Salary Cap: The Oilers and the cap

[thadd]

I don't see Dubnyk getting the type of offer you outlined. If Dubnyk plays basically at the same level as last year $4m aav on a 3 year term is what a reasonable offer would be.

I just don't see the team even bothering to keep him around if he doesn't take a big step forward next year.

I wouldn't say he let in a weak goal every game in the first period. Sometimes he saved the softies for the second or third period.

Given how he played and considering the support he had when Smid and Petry were not on the ice, I think he's good for 4M per season. Even if his play vastly improves next year and he is no longer prone to giving up a weak goal every game I couldn't see him get more than a 3 year deal unless we go to the playoffs next season and he shows a lot of promise.

 

[shoop]

Given how he played and considering the support he had when Smid and Petry were not on the ice, I think he's good for 4M per season. Even if his play vastly improves next year and he is no longer prone to giving up a weak goal every game I couldn't see him get more than a 3 year deal unless we go to the playoffs next season and he shows a lot of promise.

A bad carpenter blames his tools and a bad goalie blames his defence.

Term and salary are two different things.

Plays like he did last year and he doesn't stick around.

Vast improvement he gets offered a deal. Maybe three years, maybe four. But no improvement, no deal.

 

[Hemsky4PM]

Only in Bob Stauffer's dream world does Schultz get 6M.

That's a fantasy number that have no basis in reality. That level of salary is reserved for ELITE defencemen. Mike Green is the only SLIGHTLY reasonable comparable for Schultz in this respect. I say that because Mike Green had a MORE THAN POINT PER GAME, NORRIS TROPHY WINNING season when he signed his 6M deal. The cap was comparable to today's level. He scored 31 GOALS!!!!!!!!!

People overestimated what Gagner would cost to sign too, thinking he would hold out for 5.5M or go to UFA.

Schultz can get some serious security from a long term deal. He is a 2nd pairing guy. Cam Fowler is another good comp. 4M.

Schultz is not an elite defender, not by a long shot. He can improve, but is probably set to being a high end offensive d-man, pp QB. I think a 5 year deal at 4.25M would be very attractive to him and his representatives.

I would propose 8 years at 4.3M AVV or something along those lines. The Voynov contract (Voynov had similar stats and is the same age) is also more than a fair offer, 6 years at 4.167M.

35.6M is nothing to sneeze at and gives the player lifetime security. He would still have another potential big contract in him.

 

[The Perfect Human*]

None of us really know what Schultz will do this year.

At the same age, he slightly outperformed Voynov and Shattenkirk despite those two having NHL experience and Schultz having a well documented difficulty adjusting to the long schedule. Add to that, his domination in the AHL, numbers that Voynov could not touch, and it becomes very legitimate to think that Schultz will rocket past the production of your 2 comparables this upcoming year.

Or he may stagnate, who really knows. He could be making anywhere from 4 million on a LTC to 6 million...all depends on performance this year and I think both sides (low and high salary end) have valid points to think the way they do.

LOL Wut. These guys were both #2 defensemen on elite-level teams and you're telling me they were outperformed by Justin Schultz?

I don't see how, beyond the points - and that's just a side-effect of being literally the team's ONE consistent PP option on the point all year long.

 

[The Perfect Human*]

If Schultz and RNH are out there earning 6M contracts (OEL makes 5.5M, Couture makes 6M), then this team will be very happy with the 2013-2014 iteration of the Oilers, as it would be coming off of a playoff appearance.

 

[Fourier]

Just trying to wrap my head around your analysis with the following questions.

The $64.1M was inflated and $62.6M was the 'real' number. Was it inflated as part of the CBA?

The 'mid-point' between the cap floor and ceiling, I take it?

Looks like the 'inflator' is the (-1) in your denominator. Is that part of the calculation outlined in the CBA? Or am I completely off-base on this one?

