Salary Cap: The Impending Cap Ceiling Issue

[The Jones Zone]

what the heck is the escalator

 

[EspenK]

what the heck is the escalator

too easy.

 

[EspenK]

Seriously it is the players right to force the cap to rise by 5%.

 

[Viqsi]

Seriously it is the players right to force the cap to rise by 5%.

Sort of. 5% of player's pay automatically goes into escrow in case NHL revenues don't end up the way they should (that way it stays at 50% one way or the other), and the players can opt to say "meh, keep it" to boost the cap the following year. I don't think they've ever opted not to do so.

 

[EspenK]

With the Prout extension and Jones at 4 and Karlsson at 1.2 that puts us at 73.4 for next season assuming Boll,Tyutin and Campbell aren't bought out.

Jackets must be pretty sure of some of these:
a) the players will elect the escalator
b) this team is a hell of a lot better than this year's performance
c) there is a bunch of money for buyouts
d) someone is dying to trade for Tyutin.
e) Werenski is not ready for the NHL
f) they're going to trade Bob

HTF a bottom feeder locks up the same roster essentially to the cap before this season even ends is way beyond my powers of comprehension.

 

[Viqsi]

With the Prout extension and Jones at 4 and Karlsson at 1.2 that puts us at 73.4 for next season assuming Boll,Tyutin and Campbell aren't bought out.

Jackets must be pretty sure of some of these:
a) the players will elect the escalator
b) this team is a hell of a lot better than this year's performance
c) there is a bunch of money for buyouts
d) someone is dying to trade for Tyutin.
e) Werenski is not ready for the NHL
f) they're going to trade Bob

HTF a bottom feeder locks up the same roster essentially to the cap before this season even ends is way beyond my powers of comprehension.

I'm curious as to what you think the viable alternatives were/are.

 

[EspenK]

I'm curious as to what you think the viable alternatives were/are.

Well not re-signing Prout was one. Scratch that.

Other viable alternatives that can be achieved are outlined in my post on another thread quoted here for your convenience:

So now that it the team is essentially re-signed for next year presuming Jones and Karlsson are going to be what do you think should happen to make improvements/changes?

First thing I'd do is commit to burying Boll & Campbell in the AHL. Won't save any money but will buy almost 2 mill of cap.

Second I'd either trade Tyutin for whatever I could get (even retaining some if I had to) preferably a prospect and a pick to keep the cap hit down or buy him out.

Commit to Bjorkstrand, Rychel & Anderson to fill out the forward ranks and either go with 13 or add a depth FA for a mill or so.

Use cap savings to try and lock Jones up on a 6X6

Think about a trade with very few untradeables - Jones, Murray,Jenner are the only ones I wouldn't trade barring an unbelievable return. The rest I'd have no qualms about trading for an equal return.

I don't feel very optimistic about next season if we go with the status quo. Something has to change. Heck, even if we won the first 8 we'd still be a point out everything else being equal (which I realize probably wouldn't be).

Thinking ahead a bit when re-signing Savard for 4.5 might have helped.

I have said before that I don't have many problems with each individual deal but collectively I thought we were heading for salary cap problems. Still do. I didn't think re-signing Foligno was a good idea before last season then I got caught up in the emotion of last season and was okay with it but now I think it is for too much, too long and too restrictive. Hindsight eh?

I know the Jackets are in somewhat of a bind especially if this expansion draft/NMC thing is not resolved on somewhat favorable terms and are probably completely jammed up if the players don't make the escalator happen.

 

[Viqsi]

Well not re-signing Prout was one. Scratch that.

No, no, no, no, NO. I'm not talking about who you get rid of, I'm talking about who you bring in instead. You can't just vote folks off the island without a plan for their replacements.

This is why I see little or no value in preemptively buying out or burying Boll and Campbell - because all that gets us is NHL Minimum room for bringing in replacement fourth-liners, and that's not going to buy you an improvement of any real significance. Burying them in favor of kids who are ready to move up is one thing; saying "just get rid of them and we'll figure out later" is an effective way to fail.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

No, no, no, no, NO. I'm not talking about who you get rid of, I'm talking about who you bring in instead. You can't just vote folks off the island without a plan for their replacements.

This is why I see little or no value in preemptively buying out or burying Boll and Campbell - because all that gets us is NHL Minimum room for bringing in replacement fourth-liners, and that's not going to buy you an improvement of any real significance. Burying them in favor of kids who are ready to move up is one thing; saying "just get rid of them and we'll figure out later" is an effective way to fail.

