HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Are good high salary teams going to be forced to destroy their teams (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1317363)

PhillyBluesFan 01-06-2013 05:19 PM

Are good high salary teams going to be forced to destroy their teams
 
Over the next couple of years?

Soundwave 01-06-2013 05:22 PM

I don't really think so. Even from an Oilers POV, we'd kinda be the text book example because we have so many young promising players.

If we ink all of Hall/Eberle/RNH/Yakupov/Schultz to $6 million dollar extensions each, that comes to $30 million, if the cap inches back towards $70 million, that still leaves you with $40 million to go get a goalie, a no.2 d-man, and then fill out the rest of the roster.

Plenty of space. No, you may not be able to to have a $4-$5 million dollar player on your third line or third pairing, but most teams should be able to retain their cores and then some.

PhillyBluesFan 01-06-2013 05:25 PM

What about teams like the Rangers and Kings they are going to have to cut massive salary or not sign their players right?

jkrdevil 01-06-2013 05:27 PM

The cap next year is what the cap last was. Only teams dumb enough to go all the way to 70 knowing it was going right back down may be in trouble. Still it may be buying out one or two players to be compliant.

onlyalad 01-06-2013 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan (Post 57207411)
What about teams like the Rangers and Kings they are going to have to cut massive salary or not sign their players right?

Kings should be ok.
Cap hit now is just over 62 mil
Quick's cap hit is going up 4 mil
Lots of payroll coming off with Penner, Gagne, Scuderi and a few lesser money deals. Kings should be able to resign or fill those spots and shed 2 mil.

BoHorvatFan 01-06-2013 05:43 PM

NHL doesn't want good exciting teams that are fun to watch like the Hawks were a few years ago. Everyone has to be average and bland. Its called ''growing the game''

Tawnos 01-06-2013 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan (Post 57207411)
What about teams like the Rangers and Kings they are going to have to cut massive salary or not sign their players right?

The Rangers are nowhere near the team with the worst of it.

However, they'll have $8m-$10m to sign 3 relatively prominent RFA contracts to sign in this coming off season, depending on what Del Zotto signs for. The following season, they'll only have 7 guys signed for around $35m, with Lundqvist, Callahan and Girardi as UFAs. Things are going to be tight for a couple of years, but Ranger fans are no strangers to that situation.

PhillyBluesFan 01-06-2013 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlyalad (Post 57208171)
Kings should be ok.
Cap hit now is just over 62 mil
Quick's cap hit is going up 4 mil
Lots of payroll coming off with Penner, Gagne, Scuderi and a few lesser money deals. Kings should be able to resign or fill those spots and shed 2 mil.

What about being able to sign Brown and Kopitar? Also losing Scuderi Stoll Williams and Mitchell would be pretty devastating.

Nab77 01-06-2013 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundwave (Post 57207267)
I don't really think so. Even from an Oilers POV, we'd kinda be the text book example because we have so many young promising players.

If we ink all of Hall/Eberle/RNH/Yakupov/Schultz to $6 million dollar extensions each, that comes to $30 million, if the cap inches back towards $70 million, that still leaves you with $40 million to go get a goalie, a no.2 d-man, and then fill out the rest of the roster.

Plenty of space. No, you may not be able to to have a $4-$5 million dollar player on your third line or third pairing, but most teams should be able to retain their cores and then some.

If the cap is going back to 70M why the F did we just have a lockout?

KingsFan7824 01-06-2013 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan (Post 57209373)
What about being able to sign Brown and Kopitar? Also losing Scuderi Stoll Williams and Mitchell would be pretty devastating.

This is why there are GM's and other front office people being paid to figure it out.

BLONG7 01-06-2013 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 57208379)
NHL doesn't want good exciting teams that are fun to watch like the Hawks were a few years ago. Everyone has to be average and bland. Its called ''growing the game''

Or parity...

Turbofan 01-06-2013 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 57208379)
NHL doesn't want good exciting teams that are fun to watch like the Hawks were a few years ago. Everyone has to be average and bland. Its called ''growing the game''

Because the Hawks were a team that developed in a capless league, and bought their young talent instead of developing it OH WAIT THAT WASN'T WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL.

Riptide 01-06-2013 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nab77 (Post 57209781)
If the cap is going back to 70M why the F did we just have a lockout?

Cap will go well above that as revenues increase - expect to see it around 80-90m by the time this CBA expires. However it's NEVER been how high the cap is... it's been how much the owners have to pay the players in regards to the revenues they bring in.

Riptide 01-06-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 57208379)
NHL doesn't want good exciting teams that are fun to watch like the Hawks were a few years ago. Everyone has to be average and bland. Its called ''growing the game''

You mean the Hawks who royally screwed themselves with lousy contracts? Yeah if you're not smart with the players you sign, then you don't deserve to keep your talent.

LeftCoast 01-06-2013 06:25 PM

There will be winners and losers.

The Canucks will be up against it trying to resign Edler next year and the Sedins the following year while shedding roughly $6M in cap space. They will likely use compliance buyouts of Ballard and/or Booth this summer, and, of course, trade Luongo.

Will Calgary re-sign Iginla next year? Maybe buyout Bouwmeester or Cammallari? They are bad team that is up against the cap already, so it may finally force them to start a rebuild.