Technically the cap for a given year is determined by the revenue in the previous year. The last full year we had was 2011-2012. The cap in that year was to be $70.2M. Here is how I get my numbers

In fact the actual number that is a key to all of the calculations is the midpoint of the range rather than the cap itself. It is this number that is determined by the revenue. So based on the old CBA and the 2011-2012 revenues we would have a midpoint of $70.2-8=62.2M

But the new CBA reduced the players share to 50% from 57% so the new midpoint would be

$62.2 *(50/57) M= $54.6M

As a result, had they used the revenues from the last complete season to set this year's cap it would have been

$54.6+8=62.6M.

However, to save this years FA class from taking a big hit as part of the CBA there was an agreement that the cap would never fall below $64.3M.

There are two components to the rest of my calculation. The first was that there is a 5% inflator built into the calculation. (They do this since there is an assumption that revenues will indeed rise year to year.) This means that the number $54.6 is actually 1.05 times the "real midpoint" that results from the actual revenue. So we have the real midpoint at:

$54.6/1.05=$52M.

The next thing I did was to factor in the drop in the $CDN.

This is all a long winded calculation but it gives you a truer picture of the actual organic growth needed to drive up the cap by a certain amount. Using the cap rather than the midpoint tends to underestimate that number by a few percent. That explains most of the difference between your number and mine.

 

[Fourier]

Locking up the core long term is actually solid risk management. If guys like Schultz, Yakupov, RNH, Hall and Eberle do not play to their potential then this team is hooped no matter what the cap structure is. No team wins if there best players don't perform. But by having your core locked up the natural rise in the cap works in your favour. It gives you money to spend on complementary pieces where they are most needed.

I'd like to see the Oilers sign both Yakupov and RNH to 8 year deals. Schultz I would try to bridge but if he has a big year I'd lock him up as well.

 

[Dorian2]

Technically the cap for a given year is determined by the revenue in the previous year. The last full year we had was 2011-2012. The cap in that year was to be $70.2M. Here is how I get my numbers

In fact the actual number that is a key to all of the calculations is the midpoint of the range rather than the cap itself. It is this number that is determined by the revenue. So based on the old CBA and the 2011-2012 revenues we would have a midpoint of $70.2-8=62.2M

But the new CBA reduced the players share to 50% from 57% so the new midpoint would be

$62.2 *(50/57) M= $54.6M

As a result, had they used the revenues from the last complete season to set this year's cap it would have been

$54.6+8=62.6M.

However, to save this years FA class from taking a big hit as part of the CBA there was an agreement that the cap would never fall below $64.3M.

There are two components to the rest of my calculation. The first was that there is a 5% inflator built into the calculation. (They do this since there is an assumption that revenues will indeed rise year to year.) This means that the number $54.6 is actually 1.05 times the "real midpoint" that results from the actual revenue. So we have the real midpoint at:

$54.6/1.05=$52M.

The next thing I did was to factor in the drop in the $CDN.

This is all a long winded calculation but it gives you a truer picture of the actual organic growth needed to drive up the cap by a certain amount. Using the cap rather than the midpoint tends to underestimate that number by a few percent. That explains most of the difference between your number and mine.

I don't agree/

Your numbers make no sense whatsoever.



Haha...j/k...I have no idea if your numbers are correct (probably are).

I just wanted to disagree with you.

 

[Fourier]

I don't agree/

Your numbers make no sense whatsoever.



Haha...j/k...I have no idea if your numbers are correct (probably are).

I just wanted to disagree with you.

That's ok. I just make all this stuff up anyway!

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

Technically the cap for a given year is determined by the revenue in the previous year. The last full year we had was 2011-2012. The cap in that year was to be $70.2M. Here is how I get my numbers

In fact the actual number that is a key to all of the calculations is the midpoint of the range rather than the cap itself. It is this number that is determined by the revenue. So based on the old CBA and the 2011-2012 revenues we would have a midpoint of $70.2-8=62.2M

But the new CBA reduced the players share to 50% from 57% so the new midpoint would be

$62.2 *(50/57) M= $54.6M

As a result, had they used the revenues from the last complete season to set this year's cap it would have been

$54.6+8=62.6M.

