HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Calgary Flames (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Speculation: Cap to drop to 58 mil (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1252771)

Flamesarmstrong22 08-29-2012 01:57 AM

Cap to drop to 58 mil
 
Per Darren dregger's twitter:

Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

If this is true and the nhlpa approve, what will the 16 teams who will be over the cap do? Especially the flames

InfinityIggy 08-29-2012 02:02 AM

Interesting. I assume Stajan and Babchuk would be offloaded.

TheHudlinator 08-29-2012 02:23 AM

No it simply won't more than 50% of teams would be over the cap. If this deal is accepted it will be with the cap ~ 65 million.

FLAMES666 08-29-2012 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator (Post 53938901)
No it simply won't more than 50% of teams would be over the cap. If this deal is accepted it will be with the cap ~ 65 million.

Not necessarily, what did the teams do after a cap was put at 39 million in 2005. Pretty sure their were salary roll backs.

TheHudlinator 08-29-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLAMES666 (Post 53940567)
Not necessarily, what did the teams do after a cap was put at 39 million in 2005. Pretty sure their were salary roll backs.

The new deal states no roll backs.

I Hate Chris Butler 08-29-2012 10:10 AM

I tried to warn them by saying Suter was overpaid compared to Keith. They wouldn't listen. Now, it's too late...

I Hate Jay Feaster's Journal, August 29, 2012.

Scott Gomez carcass in alley. Tire tread on bought out contract. This message board's afraid of me.I've seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of bad contracts. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will be sent to the AHL. The accumulated filth of all their spending and cap circumvention will foam up about their waists and all the Minnesotas and Detroits will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll whisper "No."

Calculon 08-29-2012 12:59 PM

According to TSN, the players are strongly against this proposal. Which makes sense as it doesn't address the biggest issue facing the league at the moment which is the gap between the wealthy teams and the poor teams which can only be fixed through increased revenue sharing or contraction.

This deal would also have the players pay an excessive amount into escrow accounts, which the owners would then simply keep. Essentially tantamount to a salary rollback, which Fehr has already said is a non-starter.

To make it clear, having their portion of the total revenue decrease represents a concession by the NHLPA. They're not about to make a second concession on top of that, in the form of a salary rollback, just so the first concession can work. To get the first concession, the league would have to give up something, like an amnesty buyout period, which would see more money stay with the players.

By the time the two sides agree to the deal, I'm guessing the cap stays as it is for the shortened season (like the NBA did), with some sort of cushion for teams struggling to make the cap floor. The following season would see an amnesty buyout period if the cap were to drop significantly.

Stewie Griffin 08-29-2012 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flamesarmstrong22 (Post 53938449)
Per Darren dregger's twitter:

Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

If this is true and the nhlpa approve, what will the 16 teams who will be over the cap do? Especially the flames

Easy. Demote Stajan, Babchuk, and Smith to the AHL, bring up Carson as #7 D, and defer all salary bonuses to 2013/14. $82,000 in cap space. :)

http://capgeek.com/cap-calculator/roster.php?id=14872

But from what I understand that probably wouldn't be necessary as the salary rollbacks would take the form of escrow payments to the owners.

MarkGio 08-29-2012 04:42 PM

How is the league's proposal speculation that the cap will decrease? What makes you think the player's will accept the proposal? If the NHLPA puts in a counter proposal of 70% revenue sharing, do we "speculate" that the cap will be 100 million dollars next year? It's still very preliminary in these negotiations to start extrapolating every single proposal.

pdd 08-29-2012 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calculon (Post 53945645)
To make it clear, having their portion of the total revenue decrease represents a concession by the NHLPA. They're not about to make a second concession on top of that, in the form of a salary rollback, just so the first concession can work. To get the first concession, the league would have to give up something, like an amnesty buyout period, which would see more money stay with the players.

So what you're saying is:

Reducing the cap from about $70m to about $58m is a reduction of about 1/6.

We currently have 30 teams of 23 players make a maximum of $70m per team, or about $3m per player. If we reduce that to $58m per team for 23 players, the average goes to about $2.5m. But reducing the cap by 1/6 doesn't include a reduction in the players' salaries or cap hits because, you know, they're still making just as much on the average.

Except they aren't. Oops.

How again is that two separate concessions?

How are "Each of 30 teams, having 23 players, can only spend 5/6 of what it would have been able to." and "Each player receives less money." two separate concessions? They seem to be basically the same thing. Even if there aren't rollbacks, what happens to the 16 teams that are over that $58m mark? Others are dangerously close as well with rosters yet to be completed. Do players who have spent years in the NHL get sent to the AHL simply because of the cap? It happened to Wade Redden; he's still a very capable player but Sather doesn't even want him showing up to training camp because they don't bother with trying to trade him or play him; they simply stick him in the AHL and let him rot. Sather traded good assets for McCabe rather than try and call up Redden because Redden at $3m is perfectly reasonable and he would have been snapped up.

