HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

DEBATE: Is the cap going down next season and how much? (And can we afford Parise?)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2011, 07:35 PM
  #26
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
OP, I have a suggestion. When RangerBoy posts that stuff, just assume he's right. It's easier and you won't end up looking foolish later.

I'll save this and repeat it back to both of you when the Rangers have more than $7 in cap space available under the new deal, assuming we don't re-sign any of our UFAs or MZA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
Kreider will get around 1,4 or so with bonuses I would think. Kolarik will not be on the team. Prust at 1,8M sounds a bit high... but maybe. Parlett will not be a 7th defender. Del Zotto is RFA and will get around 1,8M (Anisimov money). Biron is UFA and will get a bit more than now. Drury still has around 1,7M of buyout cost next year. The cap roof can only be speculated about - but I personally think it will be close to this years cap - or go down at most by 5%. I am sure there are other opinions here - but let them be heard. I think Parise is not going to fit onto this team, sorry...
My numbers were estimates. Some (Kreider) might get a little more, some (Prust) might get a little less. Whether our #7 and #13 are Parlett and Kolarik is irrelevant for the purposes of salary because it will be someone cheap. Biron will not be able to command a lot of money. Star UFAs get a lot of money, not backups in their mid-30s. If he wants a significant raise, we can sign someone else just as good.


Also, it's important to remember that what I wrote is based on the worst case scenario.

- I am assuming there is no revenue increase like we always see year to year, that there will be not even the slightest revenue increase from the NBA lockout, that the only thing Winnipeg brings back are ticket sales and that it fails to sell any merchandise (impossible considering they haven't sold anything for the 15 years they had no franchise).

- I am also assuming that there are no salary rollbacks.

- I am also assuming that the cut in the salary cap would be immediate and not gradual.


It's HIGHLY unlikely that all of those things would happen. Again, I would bet anything with any person on this forum that all those things will not happen. One of those? Maybe. All of them? Impossible. But that's exactly what I'm assuming: that everything goes wrong for NHL revenue.

Under any scenario other than "all financial s--t goes bunkers, and players only care about preventing salary rollbacks and nothing else", there is no major salary cap cut.

But even if there is a salary cap cut, then we can still squeeze in Parise. And if not, then don't re-sign Prust, which would save us almost $2, giving us more than enough cap room. Between Parise and Prust, the choice is pretty obvious.


Last edited by Beacon: 11-14-2011 at 07:47 PM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 07:51 PM
  #27
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I'll save this and repeat it back to both of you when the Rangers have more than $7 in cap space available under the new deal, assuming we don't re-sign any of our UFAs or MZA.
Well, 50% of HRR based on last year's info would be $56.3m Cap per team. So let's say NHL revenues bump to $3.5B and the new standard is immediately set at 50%. The Cap would be set at $58.3m. The Rangers currently have $47m on the CURRENT roster allocated for next season. They have 8 forwards signed, 4 defensemen and 1 goalie. Without a rollback, they're only working with $11.3m to bring in at least 7 roster players. Add Parise at $7m and you're talking about $4.3m for 6 roster players. Impossible.

And this is why the situation is unworkable. Either the NHLPA agrees to the immediate rollbacks or the NHL agrees to a gradual reduction in cap. Keep in mind that keeping the Cap stagnant until revenue catches up means that, on a $3.5B revenue stream, the current Cap represents 55% in player salaries.


Last edited by Tawnos: 11-14-2011 at 07:56 PM. Reason: correction on salary commitments
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 08:45 PM
  #28
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,241
vCash: 873
which is it?

Is the cap going up? http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1023475

or is it going down?

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 09:47 PM
  #29
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
which is it?

Is the cap going up? http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1023475

or is it going down?
Under the likely scenarios, it is staying the same or going up. In this thread, I examined basically the worst case scenario where it will go down slightly.

I know it is usually not a good idea to discuss different scenarios because it confuses people, but thats what I did.

But like I said, the cap will most likely not go down unless the worst thing happens. NBC and Winnipeg alone will be responsible for the the rise of 6-8% in revenue. Throw in a rise in revenue from other clubs and revenue will be up at least 10%. They won't cut the player's share by more than 10%.

And if it does go down, it will be coupled with rollbacks in salaries. The cap will not be an issue.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 09:50 PM
  #30
stan the caddy
Registered User
 
stan the caddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
There's always offseason speculation about the cap potentially down down. It never does.

stan the caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 10:19 PM
  #31
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,651
vCash: 500
We've got over 10M coming of the books this summer. Slight raises to Prust and Biron probably leaves nearly 9M left. The following summer we'll need to pony up for Arty, Steps, McDonagh and Sauer...but none of them should be getting huge money as they are all RFAs. Bottom line is we can afford Parise if he should be available, even if the cap drops a couple million.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 10:25 PM
  #32
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,828
vCash: 500
The first and largest problem with the NHL CBA is that the agreement doesn't expire until September 15th, well after the silly season is over. I don't know what type of accomodation there is in the current CBA to set a salary cap for 2012 but I do know that it would be impossible to rollback the cap without rolling back salaries. Way too many teams would be upside down and 2012 free agents would get squeezed mightly. That will be a non starter with the players. The best and most logical way has been floated in a couple of other threads here -- freeze the cap dollars for a year or two until revenue increases cause the percentage to decrease to an acceptable level. The NBC money and the Winnipeg/Atlanta move will go a long way to achieving that goal.

bobbop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 11:29 PM
  #33
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Well, 50% of HRR based on last year's info would be $56.3m Cap per team.

1) 50% is the NHL's starting offer and will likely rise a couple percentage points.

2) You are assuming revenue won't go up at all. How do you figure that? NBC and Winnipeg alone is 6%, and that's assuming the rest of the league stagnates. For the revenue to stay the same, it means that outside of NBC and Winnipeg, the revenue went down 6%. Do you see that happening? Has that ever happened? No.

Even under the worst case scanario, the Rangers simply don't sign Prust and trade/dump Rupp, replacing them with someone cheap like Newbury and Deveaux. That would save us about $2.5 and we'd still have $7 to spend on Parise. Parise > Prust/Rupp.

But let me repeat this again. All of this is under the "worst case scenario." The odds that everything will go wrong (the revenue doesn't go up, Bettman doesn't move off his first offer, there are no salary rollbacks, free agents still make the same money, etc) are not very high.

Under any reasonable scenario where everything doesn't go wrong, the Rangers can sign a big-time free agent with room to spare for Prust, Rupp and and another million or two to play with. I'm not saying those free agents want to sign with us, but we most certainly have the money to to put in a legitimate bid.


Last edited by Beacon: 11-14-2011 at 11:37 PM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 11:35 PM
  #34
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev27 View Post
chris kreider is the reason the rangers won't be looking to sign parise. we dont need to spend another 7 mil. we've got our own guys to pay in the next few years and kreider along with duby and hell even AA on the wing are the future of this club.

id love to have parise but kreider WILL be a player for this team soon. he's just got to much going for him not to be an impact player.
In the event Parise reaches free agency, the Rangers will definitely be in the hunt for him. He's one player you don't pass on if he becomes available. I believe that Kreider will develop into the goal scorer we need, but it's not going to happen overnite.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2011, 11:41 PM
  #35
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
TI don't know what type of accomodation there is in the current CBA to set a salary cap for 2012 but I do know that it would be impossible to rollback the cap without rolling back salaries. Way too many teams would be upside down

Yeah, this is my next research project. To review other teams' cap position to show that if the cap were to be dropped by $8 as some people suggested, half the league would find it impossible to operate.

You will suddenly see (well-paid) stars being dumped for little to nothing just to fit teams under the cap.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 12:14 AM
  #36
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Current cap hits.

Over $60: Anaheim, Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Chicago, Columbus, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, New Jersey, Rangers, Philly, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Tampa, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington.

Over $55-$60: Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis.

Under $55: Carolina, Colorado, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, Islanders, Phoenix, Winnipeg.


If the cap is reduced to $56, as some are suggesting, that will devaste the league. All but 8 teams would be in trouble. A full 19 teams whose payroll is presently over $60 would be in absolute hell and would be required to make massive dumps from their roster.


A team like Washington would just have to pass on re-signing Semin. Other teams like Vancouver and Pittsburgh, which are right up against the cap and have no major salaries coming off the books, would be forced to dump some of their top players just to squeeze into the $56 payroll.

Vancouver and Pittsburgh wouldn't need to dump a single $4 player. They would need to get rid of TWO such players, and replace them with someone making no more than half a million.

Almost every team would be in disarray. The exceptions are mostly bad teams. Only Phoenix, Nashville and Dallas are last year's playoff teams.

- Dallas already lost Richards, which is what put them under the $56.

- Nashville signed a contract raising Rinne's salary by over $3.5 next year and they will need to give the same raise to Suter to keep him. Those two will put Nashville in cap trouble.


=========================

As you can see, it is impossible for the cap to be dropped $8 without destroying most playoff squads. Teams would have to dump their second, and even first liners, just to squeeze into the $56 salary cap. It just ain't happening. It's not good for the league. It's not good for the owners.

The cap is not going down $8. In fact, it's not even going down $4 to $60 because that too would put 2/3 of the league over the cap, creating a total havoc.

One of 3 things will happen:

1) Revenue will go up so much that even though the percentage shared with players is lower, the actual cap remains about the same.

2) Revenue will not make up enough of the cap reduction, but the owners will agree to make the revenue share drop gradual, allowing the cap not to rise until revenue increases so that the current cap level is no more than whatever percentage owners are willing to share.

3) The cap goes down a few million, but it is combined with salary rollbacks along with allowing teams to remove dead-weight like Drury and Redden.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 12:17 AM
  #37
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Of the teams that are now over $60, the Rangers have more dead weight coming off the books than just about anyone else. WW, MZA, Feds, Avery and Drury are an $11 saving without a significant loss to the lineup.

If the Rangers can't fit Parise under the cap, then pretty much no playoff team can. He will have a choice to either join the Islanders/Florida or get paid less than he had hoped to get from a playoff team.

Assuming he doesn't just go for the money from a crappy team where he has to play with PAP as his line mate, even if the impossible happens and the cap is cut immediately and without a salary rollback, we would still be in the game.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 12:32 AM
  #38
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
1) 50% is the NHL's starting offer and will likely rise a couple percentage points.

2) You are assuming revenue won't go up at all. How do you figure that? NBC and Winnipeg alone is 6%, and that's assuming the rest of the league stagnates. For the revenue to stay the same, it means that outside of NBC and Winnipeg, the revenue went down 6%. Do you see that happening? Has that ever happened? No.

Even under the worst case scanario, the Rangers simply don't sign Prust and trade/dump Rupp, replacing them with someone cheap like Newbury and Deveaux. That would save us about $2.5 and we'd still have $7 to spend on Parise. Parise > Prust/Rupp.

But let me repeat this again. All of this is under the "worst case scenario." The odds that everything will go wrong (the revenue doesn't go up, Bettman doesn't move off his first offer, there are no salary rollbacks, free agents still make the same money, etc) are not very high.

Under any reasonable scenario where everything doesn't go wrong, the Rangers can sign a big-time free agent with room to spare for Prust, Rupp and and another million or two to play with. I'm not saying those free agents want to sign with us, but we most certainly have the money to to put in a legitimate bid.
The NHLs starting point will probably be 48% or lower, because I'm guessing that 50% is going to be their target. And if you actually read my post, you'd see that I said if "revenue is $3.5B," which is more than $100m higher than it was last year.

I also said that I would be surprised if there were salary rollbacks and followed up by stating that the only other option is a gradual reduction of the percentage of HRR.

All of that being said, I still don't really want them to go after Parise.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 12:46 AM
  #39
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The NHLs starting point will probably be 48% or lower, because I'm guessing that 50% is going to be their target.
The NHL is repeatedly saying and/or leaking 48-50% or that 50% would be ok or something along those lines. Do you know what 48-50 means? It means 50% is their starting position, and I'm saying this as someone who negotiates for a living.

If your client is ok accepting 53%, you call the other side and tell them 48-50%, knowing it will begin negotiations at 50%, but you give a flexible number to show you are trying to be reasonable and are negotiating in good faith.

Then you fight, fight, fight and say that you might be able to get your client to accept 52%. If you can't get this past the other guy, then you say that you will go back to your client and see if he's willing to accept 53%, but you want the other side to give you a guarantee that it will be accepted on the spot if your client agrees. All the while you know that your client is perfectly ok with 53% and you could probably get him to accept 54% if push came to shove, so he'll be really happy with what you just did.

I do this every day, including today while typing some of my posts here. Yeah, I'm not joking. This is what I do all day long and I come on this forum to clear my head from that crap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
And if you actually read my post, you'd see that I said if "revenue is $3.5B," which is more than $100m higher than it was last year.
$100 would be less than 3% increase. NBC and Winnipeg alone would be 6% revenue increase, and the other teams also usually goes up. At a minimum, the rise will be double what you assumed, which is why I ignored it.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 01:17 AM
  #40
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Yeah, except I haven't actually seen any one of these leagues budge very far off of their target percentage. The NHL targeted an initial percentage at 53% in 2004. They got it. The NFL targeted 46% and they got 47%. The NBA desperately wants 50% and told the PBPA that if they don't accept it, their next offer will be 47% in a blatant effort to realign the negotiations.

You're really going to call the difference of 3% so insignificant that you should ignore it? Either way, it doesn't matter. The cap could stay the same next year and the Rangers STILL wouldn't be able to afford a Parise contract without amnesty buyouts, and probably not even then. Hell, let's say that the cap goes up another $2m next year, as unlikely as that is. Assuming that the Rangers don't bring back MZA, Wolski or Stralman, the Rangers have $16m available in space. Say Parise gets $7m. That means that they have $9m in space. That's $9m in available space. With Parise, the Rangers would have 13 players under contract. Given that the team typically carries at least 1 spare forward and 1 spare D, they need to fill 9 slots with that $9m. 7 slots if you don't carry anyone at all. So let's say we resign MDZ for $1.5m, bring up Erixon at $1.75m and Hagelin at $875k, and resign Biron for $875k... that's $5m right there for 4 players. Now you have $4m for 5 slots. Are we really going to be comfortable filling out the entire bottom of the roster with $800k players? Prust will command around $1m himself on the open market. Now the last 4 spots have to be filled by $750k guys. I just don't see it.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 01:41 AM
  #41
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,252
vCash: 500
If the cap remains the same, there's no way you can argue the Rangers can't afford Parise. WW, MZA, Feds, Avery, Eminger, Stralman and Drury reduce our cap exposure about $13.

CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR

FORWARDS
Zach Parise ($7.000m) / Brad Richards ($6.666m) / Marian Gaborik ($7.500m)
Brandon Dubinsky ($4.200m) / Artem Anisimov ($1.875m) / Ryan Callahan ($4.275m)
Chris Kreider ($1.350m) / Derek Stepan ($0.875m) / Carl Hagelin ($0.875m)
Michael Rupp ($1.500m) / Brian Boyle ($1.700m) / Brandon Prust ($1.500m)
/ Andre Deveaux ($0.525m)

DEFENSEMEN
Marc Staal ($3.975m) / Daniel Girardi ($3.325m)
Ryan McDonagh ($1.300m) / Mike Sauer ($1.250m)
Michael Del Zotto ($1.800m) / Tim Erixon ($1.750m)
/ Jeff Woywitka ($0.600m)

GOALTENDERS
Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m) / Martin Biron ($0.875m)

BUYOUTS: Chris Drury ($1.666m)

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $63,258,334; BONUSES: $1,462,500
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $1,041,665


Parise fits with a full $1 to spare.

Worst case, if you have a choice to re-sign Prust or to sign Parise, the choice is obvious.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 02:21 AM
  #42
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 920
Here's my problem with this thread:

What makes anybody think that Parise's coming here without us making a major trade for him? Devils aren't just going to let him walk for nothing.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 02:50 AM
  #43
Superstar Carwash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
I'd like Parise, but we there's no chance we'll get him for under $7 mil, and we have a couple of really good RFA's coming up within a couple of years, so I'd say we hold on to the money we'll have, maybe sign a medium name UFA for $3-4 mil.

Superstar Carwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:23 AM
  #44
t3hg00se
Registered User
 
t3hg00se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to t3hg00se
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashiva View Post
I'd like Parise, but we there's no chance we'll get him for under $7 mil, and we have a couple of really good RFA's coming up within a couple of years, so I'd say we hold on to the money we'll have, maybe sign a medium name UFA for $3-4 mil.
Go big or go home, no plugs.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:24 AM
  #45
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
If the cap remains the same, there's no way you can argue the Rangers can't afford Parise. WW, MZA, Feds, Avery, Eminger, Stralman and Drury reduce our cap exposure about $13.
That all depends on what our situation on two-way contracts looks like too. You're assuming that they won't qualify MZA and Stralman who are RFAs. Your scenario puts us awfully close to the summer cap. And that's also assuming that Parise signs for only $7m, which is as likely as it isn't. On top of that, in your scenario, when McDonagh, Sauer, Anisimov, Stepan and Hagelin are all due for raises, you're going to have at least $53m tied up already. Do you think $11m (or less) is even going to cover those 5 plus 2 more roster players? Don't be shocked to see the cap frozen for two years and then drop in year 3, or some such structure. Honestly, our best hope to get Parise is if the market drops out from under him due to uncertainty with the CBA.

What makes me most uncomfortable is that you're going to put the Rangers in a situation where you're going to possibly end up making roster decisions in camp based on the salary cap and, beyond specific player issues like Redden, that's never a good idea.


Last edited by Tawnos: 11-15-2011 at 03:32 AM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:29 AM
  #46
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
Go big or go home, no plugs.
Which is exactly the attitude that got us 8 years without the playoffs, plus the Gomez, Drury and Redden contracts. This team doesn't need someone of Zach Parise's caliber, so why "go big" instead of "being smart"?

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:33 AM
  #47
JeffMangum
not sure if HF or FB
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 56,257
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Which is exactly the attitude that got us 8 years without the playoffs, plus the Gomez, Drury and Redden contracts. This team doesn't need someone of Zach Parise's caliber, so why "go big" instead of "being smart"?
Agreed.

This team could use a 'depth' top-6 player at LW. A player like, let's just use an upcoming UFA as an example, Tuomo Rutuu. Fills a need as he's a LW, and he's a top-6 player. If we could sign him for $3M-$4M, this is what the roster would look like:

Rutuu/Other UFA-Richards-Gaborik
Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan
Kreider-Stepan-Fedotenko/UFA
Rupp-Boyle-Prust

Pretty nice forward unit, right?

Actually, looking at that, this team could use a 3rd line RWer. The team has depth at that position throughout the organization (Gaborik, Callahan, Fasth, Zuccarello, Thomas), but they're all players that belong in the top-6. Need a 35 point RWer that can play a solid two-way game. David Moss would be a perfect piece.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:47 AM
  #48
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Ruutu is an interesting possibility. Kostitsyn is a possibility for the other side too, although he'll probably command too much for us for a RW. I know they're centers, but Brodziak and Stoll are players worth exploring in addition to Moss. There's always the trade route too.


Last edited by Tawnos: 11-15-2011 at 03:53 AM.
Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 03:57 AM
  #49
Superstar Carwash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
How about Langenbrunner or Jason Arnott? They're in their late 30's but can still put up decent numbers. If we can sign one of them at like, $3 mil or so for a year. Perfect stop gap until one of our prospects can step up.

Superstar Carwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2011, 06:42 AM
  #50
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
When the salary cap was implemented in the current CBA and set at $39M,did it devastate the NHL? The smart organizations have been successful in both systems. Rangers fans made the same arguments about how the NHL doesn't need a salary cap. The NHLPA and the big market teams won't go for it. Gary Bettman and Bill Daly found a way to get a hard cap. You can argue if its a hard cap when players can be assigned to the AHL or loaned to Europe to remove the cap hit and long term IR allows a team to exceed the cap. The NHL got their cap.

If the cap is set at $56M in the next CBA,will it devastate the NHL? $56.3M is the current mid-point which includes the 5% escalator exercised by the NHLPA. The NHL adds $8M to the mid-point. $16M range between the upper limit and lower limit.

Quote:
Anyone who thinks this week caught the NHL by surprise is kidding himself or herself. This is what the league wanted to use as evidence that the system is hopelessly broken and tilted in favor of the big markets the system, of course, that Bettman, counsel Bob Batterman and the Board invented and painted as a utopia the last time around.

Next time, the NHL is going to introduce the ultimate one-size-fits-all cap. Percentage of the gross will be dramatically reduced. The midpoint will essentially become the cap, with the ceiling and floor separated by perhaps $4 million-$6 million. Deviations of salary within a contract will be kept to a minimum. The cap charge will be defined by the average of the three-to-five highest salaried seasons. Contracts will be kept to a minimum of five-to-seven years.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz1dmCmfu6z

The NHL wanted a one size fits all cap the last time but the PA wanted just the players on the NHL roster to count against the cap. Buyouts and any performance bonuses from the previous season count against the cap.

Instead of adding $8M,maybe they don't add any money to the midpoint which essentially becomes the upper limit. The floor is an issue. Maybe the floor becomes a certain % of the upper limit. The NBA proposal has all of the NBA teams spending up to 85% of the cap. The NFL has the same system.

The NHL wants to lower the cap. Lower how much money is paid out to the players. The NHL won't lower ticket prices. The money lines the owners pockets. James Dolan wants the NBA players to get just 47%-50% because he gets more money.

Changing the formula on how the upper limit is computed lowers the cap.

As the NHL adds revenue,the cap will increase. Reset the cap. The NHL was a $2.1B business in 2004 and its a $3B plus business now. The players will still get paid.

A one size fits all cap would be a disaster.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.