However, to save this years FA class from taking a big hit as part of the CBA there was an agreement that the cap would never fall below $64.3M.

There are two components to the rest of my calculation. The first was that there is a 5% inflator built into the calculation. (They do this since there is an assumption that revenues will indeed rise year to year.) This means that the number $54.6 is actually 1.05 times the "real midpoint" that results from the actual revenue. So we have the real midpoint at:

$54.6/1.05=$52M.

The next thing I did was to factor in the drop in the $CDN.

This is all a long winded calculation but it gives you a truer picture of the actual organic growth needed to drive up the cap by a certain amount. Using the cap rather than the midpoint tends to underestimate that number by a few percent. That explains most of the difference between your number and mine.

For anyone interested here is the formula which would have been used for 12-13 under the old cba:
Midpoint: ($3.3-billion x .57) - $90-million in benefits / 30 teams = $59.7-million
Inflator: 59.7-million x 1.05 = $62.7-million
Cap: $62.7-million + $8-million = estimated $70- to $71-million

Under the new cba a couple of the variables will be impacted. Obviously the players share is 50 percent now. I think the players benefits will be a fair bit higher too. Apparently they were able to get quite a bump up in that area but what is that number ? Finally it's no longer $8mil added to the mid point rather it is 15%. I came up with 62.79mil using the inflator and the 90mil in players benefits which is likely a low number. Fourier was right the cap is a bit high at the moment.

I think the optimism in the cap increasing is due to the recent release of revenue for the shorted season. I believe they were able to pull in 2.4bil with only playing 58% of the games played. Pro rated over a full season that is 4.14bil. I think Bowmans quips were with reference to the NHLs wishwell thinking that the revenue will take a good jump up with respect to the coming season based off this shortened seasons success. If revenues is 3.7bil next year the cap will be ball park 70mil for 2014-15. I wouldn't think this is out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[nexttothemoon]

For anyone interested here is the formula which would have been used for 12-13 under the old cba:
Midpoint: ($3.3-billion x .57) - $90-million in benefits / 30 teams = $59.7-million
Inflator: 59.7-million x 1.05 = $62.7-million
Cap: $62.7-million + $8-million = estimated $70- to $71-million

Under the new cba a couple of the variables will be impacted. Obviously the players share is 50 percent now. I think the players benefits will be a fair bit higher too. Apparently they were able to get quite a bump up in that area but what is that number ? Finally it's no longer $8mil added to the mid point rather it is 15%. I came up with 62.79mil using the inflator and the 90mil in players benefits which is likely a low number. Fourier was right the cap is a bit high at the moment.

I think the optimism in the cap increasing is due to the recent release of revenue for the shorted season. I believe they were able to pull in 2.4bil with only playing 58% of the games played. Pro rated over a full season that is 4.14bil. I think Bowmans quips were with reference to the NHLs wishwell thinking that the revenue will take a good jump up with respect to the coming season based off this shortened seasons success. If revenues is 3.7bil next year the cap will be ball park 70mil for 2014-15. I wouldn't think this is out of the realm of possibilities.

A bit of a technicality... but a regular 82 game season has 1230 games + 15 playoff series (say averaging 5.5 games each). That's about 1312 revenue producing games expected in a "normal season".

Last season there was 720 regular season games and 86 playoff games... total of 806 games. (Probably also helped to have the finals between two hockey crazed original 6 teams as well).

So the shortened season had 806 games vs ~1312 in a normal season. That's about 61.4% of the normal total games played (including playoffs).


Using the pro rated projections above... a full pro-rated season would have been about $3.9 billion in revenue this year. Still bodes well for projections in the $3.7+ billion range for next year and beyond though.

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

A bit of a technicality... but a regular 82 game season has 1230 games + 15 playoff series (say averaging 5.5 games each). That's about 1312 revenue producing games expected in a "normal season".

Last season there was 720 regular season games and 86 playoff games... total of 806 games. (Probably also helped to have the finals between two hockey crazed original 6 teams as well).

