Thread: Speculation: Cap to drop to 58 mil
View Single Post
08-29-2012, 07:42 PM
unholy acting talent
Calculon's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,623
vCash: 1000
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
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.

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.

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.

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.

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 is offline   Reply With Quote