Calculon 08-29-2012 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 53952575)
So what you're saying is:

Reducing the cap from about $70m to about $58m is a reduction of about 1/6.

We currently have 30 teams of 23 players make a maximum of $70m per team, or about $3m per player. If we reduce that to $58m per team for 23 players, the average goes to about $2.5m. But reducing the cap by 1/6 doesn't include a reduction in the players' salaries or cap hits because, you know, they're still making just as much on the average.

Except they aren't. Oops.

Not sure why you're using 70M here; 57% of HHRs that are marked for the players dictate the cap mid point. If every team spent to the cap max, the players share would exceed 57% and they'd be forced to return a percentage back to the owners via escrow.

Quote:

How again is that two separate concessions?
Just because the total share of the players revenue falls, doesn't mean every player has his salary reduced.

It's really not a hard concept. Without a rollback in salary, a player making 6M in a 70M cap will still make 6M in a 58M cap. With a proportionate rollback, said player would make ~5M.

Quote:

How are "Each of 30 teams, having 23 players, can only spend 5/6 of what it would have been able to." and "Each player receives less money." two separate concessions? They seem to be basically the same thing. Even if there aren't rollbacks, what happens to the 16 teams that are over that $58m mark?
You should really finish reading something before commenting. Like I already said, amnesty buyouts.

No rollback means current players wouldn't lose anything while future players would get the short end of the stick. And as history has shown, professional athletes are more then willing to pass the buck down the road.

Amnesty buyouts meanwhile see players get paid twice, once from the buyout, and again from their second contract.

MarkGio 08-29-2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 53952575)
So what you're saying is:

Reducing the cap from about $70m to about $58m is a reduction of about 1/6.

We currently have 30 teams of 23 players make a maximum of $70m per team, or about $3m per player. If we reduce that to $58m per team for 23 players, the average goes to about $2.5m. But reducing the cap by 1/6 doesn't include a reduction in the players' salaries or cap hits because, you know, they're still making just as much on the average.

Except they aren't. Oops.

How again is that two separate concessions?

How are "Each of 30 teams, having 23 players, can only spend 5/6 of what it would have been able to." and "Each player receives less money." two separate concessions? They seem to be basically the same thing. Even if there aren't rollbacks, what happens to the 16 teams that are over that $58m mark? Others are dangerously close as well with rosters yet to be completed. Do players who have spent years in the NHL get sent to the AHL simply because of the cap? It happened to Wade Redden; he's still a very capable player but Sather doesn't even want him showing up to training camp because they don't bother with trying to trade him or play him; they simply stick him in the AHL and let him rot. Sather traded good assets for McCabe rather than try and call up Redden because Redden at $3m is perfectly reasonable and he would have been snapped up.

All rollback, as I understand it, would be an decrease in all salaries counted towards the cap for teams over the cap. The revenue sharing is the amount of league revenue that the players recieve if all teams spend to the cap, and the cap floor guarantees a certain amount of that. Revenue sharing decrease simply lowers the cap, affecting the potential money a player can receive. A rollback actually takes money from their pockets. That's how I understand it anyways.

pdd 08-29-2012 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calculon (Post 53953587)
Not sure why you're using 70M here; 57% of HHRs that are marked for the players dictate the cap mid point. If every team spent to the cap max, the players share would exceed 57% and they'd be forced to return a percentage back to the owners via escrow.

The escrow number doesn't matter; the cap number does. Teams don't spend to the escrow.

Quote:

Just because the total share of the players revenue falls, doesn't mean every player has his salary reduced.

It's really not a hard concept. Without a rollback in salary, a player making 6M in a 70M cap will still make 6M in a 58M cap. With a proportionate rollback, said player would make ~5M.

You should really finish reading something before commenting. Like I already said, amnesty buyouts.
I understand the amnesty buyout point. My point was more that I think players are more likely to support rollbacks, and here's why: Most teams have full or near-full rosters near or above the $58m mark. If you don't have those rollbacks, amnesty buyouts happen; but at what percentage? It's unlikely the owners agree to 100%. If a player is likely to lose money from a buyout/new contract it's unlikely he'd support that idea. Think about Johan Franzen, for example. He's signed until 2020 at around $4m. Say the whole year is locked out. What if Kenny decides to buy him out as he'll be turning 34 early in 2013-14. How much does he then sign for? $2m somewhere, for a couple years? Does he just retire? How about Todd Bertuzzi? Sounds like a good buyout candidate if the cap drops dramatically.

Do those guys support buyouts or rollbacks?

Quote:

No rollback means current players wouldn't lose anything while future players would get the short end of the stick. And as history has shown, professional athletes are more then willing to pass the buck down the road.
The one thing is, how many current players would be affected by it going forward? Next year we wouldn't see the same kind of high offers and it would be as such going forward.

Quote:

Amnesty buyouts meanwhile see players get paid twice, once from the buyout, and again from their second contract.
But as I said earlier, the player might get paid less in those two checks than they would have without the buyout.

