HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Other: Teams needing to get to cap floor (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1226361)

lunadio 07-07-2012 08:53 AM

Teams needing to get to cap floor
 
There hasn't been much discussion on this subject of teams try to get to cap floor,
a little here and there so i thought it would be useful to discuss in one thread . Narrows down the possibilities and needs to teams trying to achieve cap floor and fill there roster . i am using my team the senator as the first example .
Everybody keeps talking about losing prospects and roster players for a big name signing but im not sure it would work. How do we get to the cap floor without subtracting from roster, wouldn't we have to spend a hell of alot on a player or maybe two? to achieve that .Murray never addressed this in the media . Said he's pretty well done but he's not even close to the cap floor this has me very puzzled?????

arshonagon 07-07-2012 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunadio (Post 52259251)
There hasn't been much discussion on this subject of teams try to get to cap floor,
a little here and there so i thought it would be useful to discuss in one thread . Narrows down the possibilities and needs to teams trying to achieve cap floor and fill there roster . i am using my team the senator as the first example .
Everybody keeps talking about losing prospects and roster players for a big name signing but im not sure it would work. How do we get to the cap floor without subtracting from roster, wouldn't we have to spend a hell of alot on a player or maybe two? to achieve that .Murray never addressed this in the media . Said he's pretty well done but he's not even close to the cap floor this has me very puzzled?????

What mix of prospects/picks would you give up for Luongo? If you don't give up any significant roster pieces he definitely makes you a better team.

Alklha 07-07-2012 09:28 AM

That salary cap floor is not known yet.

I don't think the salary cap will remain at $70.2m, but if it does, then there is no way that the cap floor will be as high as $54.2m.

Holymakinaw 07-07-2012 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunadio (Post 52259251)
There hasn't been much discussion on this subject of teams try to get to cap floor,
a little here and there so i thought it would be useful to discuss in one thread . Narrows down the possibilities and needs to teams trying to achieve cap floor and fill there roster . i am using my team the senator as the first example .
Everybody keeps talking about losing prospects and roster players for a big name signing but im not sure it would work. How do we get to the cap floor without subtracting from roster, wouldn't we have to spend a hell of alot on a player or maybe two? to achieve that .Murray never addressed this in the media . Said he's pretty well done but he's not even close to the cap floor this has me very puzzled?????

Huh? If I read the Sen's team salary right on nhlnumbers.com, you guys have 19 players signed, for a hair under 50 million.

So you need to spend another 4.4 million on 4 more players, to reach a 23 man roster(to reach the proposed 54.3 million dollar floor).

Should be super easy, no?

Halibut 07-07-2012 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alklha (Post 52259985)
That salary cap floor is not known yet.

I don't think the salary cap will remain at $70.2m, but if it does, then there is no way that the cap floor will be as high as $54.2m.

Exactly, cap floor only comes into play once the season starts. That wont happen before a new CBA is finalized and it could completely change the whole concept of a cap floor. Probably just slightly modify it but who knows what happens at the negotiating table.

mkearney913 07-07-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holymakinaw (Post 52260099)
Huh? If I read the Sen's team salary right on nhlnumbers.com, you guys have 19 players signed, for a hair under 50 million.

So you need to spend another 4.4 million on 4 more players, to reach a 23 man roster(to reach the proposed 54.3 million dollar floor).

Should be super easy, no?

This.

If we add Silfverberg and Zibanejad to the roster and re-sign Jim O'Brien, that's over $3-million dollars right there. Our forwards and D are relatively complete right now, so Murray would have to bring in one more depth piece to get to $4.4 million and meet the cap floor.

Fastasaurus 07-07-2012 09:43 AM

Remember you can always have Thomas for nothing and not have to pay him a dime either.

8thRoundPick 07-07-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fastasaurus (Post 52260319)
Remember you can always have Thomas for nothing and not have to pay him a dime either.

Won't be for nothing. The Bruins have a full roster and are cap compliant even with Thomas on the books and Savard not on LTIR. This is not a Malakhov situation.

Trap Jesus 07-07-2012 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8thRoundPick (Post 52260603)
Won't be for nothing. The Bruins have a full roster and are cap compliant even with Thomas on the books and Savard not on LTIR. This is not a Malakhov situation.

Unless it's taking a bad contract back, I don't think the Bruins get anything of value. Thomas hijacked any leverage the Bruins had in a Thomas trade.

Guy Boucher 07-07-2012 10:02 AM

Teams are betting that at the end of the CBA negotiations, the Cap ceiling will remain the same but the Cap floor will be lowered.

It'd be smart to assume that they have some inside knowledge/instruction from the NHL on this matter since they seem to be acting in unison.

boredmale 07-07-2012 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Boucher (Post 52260809)
Teams are betting that at the end of the CBA negotiations, the Cap ceiling will remain the same but the Cap floor will be lowered.

It'd be smart to assume that they have some inside knowledge/instruction from the NHL on this matter since they seem to be acting in unison.

Lowering the cap min(but elaving the cap max as is) will just make it a bigger case of have and have nots.

Guy Boucher 07-07-2012 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 52261009)
Lowering the cap min(but elaving the cap max as is) will just make it a bigger case of have and have nots.

Perhaps, but right now the loudest voice in the room amongst owners are the small market owners complaining about how the cap floor is killing them.