So the shortened season had 806 games vs ~1312 in a normal season. That's about 61.4% of the normal total games played (including playoffs).


Using the pro rated projections above... a full pro-rated season would have been about $3.9 billion in revenue this year. Still bodes well for projections in the $3.7+ billion range for next year and beyond though.

Good job... I was going off an article I read but good on you for calculating it out. I'm fairly optimistic that the cap will rise a good amount for 2014-15. Let's hope so for the oilers sake.

 

[Fourier]

A bit of a technicality... but a regular 82 game season has 1230 games + 15 playoff series (say averaging 5.5 games each). That's about 1312 revenue producing games expected in a "normal season".

Last season there was 720 regular season games and 86 playoff games... total of 806 games. (Probably also helped to have the finals between two hockey crazed original 6 teams as well).

So the shortened season had 806 games vs ~1312 in a normal season. That's about 61.4% of the normal total games played (including playoffs).


Using the pro rated projections above... a full pro-rated season would have been about $3.9 billion in revenue this year. Still bodes well for projections in the $3.7+ billion range for next year and beyond though.

Unfortunately not all revenue can be prorated in this way. For example, the TV money the NHL received from the national sources was not prorated. I suspect that this was also true for most broadcast rights and possibly many sponsorship deals. This alone skews the calculation significantly since TV rights could account for more than 1/4 of that $2.4B perhaps as high as 1/3. Non-game night merchandising is also not really appropriate for prorating.

Even on the attendance front. Playoff revenues are typically much higher on a per game basis than are regular season revenues. I don't think a 50% premium would be out of line at all. In fact it is probably more. Add to this the fact that many of the US based teams tend to draw much better after Christmas than they do in the fall and in reality the shortened season may represent a far greater portion of what would have been the expected gate revenues than the 48/82 ratio might suggest.

 

[nexttothemoon]

Unfortunately not all revenue can be prorated in this way. For example, the TV money the NHL received from the national sources was not prorated. I suspect that this was also true for most broadcast rights and possibly many sponsorship deals. This alone skews the calculation significantly since TV rights could account for more than 1/4 of that $2.4B perhaps as high as 1/3. Non-game night merchandising is also not really appropriate for prorating.

Even on the attendance front. Playoff revenues are typically much higher on a per game basis than are regular season revenues. I don't think a 50% premium would be out of line at all. In fact it is probably more. Add to this the fact that many of the US based teams tend to draw much better after Christmas than they do in the fall and in reality the shortened season may represent a far greater portion of what would have been the expected gate revenues than the 48/82 ratio might suggest.

Yes, some good points as well. I had thought about the playoff angle... those games likely produce quite a bit more revenue per game than regular season games... hard to represent that in the calculations of course without knowing all the revenue breakdowns.

You make good points about many of the revenues being fixed on a seasonal/yearly basis rather than per game.

The NHL is likely painting as rosy a picture as possible (in fact I'm sure of it) as part of the spin towards fans (and advertisers) that the league is back in business and is better than ever. Overall I agree that revenues will likely go up (and the cap with it) but probably not quite as much as the more optimistic projections project.

 

[AlanHUK]

Fourier when you're looking at numbers and estimating cap growth have you taken into account the 4 outdoor games which are rumoured to be happening this year, I know 3 are now confirmed. (Vancouver, LA and Detroit)

 

[bone]

Unfortunately not all revenue can be prorated in this way. For example, the TV money the NHL received from the national sources was not prorated. I suspect that this was also true for most broadcast rights and possibly many sponsorship deals. This alone skews the calculation significantly since TV rights could account for more than 1/4 of that $2.4B perhaps as high as 1/3. Non-game night merchandising is also not really appropriate for prorating.

Even on the attendance front. Playoff revenues are typically much higher on a per game basis than are regular season revenues. I don't think a 50% premium would be out of line at all. In fact it is probably more. Add to this the fact that many of the US based teams tend to draw much better after Christmas than they do in the fall and in reality the shortened season may represent a far greater portion of what would have been the expected gate revenues than the 48/82 ratio might suggest.