Minnesota spent a bunch to acquire Parise and Suter, but with a bunch of RFAs and Backstrom a UFA next year, how are they going to shed roughly $5M in payroll?

Phily has a lot of long term money committed and in 2 years have 2 important RFAs in Giroux and Brayden Schenn. They will probably buyout Bryzgalov unless he has a major bounce back season.

The Oilers on the other hand seem to be in good shape because they lose some dead cap space from Khabibulin and Souray in the summer.


The salary floor teams made out the best from this CBA. More revenue sharing, the ability to trade cap space for assets, free agents coming available due to compliance buyouts, and other teams needing to shed salary cap space this summer.

Riptide 01-06-2013 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoast (Post 57210947)
They will probably buyout Bryzgalov unless he has a major bounce back season.

Not a chance. He's still owed 41m (well 34.5 after this year). That's a 22m cheque Philly would have to write to Bryz if they wanted to cut him loose. Yes they have more money than most, but no one is going to cut a 20m cheque to dump a player.

Nab77 01-06-2013 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 57210869)
Cap will go well above that as revenues increase - expect to see it around 80-90m by the time this CBA expires. However it's NEVER been how high the cap is... it's been how much the owners have to pay the players in regards to the revenues they bring in.

Can Phoenix, the Isles etc. handle a 55M+ rosters. I don't think so. So we'll be back where we started from - in the red for 10+ teams.

LeftCoast 01-06-2013 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 57211275)
Not a chance. He's still owed 41m (well 34.5 after this year). That's a 22m cheque Philly would have to write to Bryz if they wanted to cut him loose. Yes they have more money than most, but no one is going to cut a 20m cheque to dump a player.

Yeah, you're probably right.

I made the same case when someone suggested that the Canucks would buyout Luongo. In Luongo's case the buyout would be over $30M.

The difference is that there are very few questions of Luongo being able to play up to his contract. He's a starting goal tender on just about any team, and he has trade value.

Is Bryzgalov tradeable? The real question is, if you are going to pay him $8M this year (or whatever the prorata is) and $6M for the next 2 years, that's roughly $20M right there. That's fine if he bounces back and plays up to his contract (and he may). But if he is backing up someone else? Maybe you make that call.

Daz28 01-06-2013 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLONG7 (Post 57210379)
Or parity...

Ask the Blue Jackets how parity is working out for them. Fact is free agents are still going to go where they want. The only way to get parity is to dictate to players where they'll play and when. The whole 'let's make the revenue sharing thing into a parity thing' sham never fooled me, but it sure did trick the masses.

Riptide 01-06-2013 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoast (Post 57212541)
Is Bryzgalov tradeable? The real question is, if you are going to pay him $8M this year (or whatever the prorata is) and $6M for the next 2 years, that's roughly $20M right there. That's fine if he bounces back and plays up to his contract (and he may). But if he is backing up someone else? Maybe you make that call.

6.5 this year, 8 next, then 6, 6, 5.5, 5.5, 2.25, 1.25. They're almost certain to hang onto him this year and next. Even after next year, it's still 26.5m owed, and 17.5m to cut him loose. I just can't see a team spending that much money to get rid of a player.

Riptide 01-06-2013 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nab77 (Post 57212193)
Can Phoenix, the Isles etc. handle a 55M+ rosters. I don't think so. So we'll be back where we started from - in the red for 10+ teams.

Isles will be fine once they go into their new arena. Until then they just kinda have to suck it up. As for the rest... they need to increase their revenues something like 30% over the next 5-10 years. It's not that unreasonable. Especially with a better wealth transfer system in place, and that industry growth fund (60m) that the league/PA can hand out as they see fit.

atomic 01-06-2013 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 57208379)
NHL doesn't want good exciting teams that are fun to watch like the Hawks were a few years ago. Everyone has to be average and bland. Its called ''growing the game''

it took me like 10 minutes to figure out who the Hawks were. Is it too much effort to type blackhawks? If so why he post? And if there wasn't a cap the red wings would be the team still getting all the good free agents.

Nab77 01-06-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 57213253)
Isles will be fine once they go into their new arena.

15K seater in Brooklyn? with Charlie Wang and the Snowman at helm? Wanna bet on it? ;)

Have the low end teams been able to grow their revenue 30% in the last 7 years. Wasn't the problem that Toronto & Co are increasing revenue very fast and smaller teams are spinning their wheels or even declining? Is this gonna change that? 50M more to share but more teams qualify now so some teams might even get less than before.

Growth fund or the Phoenix fund?

Daz28 01-06-2013 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomic (Post 57213551)
it took me like 10 minutes to figure out who the Hawks were. Is it too much effort to type blackhawks? If so why he post? And if there wasn't a cap the red wings would be the team still getting all the good free agents.

The point is that the bad teams still aren't getting ANY of the good free agents. The only way a cap could be effective in that manner was if it were low enough that players would be forced to go there to get top money. A high cap just means which one of 5 desireable teams has enough space left. God, players usually even insist they can make a list of teams they wouldn't be traded to even if the world were ending. Stop believing Uncle Gary's revenue sharing turned parity salary cap myths.

Actual Thought* 01-06-2013 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 57210945)
You mean the Hawks who royally screwed themselves with lousy contracts? Yeah if you're not smart with the players you sign, then you don't deserve to keep your talent.

In a cap league it is against the rules to consolidate talent. The top teams are most definitely getting worse every year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.