GreatBear 07-07-2012 10:28 AM

Looking at Cap Geek, there are currently 14 teams below the floor. However, you really need to look at each team to see if there is a potential issue, even if the floor stays where it is. Each team is in a different situation, but I would be surprised to see more than two or three teams strain to reach the current floor.

If I look at my team, the Ducks, for example, Cap Geek shows a current payroll of $47,064,167, over $7 million below the floor. However, if I substitute Fasth for D-Deslauriers, which is widely expected, I add $387,500 to the payroll. I will add Selanne, again widely expected, at $4.5 million (the same as paid to Jagr). Bonino is going to arbitration, but if I raise him to $800,000 from the $693,000 he got last year, the total for these three players is an increase of $5,687,500, to bring the payroll to $52,751,667.

The Ducks like to carry 22 players, not 23. If they do, they still need three forwards to bring the total to 13. They should easily be over the cap floor with the payroll added for these three players, particularly since they have given every indication of bring Palmeri up from the start of the season, with a cap hit, including bonuses, of over $1 million. Even if they are still under the floor they can add a 14th forward for the small hit necessary to take them over the floor. So, while it appears that the Ducks may have troubles with the current floor, it is unlikely that they actually have that issue.

You can do the analysis for the other teams as well. I just don't know the situation of those teams as well as I do for the Ducks.

JackJ 07-07-2012 10:38 AM

Floor chart: http://www.capgeek.com/charts_floor.php

Alklha 07-07-2012 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 52261009)
Lowering the cap min(but elaving the cap max as is) will just make it a bigger case of have and have nots.

That might be the case, but the situation has been managed terribly and it might be the only realistic option in the short term.

The $70.2m cap is based on the current terms of the CBA, which the owners want changed. Considering that the League instructed the teams to operate under the assumption of a $70.2m cap, it makes it difficult to reduce it now. Logical solution would be to lower the cap and then slowly raising it again.

WJG 07-07-2012 11:04 AM

Winnipeg has about 5 million to go to reach the cap floor.

The majority of that will go towards Kane's new contract, while the rest will be used to re-sign Spencer Machacek (RFA) and hopefully sign a UFA right winger.

Benji Frank 07-07-2012 12:46 PM

getting to the cap floor won't be a problem.

of the 14 teams not there, 4 of them are less then a 3rd line forward away from it.

Ottawa still needs a few top 9ers. if zibanejad makes the team this year they're half way there with 3 more spots to fill.

Dallas (Benn), WPG (Kane), St. Louis (Oshie), Ducks (Selanne), Fla (Versteeg), Pho (Doan), Nash (Kostichyn, Weber) all have a guy who, once signed, puts them right near the floor with a few spots left to fill. If any of those guys hold out or go elsewhere, then it could get a little interesting, but there's enough bloated contracts out there on teams near the cap ceiling that none of these guys will have much trouble getting to the floor by opening night. Heck, Tim Thomas could get most of these teams close ... and tolling the contract keeps them there next year ... without spending a dime!!

That leaves the Isles and the Hurricanes. Both of them are a few 1.5M per players from the floor. i'm sure Carolina will be able to find someone willing to accept a trade there to play wit the Staal's. The Isles have some guys in their system whose cap could get them there if needbe. Otherwise, there's always a rolston or two floating around that could be had for nothing!

As for the 70.2M & 54M numbers, it wouldn't surprise me to see the owners agree to work from those this year and offer a slding % of revenues over the next few years to get to the number they want without taking any current dollars form the players ... ie 57% this year, 55% next 53% the eyar after and 50% after that. i can't see them doing it any other way after the contracts they handed out this year ... Crosby (concussions), plus Parise, Suter, Carle, Wideman, etc ... not huge stars signing with not big market teams. the players can't complain either when a guy like Tootoo or Prust are suddenly $2M+ per guys!!

Benny FTW 07-07-2012 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arshonagon (Post 52259809)
What mix of prospects/picks would you give up for Luongo? If you don't give up any significant roster pieces he definitely makes you a better team.

nope

boredmale 07-07-2012 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alklha (Post 52262103)
That might be the case, but the situation has been managed terribly and it might be the only realistic option in the short term.

The $70.2m cap is based on the current terms of the CBA, which the owners want changed. Considering that the League instructed the teams to operate under the assumption of a $70.2m cap, it makes it difficult to reduce it now. Logical solution would be to lower the cap and then slowly raising it again.

My suggestion would be(using this years numbers)

If lower cap is 54M and upper cap is 70M, find the midway point of that(62M). Basically if a team goes over that midpoint, they get taxed 1 dollar for every dollar they spend over it. Take all that money from teams spending over 62M and spread it equally to all the teams under the mid cap.

Another alternative that might work is allow teams to put players on a special kind of waivers that teams bid for a players services, highest bidder wins. In terms of the actual caphit, only the amount a team pays for the player counts while the team losing the player just has to pay salary with no caphit.

Using Wade Redden as an example, say if the Rangers put him on this form of waivers, three teams where interested. Team A offers to pay 500k for the next 2 seasons, Team B offers to pay 600K for the next 2 seasons and Team C offers 700K for the next 2 seasons. Team C wins his services and pays him 700k for the next 2 seasons while getting a caphit of 700K, the Rangers only have to pay Redden 4.3M for each of the next 2 seasons(since his contract is 5M each season) but don't get any of it going against their a cap

This will give big market teams a free out of a bad contract while it gives small market teams a chance to bargin bin hunt


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.