But there should be a new canadian TV deal coming for next year. You'd have to think there will be another bump for that, seeing the US deal went from $75 to $200 million. CBCs I think is about 60 million and TSNs about 30-40 million. I can't imagine there won't be a jump to at least $200 combined

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

I wonder what proportion of revenue growth has to be attributed to inflation?


I came across a couple different article of James Mirtle,these were the league revenues every season of the last CBA:

Season Revenue (Billion US$) Growth Rate (%)
2005-2006 2.267
2006-2007 2.436 7.45
2007-2008 2.747 12.77
2008-2009 2.819 2.62
2009-2010 2.929 3.9
2010-2011 3.09 5.5
2011-2012 3.28 6.15

Another older article by Mirtle had these adjusted for inflation numbers:
View attachment 66155
Take that for what it's worth.
Rough estimate
Season NHL revenues adj. for inflation
1993-94 $732,000,000 $732,000,000
1994-95* $568,000,000 $556,640,000
1995-96 $936,000,000 $879,840,000
1996-97 $1,105,000,000 $1,011,075,000
1997-98 $1,141,000,000 $1,004,080,000
1998-99 $1,285,000,000 $1,079,400,000
1999-00 $1,566,000,000 $1,291,950,000
2000-01 $1,769,000,000 $1,397,510,000
2001-02 $1,875,000,000 $1,443,750,000
2002-03 $1,996,000,000 $1,497,000,000
2003-04 $2,083,000,000 $1,541,420,000
2004-05 no hockey here sad time for James
2005-06 $2,178,000,000 $1,481,040,000
2006-07 $2,318,000,000 $1,483,520,000

It apprears the NHL reported a 7.45% increase in revenue from 2005-06 to 2006-07. You look at the adjusted for inflation graph and there doesn't appear to be any real increase. It would be nice to get ahold of a more recent update of that graph.

 

[Fourier]

Fourier when you're looking at numbers and estimating cap growth have you taken into account the 4 outdoor games which are rumoured to be happening this year, I know 3 are now confirmed. (Vancouver, LA and Detroit)

I am aware that they have added 4 new outdoor games. The problem is that you need $60M in new revenue to move the cap forward $1M. If you assume that each of these games would generate even 5 times the usual income you have effectively added the equivalent of 16 games to the schedule. This might be $30M in additional revenue. Compare that with the $70-80M you loose from the drop in the $CDN and you still have ground to make up.

TO be clear I think we will see a fairly big rise in the cap over the next 6 years. That is why I like the idea of long term deals for the kids. What I am less sure of is that there will be a significant increase next year. Of course it is not at all impossible that I could be very wrong here.

The way I see it is that if the cap stays relatively tight the Oilers won't have a lot of cap flexibility next year. But they will have some. In fact, compared with many teams they are still in excellent shape so in reality a realtively flat cap might be a very good thing for them as it could free up some decent players.

But there should be a new canadian TV deal coming for next year. You'd have to think there will be another bump for that, seeing the US deal went from $75 to $200 million. CBCs I think is about 60 million and TSNs about 30-40 million. I can't imagine there won't be a jump to at least $200 combined

We don't know when the new TV deal will be rolled into the cap. Typically the 2014-2015 cap will be based on 2013-2104 revenues so the new TV deal would first come in in 2015-2016.

 

[Kirby]

This is what I see for the 2014-2015 Season:

Forwards

Hall ($6M) - RNH ($6M) - Eberle ($6M)
Perron ($3.8125M) - Gagner ($4.8M) - Yakupov ($925K)
Blank ($2M?) - Gordon ($3M) - Blank ($2M?)
Joensuu ($950K) - Lander ($1M) - Blank ($1.5M?)
Blank ($950K?)
Blank ($950K?)