I believe there is no real wiggle room, barring a trade. Dumping 4th liners just means signing some new league minimum 4th liners. The team's best chance for minor change is if one or two of the prospects improves so much over the summer that they force the team's hand by being so good they simply must be kept with the big club.

Now if Jarmo wants to reset the clock he could do something weird like Murray plus Tyutin for Nugent-Hopkins or some other silliness like that.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

No, no, no, no, NO. I'm not talking about who you get rid of, I'm talking about who you bring in instead. You can't just vote folks off the island without a plan for their replacements.

Can't tell you what plans are for replacing Prout. I don't yet know who will be/become available. But now it's a moot point, isn't it? If you wait to resign Prout, you may get a clearer picture of what kind of roster movement might be available.

This is why I see little or no value in preemptively buying out or burying Boll and Campbell - because all that gets us is NHL Minimum room for bringing in replacement fourth-liners, and that's not going to buy you an improvement of any real significance. Burying them in favor of kids who are ready to move up is one thing; saying "just get rid of them and we'll figure out later" is an effective way to fail.

You think we even need to use the NHL vet minimum for players to replace those two?

 

[Viqsi]

Can't tell you what plans are for replacing Prout. I don't yet know who will be/become available. But now it's a moot point, isn't it? If you wait to resign Prout, you may get a clearer picture of what kind of roster movement might be available.

The UFA market doesn't exactly look promising to me. If it turns out I've misjudged that (and we'll know in July), then, yeah, I may be a tad more annoyed with this deal. I just see a market that has either guys we can't afford or guys we wouldn't want to play here and think "let's just go forward with a set plan". I'm hoping that my assessment (and, presumably, Jarmo's) is accurate. If it's not, I'll note that as a teachable moment for myself, and will continue to hope for Jarmo's departure. It's all good.

You think we even need to use the NHL vet minimum for players to replace those two?

Who else is going to be brought in that won't cost us even more?

Also, a thing to note - I said buy out or bury. If we can trade those guys and not take cap back, I'm all for it - I definitely think we can upgrade with the money that they presently make. But that trade scenario strikes me as unlikely, and buying out/burying doesn't actually get all that salary back to us, and they're paid low enough amounts that the difference is meaningful.

 

[EspenK]

No, no, no, no, NO. I'm not talking about who you get rid of, I'm talking about who you bring in instead. You can't just vote folks off the island without a plan for their replacements.

This is why I see little or no value in preemptively buying out or burying Boll and Campbell - because all that gets us is NHL Minimum room for bringing in replacement fourth-liners, and that's not going to buy you an improvement of any real significance. Burying them in favor of kids who are ready to move up is one thing; saying "just get rid of them and we'll figure out later" is an effective way to fail.

Maybe you have reading comprehension problems?

Commit to Bjorkstrand, Rychel & Anderson to fill out the forward ranks and either go with 13 or add a depth FA for a mill or so.

-what part of this don't you understand? I'll try and simplify it.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The UFA market doesn't exactly look promising to me. If it turns out I've misjudged that (and we'll know in July), then, yeah, I may be a tad more annoyed with this deal. I just see a market that has either guys we can't afford or guys we wouldn't want to play here and think "let's just go forward with a set plan". I'm hoping that my assessment (and, presumably, Jarmo's) is accurate. If it's not, I'll note that as a teachable moment for myself, and will continue to hope for Jarmo's departure. It's all good.

The bolded is the key. Why not wait? I know the answer. I just don't agree with it.

Who else is going to be brought in that won't cost us even more?

You maybe misunderstood my point. You don't have to spend any money to have better players.

 

[Viqsi]

Maybe you have reading comprehension problems?

-what part of this don't you understand? I'll try and simplify it.

And what if the kids aren't ready to take on that responsibility full-time? (For example, consider how Rychel's turned more or less invisible since rejoining LEM, per reports here.) What's the backup plan? Recall that picking up players early in a season - particularly decent quality players that can cover for developmental issues - is damn near impossible. As we have directly experienced in back to back years.

* * *​

The bolded is the key. Why not wait? I know the answer. I just don't agree with it.

Fair enough. For my part, I can't say I agree or disagree. It makes sense to me as one possibility; I'd err on the side of "let's see what happens in July first" myself, but I don't think just signing him is all that egregious.

You maybe misunderstood my point. You don't have to spend any money to have better players.

I'm still not following what you're getting at. It's not as though we can get other players for free. Unless you're also advocating for a "call up the kids, and hope that we don't need a backup plan" strategy.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I'm still not following what you're getting at. It's not as though we can get other players for free. Unless you're also advocating for a "call up the kids, and hope that we don't need a backup plan" strategy.