Calculon 08-29-2012 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 53955353)
The escrow number doesn't matter; the cap number does. Teams don't spend to the escrow

Nor do all teams spend to the max, so using it as an average isn't prudent.

Quote:

I understand the amnesty buyout point. My point was more that I think players are more likely to support rollbacks, and here's why: Most teams have full or near-full rosters near or above the $58m mark. If you don't have those rollbacks, amnesty buyouts happen; but at what percentage? It's unlikely the owners agree to 100%. If a player is likely to lose money from a buyout/new contract it's unlikely he'd support that idea. Think about Johan Franzen, for example. He's signed until 2020 at around $4m. Say the whole year is locked out. What if Kenny decides to buy him out as he'll be turning 34 early in 2013-14. How much does he then sign for? $2m somewhere, for a couple years? Does he just retire? How about Todd Bertuzzi? Sounds like a good buyout candidate if the cap drops dramatically.

Do those guys support buyouts or rollbacks?
Well, this is something entirely different from you're earlier contention, but I can see where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, Don Fehr, and apparently the union disagree.

Quote:

Fehr, the NHLPA executive director, made something rather clear earlier Friday when he talked to reporters following the latest session.

Salary rollbacks arent going to happen under his watch.

What do I think about salary rollbacks? Fehr said when asked that question. I think basically what most people representing employees would think about salary rollbacks. What Im sure you would think about salary rollbacks if they came to you. You dont have to be a genius to figure out what that is.

I certainly assume that the owners would intend to comply with all of the contracts they have signed, and nobody has suggested (anything) to the contrary.
With regards to Franzen as an example, he could make the amount of his contract and then some if bought out. At the age of 29, he signed an 11 year contract worth a total $43.5M back in April 2009, when the upper limit of the salary cap was $56.8M. With a cap hit of $3.954, it represented 6.96% of the cap.

At the moment, Franzen has eight years left on his contract worth a total of $27.75 in actual money. Lets assume he plays for the entire eight year duration remaining. Assuming standard buyout rates (two-thirds of the total salary owed), Franzen gets a lump sum payment of $18.5M and becomes a UFA. The difference between the two is $9.25. A three year contract worth $3.0833M, or 5.31% of a hypothetical 58M cap, which for a 25-30 goal scorer, is a bargain, makes up the difference. Again, assuming he plays out the years on his original contract, he still has 5 more years to earn an NHL salary.

Standard buyout rates plus further contracts usually mean more money.

Quote:

The one thing is, how many current players would be affected by it going forward? Next year we wouldn't see the same kind of high offers and it would be as such going forward.
Assuming the cap is allowed to grow at a natural pace with league revenues, the combination of a rising cap plus expiring contracts would mean those high offers would continue.

Of course, that's why the league is trying to artificially suppress the upper limit, but they're not about to get that along with a significantly lowered players share and the freedom to refine HRR. Negotiations are a matter of compromise.

Quote:

But as I said earlier, the player might get paid less in those two checks than they would have without the buyout.
See above

Calculon 08-29-2012 07:58 PM

Just to add, with 16 teams over the hypothetical 58M upper limit, potential buyouts would affect around 20 to 30 players. A rollback would affect all ~700. Should be easy to see why a rollback would be a significant issue.

pdd 08-29-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calculon (Post 53956909)
Just to add, with 16 teams over the hypothetical 58M upper limit, potential buyouts would affect around 20 to 30 players. A rollback would affect all ~700. Should be easy to see why a rollback would be a significant issue.

So Columbus wouldn't want to buy out R.J. Umberger ($4.5m) and replace him with a better player?

For that matter, some of the small market teams who above that $58m mark might trade a large contract player for next to nothing, just to dump an overpaid player they can't afford to buy out.

For the Wings I think I would buy out Todd Bertuzzi and Patrick Eaves (if he's still there) up front. I'd probably also kick Bertuzzi in the shins because his contract is part of the reason Holland didn't keep Hudler.

Calculon 08-29-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 53958879)
So Columbus wouldn't want to buy out R.J. Umberger ($4.5m) and replace him with a better player?

And this better player is going to come from where exactly? And can the Blue Jackets really afford to pay Umberger $15.3M [(2/3)*23] not to play for them, particularly given how much money they're already losing every season?

Quote:

For that matter, some of the small market teams who above that $58m mark might trade a large contract player for next to nothing, just to dump an overpaid player they can't afford to buy out.
So, no gain, no loss. What's the problem?

Quote:

For the Wings I think I would buy out Todd Bertuzzi and Patrick Eaves (if he's still there) up front. I'd probably also kick Bertuzzi in the shins because his contract is part of the reason Holland didn't keep Hudler.
For what it's worth, the Wings' 23-man roster is currently sitting at $57,142,045. They don't need to buy anyone out, even if the cap falls to $58M, which it won't.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 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.