Defense

Smid ($3.5M) - Petry ($3.75M)
Ference ($3.25M) - J. Schultz ($4.5M)
Klefbom ($925K) - Larsen ($1.2M)
Marincin ($690K)

Goaltender

Dubnyk ($4.75M)
Blank ($1.25M?)

I anticipate (ignoring any significant trades) that these will be the players that will be under contract for the 2014-2015 Season. RNH gets the Hall contract. Petry resigns for between $3.5m to $4M unless he has a break through season points wise (he won't be the #1 power play option, so I do not see a massive spike coming). J. Schultz signs between $4M - $5M long term (he gets a Voynov/Shattenkirk type deal), unless he has a Norris contending season. Dubnyk shows enough improvement to be our starter, but he's not a Vezna caliber, and resigns between $4.5M to $5M for 3-4 years. Lander & Larsen get a 10-20% raise on their RFA deals for a couple years. Hemsky, N. Schultz, Jones, etc. get let go or traded.

With the above players signed, we need to sign a 3rd line LW/RW and a 4th Line RW + 2 press box forwards. No defensemen need to be signed (again, not withstanding trades for upgrades). A backup goaltender is required. Would the above numbers in brackets with question marks seem reasonable to acquire those spots? Feel free to comment on what you think the numbers should be.

The roster above contains 3 players who's ELC bonuses will affect the cap: Yakupov ($2.9425m), Klefbom ($442.5K), Marincin ($180K). That's a total of $3.565M in bonus affecting cap numbers. Assuming the cap doesn't change from the upcoming 2013-2014 season, you get the following with the above roster:

Salary Cap: $64.3M
Oiler's Cap - No Bonus: $63.4525M
Oiler's Cap - Bonuses: $67.0175M

Cap Space (No Bonus): $847.K
Cap Space (Bonus): -$2.7175M

At most I see $2M in bonuses being hit (mainly by Yakupov). Thus, if the cap doesn't change, with raises to everyone except Yakupov, we are only over the cap by roughly $1.25M. The cap is going to go up, and the trend always seems to be that the cap goes up more each year than anyone ever expects. The increase in cap in 2014-2015 should more than cover this roster and leave the Oiler's additional cap space. The increase in the following season should be more than enough to cover Yakupov's raise, and still leave sufficient cap space for upgrades/resigning. After that, there won't be many (if any) significant raises to be dealt with, and the Oiler's can deal with any problems as they arise. By then the cap should be high enough that the Oiler's won't run into any restrictions.

Conclusion: the Oiler's will be fine when it comes to retaining key players and having salary cap flexibility...hopefully =P.

Thoughts?

 

[No Good Names Left]

A bit of a technicality... but a regular 82 game season has 1230 games + 15 playoff series (say averaging 5.5 games each). That's about 1312 revenue producing games expected in a "normal season".

Last season there was 720 regular season games and 86 playoff games... total of 806 games. (Probably also helped to have the finals between two hockey crazed original 6 teams as well).

So the shortened season had 806 games vs ~1312 in a normal season. That's about 61.4% of the normal total games played (including playoffs).


Using the pro rated projections above... a full pro-rated season would have been about $3.9 billion in revenue this year. Still bodes well for projections in the $3.7+ billion range for next year and beyond though.

I didn't think playoff games counted as revenue when it comes to setting cap dollars?

Edit: Sorry, i am wrong. Here is a link with a bit of a definition of HRR...
http://nhl.si.com/2012/08/08/what-is-hockey-related-revenue/

 

[rockinghockey]

I am not worried about having enough cap space. We are just lucky that players like Smyth, N.Schultz, and Hemsky will be off the books. I have no problem with Jones, he was hurt last year, if he plays like he did the years before that he is a perfect bottom 6 player.

 

[PaPaDee]

I am not worried about having enough cap space. We are just lucky that players like Smyth, N.Schultz, and Hemsky will be off the books. I have no problem with Jones, he was hurt last year, if he plays like he did the years before that he is a perfect bottom 6 player.

Agreed. Once Smyth, N. Schultz & Hemsky are off the books next year, will we have any bad contracts remaining?