Replacing Campbell and Boll doesn't require a backup strategy.

 

[major major]

Campbell is a good #13 forward. I don't think he'll be as effective next year as Bjorkstrand, Rychel or Anderson, but you keep him around behind them in case they slip. It's not cost effective to bury him and pay a replacement on top of it.

Boller is replaceable by your standard call up so that's an easy buy-out.

Buying out Tyutin saves $3m total* on the contract, but I doubt we can get a D-man at 1.5 per for the next two years, who is better than Tyutin. He's been a solid third pair D for most of the year. Now, if a prospect D really is ready and costs less than that, that changes everything. But I doubt we'll see that until 2017-18.

*I'm aware that the buy-out also stretches the remaining 2/3 of Tyutins salary until 2020, so you pay 1/3 of the current annual cost each year. I think it's a bad idea to shift our financial costs into the future when we might be in a win-now mode. The only exception I would make is if a buyout is the only way to squeeze in a long term mega deal with Jones.

 

[EspenK]

Campbell is a good #13 forward. I don't think he'll be as effective next year as Bjorkstrand, Rychel or Anderson, but you keep him around behind them in case they slip. It's not cost effective to bury him and pay a replacement on top of it.

Boller is replaceable by your standard call up so that's an easy buy-out.

Buying out Tyutin saves $3m total* on the contract, but I doubt we can get a D-man at 1.5 per for the next two years, who is better than Tyutin. He's been a solid third pair D for most of the year. Now, if a prospect D really is ready and costs less than that, that changes everything. But I doubt we'll see that until 2017-18.

*I'm aware that the buy-out also stretches the remaining 2/3 of Tyutins salary until 2020, so you pay 1/3 of the current annual cost each year. I think it's a bad idea to shift our financial costs into the future when we might be in a win-now mode. The only exception I would make is if a buyout is the only way to squeeze in a long term mega deal with Jones.

Only way it happens barring a big trade that reduces salary or we trade Tyutin and retain some $. As way it stands now if all signed come back its 4 mill per year max for Jones.

 

[EspenK]

And what if the kids aren't ready to take on that responsibility full-time? (For example, consider how Rychel's turned more or less invisible since rejoining LEM, per reports here.) What's the backup plan? Recall that picking up players early in a season - particularly decent quality players that can cover for developmental issues - is damn near impossible. As we have directly experienced in back to back years.

You asked what I'd do I told you. I don't believe we will be any worse with the kids than with Boll, Campbell & Tyutin.

 

[BluejacketNut]

Someone please take the pen away from JK, he's a terrible GM. Send him back on the road where his only value is. You should not be allowed to sign anymore contracts when youre a cap team and 3 points from dead last

 

[Viqsi]

You asked what I'd do I told you. I don't believe we will be any worse with the kids than with Boll, Campbell & Tyutin.

Yes, but kids' development can be ruined, whereas Campbell and Boll don't have to worry about that.

 

[blahblah]

Well replacing Campbell with Chaput would be a pretty easy decision - that's one. Hell Boll has been healthy scratched on a regular basis. Is there really a debate here? The only one to give thought to is Tyutin and, to be honest, he's lost a step or three. If you can get rid of that contract before more of a decline, that would be a pretty good decision even if it hurts the team in the short term.

 

[major major]

Well replacing Campbell with Chaput would be a pretty easy decision - that's one. Hell Boll has been healthy scratched on a regular basis. Is there really a debate here? The only one to give thought to is Tyutin and, to be honest, he's lost a step or three. If you can get rid of that contract before more of a decline, that would be a pretty good decision even if it hurts the team in the short term.

I opposed the Campbell signing from the start because he's not a good 4th line center anymore, and Chaput can do that job for half the price. But Chaput isn't good at it either, IMO. He frequently can't make a pass or handle a pass.

We'd be significantly better if we ran Calvert-Karlsson-Anderson as a 4th line.

Campbell should be kept for the last year as a 13th forward. We can't put a young player in that role and it wouldn't be cost effective to bury Campbell and pay someone else to do the same #13/14 job.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We'd be significantly better if we ran Calvert-Karlsson-Anderson as a 4th line.

This, exactly, is the fourth line I've been pondering through this discussion about "replacing" Campbell and Boll.

 

[DarkandStormy]

The team already has nearly $68 million in committed cap hits for next season. That gives them $6 million to re-sign Jones, Karlsson, and make any moves. Assuming, of course, the cap goes to $74 million.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

what the heck is the escalator

It's what makes America fat.