about what every team is going to do?

 

[me2]

Ah more Weary absurdities. We missed you. The current system ensures that a "moronic" owner will overspend on the wrong type of player and his team will do poorly. This is an improvement over before (your favorite time) when a "moronic" owner could just grab every high salary UFA and every player on a team that can't afford them he wanted.

You're not still pushing your tinfoil hat interpretation of Bettman's words from a few weeks ago, are you? The one where you declared that his intention was to cause 100% player turnover every year?

It sounds a bit like it is designed to help stop teams from massively front loading contracts. So NYR won't be able offer $14m to Sakic and have Colorado not match because they have no cap space left (or Federov & Carolina). The most NYR/Car could offer would be $7.4m in any year.

If your team had Crosby you'd hate to lose him to some other team that offered him $21m, $1m, $1m, $2m because the other team tanked with the intention of getting a top draft pick and then poaching Crosby. Especially annoying if your team has allocated $7m or so for each of those 4 years.

 

[dedalus]

I don't mind the speculation on who buys what players out....but PLEASE - quit acting like it's the Blues who are going to be the ones benefiting from this option the most. If there weren't other teams who were going to benefit, this option wouldn't even be mentioned when details of the possible new CBA are discussed.

We can certainly expect the Flyers (LeClair? Amonte? Roenick?) and Rangers (Holik? Jagr? Kasperaitus?) to have major buyouts in order to clear space.

 

[GSC2k2*]

You're not still pushing your tinfoil hat interpretation of Bettman's words from a few weeks ago, are you? The one where you declared that his intention was to cause 100% player turnover every year?

What were those words, ike?

 

[Weary]

What were those words, ike?

Bettman's statements about one of the reasons for the lockout was to make sure every team could compete for the Cup every year.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Bettman's statements about one of the reasons for the lockout was to make sure every team could compete for the Cup every year.

Not to rehash things, but how did that lead to a declaration of an intention to create 100% player turnover?

 

[Weary]

Not to rehash things, but how did that lead to a declaration of an intention to create 100% player turnover?

It didn't. That was a bit of hyperbole on Ike's part. I just said that the only way Bettman could achieve his goal was with extensive player turnover.

 

[Mess]

It didn't. That was a bit of hyperbole on Ike's part. I just said that the only way Bettman could achieve his goal was with extensive player turnover.

The latest TSN article is really supporting your turnover compromise theory in fact ..

"The age of unrestricted free agency will remain 31 this summer but will gradually be brought down to 27 or 28 by the 2008."

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=129964

The more that Bettman adds to the CBA to enforse partity the lower the UFA goes ..

27 years old as a possibility is fairly significant drop from any previous system. The Sportsnet panel was discussing the 6-7 years of service to a team concept.. Drafted at 18, usally making their ELS start at around 20-21 and thus the 6-7 years of service.

Even with the low limits on ELS .. Players like Crosby and Ovechkin know if they are free at 27-28 then they will make the bulk of the money they hope to get at the end..

 

[Boltsfan2029]

It sounds a bit like it is designed to help stop teams from massively front loading contracts. So NYR won't be able offer $14m to Sakic and have Colorado not match because they have no cap space left (or Federov & Carolina). The most NYR/Car could offer would be $7.4m in any year.

If your team had Crosby you'd hate to lose him to some other team that offered him $21m, $1m, $1m, $2m because the other team tanked with the intention of getting a top draft pick and then poaching Crosby. Especially annoying if your team has allocated $7m or so for each of those 4 years.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Using logic and thoughtfulness in analzying part of the CBA? Shame on you.

 

[Ratfinklives]

I'm not trying to be an antagonist here, but why is it that when "salary cap" and "buyout" come up in the same breath, comments about the Blues buying out Weight, Tkachuk, Pronger, Demitra, Gary Unger, Barclay Plager, Philippe Bozon, .... come out more than comments about all the other teams buying out players combined (with the possible exception of Toronto) ??? Are the Blues backed into a corner b/c of their contracts with Weight and Tkachuk? Sure they are...but are you trying to tell me that the Blues are the only team facing this situation? I doubt it. Even if they are, everyone is saying that "salary cap" implies "buyout" and that implies that X player *will* be bought out. That's not necessarily true - it might make sense to do that, but as we've seen over the years...what a team should do and what a team does do are usually 2 different things.

I'll put $10 down that when it's all said and done, at least 3 other teams buy out more contracts than the Blues. I'll put another $10 down that the Blues don't buy out both Weight and Tkachuk outright - they may buy out one but will restructure the contract for the other. I don't mind the speculation on who buys what players out....but PLEASE - quit acting like it's the Blues who are going to be the ones benefiting from this option the most. If there weren't other teams who were going to benefit, this option wouldn't even be mentioned when details of the possible new CBA are discussed.

As I've said many times now....how 'bout we (gasp!) wait for the CBA to be agreed upon, ratified by the NHLPA, and then find out what the details are before we start rampant uninformed speculation about what every team is going to do?

A bit defensive are we? No one said anything about only the blues buying out contracts. They are just one of the teams with a player making over 10 mil who would run into a problem with the 20 % thing like was suggested in the post.

No need to get all defensive, obviously other teams are going to buy out players.

 

[Hawker14]

i would have liked to seen the max player salary be 10% of a team's payroll ( ie. 2.2-3.7 million etc. depending on payroll).

20% of a team's payroll is still very high for one player. i can see owners getting into trouble again by offering salaries this high.

 

[Resolute]

i would have liked to seen the max player salary be 10% of a team's payroll ( ie. 2.2-3.7 million etc. depending on payroll).

20% of a team's payroll is still very high for one player. i can see owners getting into trouble again by offering salaries this high.

10% is unreasonably low.

How exactly can the owners get in trouble again with a hard cap on individual and team salaries, as well as a linked cap?