 

[nexttothemoon]

Agreed. Once Smyth, N. Schultz & Hemsky are off the books next year, will we have any bad contracts remaining?

Ference by the 3rd/4th year of his deal will possibly look pretty poor... not a really bad cap hit though and the cap ceiling should be well over $70 million by then as well.

 

[5 14 6 1]

This is what I see for the 2014-2015 Season:

Forwards

Hall ($6M) - RNH ($6M) - Eberle ($6M)
Perron ($3.8125M) - Gagner ($4.8M) - Yakupov ($925K)
Blank ($2M?) - Gordon ($3M) - Blank ($2M?)
Joensuu ($950K) - Lander ($1M) - Blank ($1.5M?)
Blank ($950K?)
Blank ($950K?)

Defense

Smid ($3.5M) - Petry ($3.75M)
Ference ($3.25M) - J. Schultz ($4.5M)
Klefbom ($925K) - Larsen ($1.2M)
Marincin ($690K)

Goaltender

Dubnyk ($4.75M)
Blank ($1.25M?)

I anticipate (ignoring any significant trades) that these will be the players that will be under contract for the 2014-2015 Season. RNH gets the Hall contract. Petry resigns for between $3.5m to $4M unless he has a break through season points wise (he won't be the #1 power play option, so I do not see a massive spike coming). J. Schultz signs between $4M - $5M long term (he gets a Voynov/Shattenkirk type deal), unless he has a Norris contending season. Dubnyk shows enough improvement to be our starter, but he's not a Vezna caliber, and resigns between $4.5M to $5M for 3-4 years. Lander & Larsen get a 10-20% raise on their RFA deals for a couple years. Hemsky, N. Schultz, Jones, etc. get let go or traded.

With the above players signed, we need to sign a 3rd line LW/RW and a 4th Line RW + 2 press box forwards. No defensemen need to be signed (again, not withstanding trades for upgrades). A backup goaltender is required. Would the above numbers in brackets with question marks seem reasonable to acquire those spots? Feel free to comment on what you think the numbers should be.

The roster above contains 3 players who's ELC bonuses will affect the cap: Yakupov ($2.9425m), Klefbom ($442.5K), Marincin ($180K). That's a total of $3.565M in bonus affecting cap numbers. Assuming the cap doesn't change from the upcoming 2013-2014 season, you get the following with the above roster:

Salary Cap: $64.3M
Oiler's Cap - No Bonus: $63.4525M
Oiler's Cap - Bonuses: $67.0175M

Cap Space (No Bonus): $847.K
Cap Space (Bonus): -$2.7175M

At most I see $2M in bonuses being hit (mainly by Yakupov). Thus, if the cap doesn't change, with raises to everyone except Yakupov, we are only over the cap by roughly $1.25M. The cap is going to go up, and the trend always seems to be that the cap goes up more each year than anyone ever expects. The increase in cap in 2014-2015 should more than cover this roster and leave the Oiler's additional cap space. The increase in the following season should be more than enough to cover Yakupov's raise, and still leave sufficient cap space for upgrades/resigning. After that, there won't be many (if any) significant raises to be dealt with, and the Oiler's can deal with any problems as they arise. By then the cap should be high enough that the Oiler's won't run into any restrictions.

Conclusion: the Oiler's will be fine when it comes to retaining key players and having salary cap flexibility...hopefully =P.

Thoughts?

If Petry signs a richer AAV deal than Smid I'll eat my hat.

 

[Soundwave]

PK Subban is going to be getting like $8.5 mill on his next extension, book it.

$6 million is not going to be the going rate for elite d-men in the future, $6 mill will be a reasonable price.

Also the Leafs could make the playoffs again, which is another potential spike in revenue and will certainly drive the price of the hockey TV rights value in Canada up.

I'd be happy to pay RNH and Schultz both 6 million/8 year extensions. It means they'll have had good seasons. Also if you lock players in while they're younger they tend to be less amenable to not having NTCs/NMCs, as they're not even eligible for their initial years anyway.