View Single Post
11-06-2011, 01:39 PM
Sent to HF Minors
Beacon's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,863
vCash: 500
Salary Cap Options Under the New Deal Examined

There are basically three options for the salary cap under the next agreement.


The player percentage will go down gradually so the cap is not actually reduced, but by keeping it the same, the percentage the players get is reduced every year until it reaches the 52% owners will likely ask for.

This solution would be easiest to get the approval of NHLPA because the pursue on them would not be immediate. Salaries would not actually go down, they would just stop rising and veterans would really not care.


The more difficult solution would be to get players to accept a pay cut. The cap would go down 10% and players would need to accept at least a 5% pay cut on their current contacts. This would reduced a team's payroll by over $3. It would also put pressure on UFAs/RFAs to accept somewhat lesser salaries.

Going down to 52% of the revenue from the present 57% would mean the cap would go down $6, and with salaries reduced $3, thats under $3 less to play with.

Additionally, team revenue is almost definitely going up this year, which will make up for all or almost all the cap space lost.

Under either scenario the Rangers will have very significant cap space to play with.


The worst case is if the cap is cut from 57% to 52% without a commensurate cut in salaries.

Last year, revenue went up 13.2%. With Atlanta moving to Winnipeg, and other revenue producers, it's possible for the revenue to move at least that much next season. But even if it moves up only half of what it did last year, it still makes up for the cut from 57% to 52%.

But let's say it goes up only 1/4 of last year (doubtful considering this is supposed to be a good year for the NHL in terms of revenue). That would still make up for half of the cut in the salary cap, meaning the cap goes down only $2.5.


Under most scenarios (cap remains the same until the percentage reaches 52%, or salaries are cut or the revenue goes up), the actually room a team has to play with remains the same. This is by far most likely to happen because teams themselves will not want to put themselves in an immediate cap hell.

But even if the cap is cut by a couple million, the Rangers are still in great shape.

1) Biron, Christ and Eminger are at the end of the contract, but will either be resigned or replaced by similarly paid players.

2) Kreider will get the Feds' salary.

3) Prust will get Avery's.

4)Hagelin will get Prust's old salary.

That leaves us with freed money from WW, MZA and Drury. That's $9 if the cap remains the same. If the cap is cut a couple of million, that still leaves us with ~$7.

And the above salary estimates are based on the players making the same salary as players make right now. If there's a player salary cut or even just just a cut in the cap, salaries of free agents will also go down, giving us another half a million to a million to play with.

Either way, we should have a minimum of $7 to play with even under the next agreement. Really no reason to panic.


One thing I forgot to count is that even right now we have about $2 in cap space plus another half a million in carryover bonuses. That's another $2.5 that will free up next year. Thus, we will have $11.5 in cap space, subject to adjustments based on the changes in revenue share and revenue increase. Short of something very drastic, we will have the $7 needed to sign a player like Parise or Suter.

Last edited by Beacon: 11-06-2011 at 02:43 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote