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

$64.3M Upper Limit for '11-'12

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-11-2012, 12:29 AM
  #751
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
You're missing Tim Erixon and Wade Redden, but other than that yes.

Also, remember that unsigned Qualifying Offers count the same way the signed counterparts do. One-way QOs for the full hit and two-way QOs for the prorated hit. Once terms are reached, the QOs are replaced in the calculation with the new contract.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 12:37 AM
  #752
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,663
vCash: 3075
Alright thanks.

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:31 AM
  #753
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
This is what I got right now for our summer Cap situation. For the moment, I'm going to stick with the Cap as if it was frozen from last season. I highly doubt Sather will be operating as if the Cap will really be $70.3m. Two other notes. I'm doing this as if the Rangers will be extending the minimum qualifying offer to all their RFAs. Also, before someone mentions it, Chris Kreider did not spend any days on the NHL roster during the regular season, therefore he has no Cap hit for the purposes of calculating the summer cap.

Forwards
NameCap HitTypeDays
Marian Gaborik7,500,000One-wayN/A
Brad Richards6,666,667One-wayN/A
Ryan Callahan4,275,000One-wayN/A
Brandon Dubinsky4,200,000One-wayN/A
Artem Anisimov1,875,000One-wayN/A
Brian Boyle1,700,000One-wayN/A
Mike Rupp1,500,000One-wayN/A
Derek Stepan875,000Two-wayFull
Carl Hagelin643,243Two-way136
Casey Wellman265,494QO Two-way55
Total29,500,404
 
Defensemen
NameCap HitTypeDays
Wade Redden6,500,000One-wayN/A
Marc Staal3,975,000One-wayN/A
Dan Girardi3,325,000One-wayN/A
Ryan McDonagh1,300,000Two-wayFull
Michael Sauer1,250,000One-wayN/A
Tim Erixon435,135Two-way46
Michael Del Zotto918,750QO One-WayN/A
Anton Stralman945,000QO One-WayN/A
Total18,648,885
 
Goaltenders
NameCap HitTypeDays
Henrik Lundqvist6,875,000One-wayN/A
Total6,875,000
 
Buy-outs
NameCap Hit
Chris Drury1,666,667
Total1,666,667

Totals
Cap HitCap Ceiling10% CushionCap Space
$56,690,956$64,300,000$70,730,000$14,039,044

At the very least, expect Biron to be signed to a similar deal as last year (875,000) and Prust to get a decent sized raise... say to $1.3m or so.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:43 AM
  #754
Ryan McDonut
McD for Captain
 
Ryan McDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
This is what I got right now for our summer Cap situation. For the moment, I'm going to stick with the Cap as if it was frozen from last season. I highly doubt Sather will be operating as if the Cap will really be $70.3m. Two other notes. I'm doing this as if the Rangers will be extending the minimum qualifying offer to all their RFAs. Also, before someone mentions it, Chris Kreider did not spend any days on the NHL roster during the regular season, therefore he has no Cap hit for the purposes of calculating the summer cap.

Forwards
NameCap HitTypeDays
Marian Gaborik7,500,000One-wayN/A
Brad Richards6,666,667One-wayN/A
Ryan Callahan4,275,000One-wayN/A
Brandon Dubinsky4,200,000One-wayN/A
Artem Anisimov1,875,000One-wayN/A
Brian Boyle1,700,000One-wayN/A
Mike Rupp1,500,000One-wayN/A
Derek Stepan875,000Two-wayFull
Carl Hagelin643,243Two-way136
Casey Wellman265,494QO Two-way55
Total29,500,404
 
Defensemen
NameCap HitTypeDays
Wade Redden6,500,000One-wayN/A
Marc Staal3,975,000One-wayN/A
Dan Girardi3,325,000One-wayN/A
Ryan McDonagh1,300,000Two-wayFull
Michael Sauer1,250,000One-wayN/A
Tim Erixon435,135Two-way46
Michael Del Zotto918,750QO One-WayN/A
Anton Stralman945,000QO One-WayN/A
Total18,648,885
 
Goaltenders
NameCap HitTypeDays
Henrik Lundqvist6,875,000One-wayN/A
Total6,875,000
 
Buy-outs
NameCap Hit
Chris Drury1,666,667
Total1,666,667

Totals
Cap HitCap Ceiling10% CushionCap Space
$56,690,956$64,300,000$70,730,000$14,039,044

At the very least, expect Biron to be signed to a similar deal as last year (875,000) and Prust to get a decent sized raise... say to $1.3m or so.
prust had 12 less points than he did last year, why should he get a raise?

Ryan McDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:44 AM
  #755
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi17 View Post
prust had 12 less points than he did last year, why should he get a raise?
Unrestricted Free Agents get more money than Restricted ones. UFAs always get a bigger payday because they have more leverage via competition.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 12:08 PM
  #756
Ryan McDonut
McD for Captain
 
Ryan McDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Unrestricted Free Agents get more money than Restricted ones. UFAs always get a bigger payday because they have more leverage via competition.
this is true but dont you think thats a bit of an overpayment for a guy who only put up 5 goals. i can totally see him getting that though.

im happy to have prust back i just hope he can put up 10-15 goals like he did a season ago

Ryan McDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 12:10 PM
  #757
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi17 View Post
this is true but dont you think thats a bit of an overpayment for a guy who only put up 5 goals. i can totally see him getting that though.
Not really. You're forgetting that the guy is a hugely important part of our PK too. We pay Rupp more. I think Prust is worth it.

What I don't think is worth it is a conversation about overpaying on this level. We're talking about what, $200-400k? Hardly something worth worrying about.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
  #758
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi17 View Post
prust had 12 less points than he did last year, why should he get a raise?
Now that he's an UFA, more teams can bid for his services. Demand has risen. Simple economics.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 09:31 PM
  #759
allstar3970
Registered User
 
allstar3970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,227
vCash: 500
Well, looks like 70.3 is official now.

allstar3970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 09:58 PM
  #760
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
That number means nothing. The NHL wants to lower the % which means a lower cap than $70M which is based on 57% of $3.3B.

Jeff Gorton is the Rangers cap guy/CBA guy along with being #2 behind Glen Sather on all personnel decisions

Quote:
“As far as free agency, the uncertainty of it all will change everything,” Gorton said. “At the end of the day, to get a really good player, sometimes you extend yourself more than you would normally do, but in this case we don’t know what the number’s gonna be, the cap’s gonna be, we don’t know a whole bunch of scenarios that have to be worked out between the league and the union, and so I think you have to work cautiously, don’t do anything stupid, and don’t do something so under the new rules there won’t be any kind of penalties for you or hardships that put you into tough situations. So I think we’re business as usual, but I think our eye is on not doing anything stupid, too.”
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...deepest-crop/2

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 04:44 AM
  #761
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,539
vCash: 500
Its hard to argue that a roll-back is not a logic result, more than anything else, if the cap is lowered.

Why?

If the cap is lowered its because the PA will get a smaller piece of the cake. Once you have agreed on that, the rest is only about how that piece of the cake shall be divided among the members of the PA (the players).

If you do not have a roll-back -- the result is that the burden from getting a smaller piece of the cake -- solely -- is carried by the FA's of the coming year or two.

All we know is that the PA, the last time they were forced to take a smaller piece of the cake, choose to have a roll-back.

A free buyout-period would i) not help many teams (who would we buy out for example?), ii) not help the league because teams would ship out a bunch of money and iii) only really gain a few players and a few rich organizations who could correct past misstakes more than buy out players to get under the cap (see Philly).

I do understand why the PA as of today would loudly say that they never will accept a roll-back. Its supposedly "unthinkable" for them to do so. Right. But, that's just classic positioning before the real bargains begin. From the PA's point of view, you don't want Bettman stepping into a room feeling like he is presenting something that everyone already knows is coming. You want him to go into that room feeling like he will present a offer that no matter what will really piss of the PA. Then they have a much better position to give a counter offer. These things do matter in a negotiation.

People covering hockey aren't exactly business people, and they seem to report and buy anything that's fed to them. Hence the talk is now that there won't be a roll-back. And what do I know? But if the cap goes back 10-15% or something like that, I personally wouldn't at all be suprised to see a roll-back. That's all that I am saying. It wouldn't make sense to like let 75-80% of the players off the hook 100%, while the remaining 20-25% of the players are forced to carry the entire burden... At the same time, its a majority decision for the PA I guess and in this case the majority would gain from screwing the minority. Will they be loyal this time too? Time will tell.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 05:29 AM
  #762
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
They accepted a rollback last time. I don't think they will again, particular with Fehr at the helm. If the cap drops to 62 mil, that really isn't enough of a drop to warrant rollbacks. Yes, it's a significant drop from 70 mil, but not from 64.3. Any team that spends up to 70 mil this summer is asking for trouble.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 06:33 AM
  #763
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
They accepted a rollback last time. I don't think they will again, particular with Fehr at the helm. If the cap drops to 62 mil, that really isn't enough of a drop to warrant rollbacks. Yes, it's a significant drop from 70 mil, but not from 64.3. Any team that spends up to 70 mil this summer is asking for trouble.
Yeah, possibly...

...But truth to be told, there really is no good argument against a "small" roll back either.

If you are a FA or UFA the summer after the cap, instead of going up 4-5m as usual, instead drops 3-4 m -- you are of course pretty screwed anyway. Its 7-9 m per team in lost range and 30 teams which leaves the market with 210-290m less to spend on what, 150-200 FA's. Its alot of money.

A roll back of say 5-7.5% or whatever, wouldn't be that tough to carry. Say 250k for a player making 5m, or 50 k for a player making a mill.

But its of course not even remotely "impossible" to not have a roll-back. But I have a hard time seing a member of the PA with a long contract making a good argument to another member of the PA who is a FA on why there shouldn't be a roll back...

What it sounds like the PA wants, its for the cap not to drop at all. Like with an sure let the owners get more than 43%, but not immidiately, freeze the cap instead and let the owners get the growth untill its 50/50 or whatever-argument.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 09:21 AM
  #764
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Its hard to argue that a roll-back is not a logic result, more than anything else, if the cap is lowered.

Why?

If the cap is lowered its because the PA will get a smaller piece of the cake. Once you have agreed on that, the rest is only about how that piece of the cake shall be divided among the members of the PA (the players).
I disagree...if i'm a player that has a current contract, why am I being penalized for having years left on my deal? So i'm supposed to give up 25% of MY contract that I EARNED so the other guys who got paid their ENTIRE contracts already without giving up a penny can make more $$ in their next deals? screw that. i'm keeping my $$ and then when my contract is up i'll take my paycut then. just like the guys that already earned their full contracts will take a lower deal now.

plus i'm willing to take the gamble that the cap will go up before my deal expires

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 10:22 AM
  #765
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
All said and done, the cap next year will probably remain flat from last season. The 57% number is inevitably going to be shaved by 5-7%, and with some rough calculations, each 1% equals approx $1.15MM per team in cap space. If the $70.3 figure is a reflection of 57% of HRR, and not just some arbitrary number agreed upon, a move to approx 51% of HRR to players brings the cap back to around $63MM, or what it was this past season. Agree or am I doing something wrong?

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:07 PM
  #766
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
...But truth to be told, there really is no good argument against a "small" roll back either.
I'm sure the NHLPA will have plenty of good arguments. They accepted a 24% rollback last time. I doubt they will accept another one.

The only way I could see a rollback happening is if the cap drops significantly (under 60 mil) and the rollback is done in lieu of a bunch of compliance buyouts. The NHLPA might prefer in that case to take a little from everyone rather than having a bunch of people lose their jobs outright. But I don't expect the cap to drop below 62 mil. I don't expect teams to spend more than 65 mil (not counting players who will only be on the summer cap, like Redden). In that scenario, rollbacks shouldn't be necessary.

As an outside observer, I'm sure there are a lot of issues that I don't know about. But to me the biggest things on the table are:

1) Player percentage
2) Revenue sharing
3) 2014 Olympics
4) Realignment

If it were up to me, I'd lower the player percentage to 50, increase revenue sharing significantly and reduce the gap between the salary floor and ceiling.

If the cap drops even as low as 60 mil, but the floor rises to 52 mil, overall the amount spent on players will be about the same. But the owners have to be willing to buy into increased revenue sharing to make it happen. The smaller markets can't keep up with the NHL's growth rate.

One way that has been proposed to promote revenue sharing, and make the cap more flexible, is to allow teams to pay a percentage of player salaries in trades. So the Rangers trade Gaborik, for example, to the islanders. We agree to pay half his salary. The isles takes on his full cap hit. NYI get 3.75 mil closer to the cap floor and the Rangers pay for it. That's a win for both teams.

This would enable teams like the Rangers to trade a player like Redden for actual assets rather than burying him in the AHL. It will also enable teams like the islanders to get to the cap floor without having to bring up their 1st round picks too early just to get their bonuses on the books. Smart GMs in the smaller markets will be able to load up on good players on bad contracts while paying significantly less out of pocket for those players.

The only other thing I would change, and the NHLPA would probably fight this, is to change the way the cap is calculated. I would take the top 5 revenue grossing teams and the bottom 5 revenue grossing teams out of the equation. That would help keep the growth of the cap more in line with the revenue growth of the majority of the teams. If they don't do that, the revenue growth of the NHL as a whole will again outpace the bottom teams and we'll have the same problems come the next CBA.

I imagine that the union voted down reallignment just so they could use it as a bargaining chip to get the NHL's buy in for the olympics. I don't think either of those issues will be sticking points.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 03:57 PM
  #767
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,111
vCash: 500
If revenues are reduced to 50%, The reduction in $$$ if revenues remain flat is about 13%. I doubt the players would agree to anything close to that.

They might agree to a 5% roll back and 53% of revenues if the owners take out the escrow.

Without a doubt, revenue sharing needs to be reworked, but isnt that an issue among the owners? What does revenue sharing got to do with the players?

free0717 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 04:23 PM
  #768
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,539
vCash: 500
GagLine- I might have misunderstood you, but it seems like you have misunderstood what a roll back means.

Let's say the PA gets 1,500,000,000 USD for next season, they will get 1,500,000,000 USD no matter if there is a roll back or not (!). What the players get, and the issue if there is a roll-back or not, has nothing to do with each other.

If the cap goes down 15%, there would i) be very hard for teams to sign FAs the first summer after the lockout and ii) there would be a ton of money put into escrow.

A roll back is the exact same thing as an escrow, its just done before the season. And it opens up a little room for the FA the first summer...

But the players as a group will get paid the exact same amount no matter if there is a roll back or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
I disagree...if i'm a player that has a current contract, why am I being penalized for having years left on my deal? So i'm supposed to give up 25% of MY contract that I EARNED so the other guys who got paid their ENTIRE contracts already without giving up a penny can make more $$ in their next deals? screw that. i'm keeping my $$ and then when my contract is up i'll take my paycut then. just like the guys that already earned their full contracts will take a lower deal now.

plus i'm willing to take the gamble that the cap will go up before my deal expires
But the bolded part is not true, its a lie. The cap would go down to the same extent as the roll back, so the FA's would pay as much as the existing contracts.

An advice CM punk when you negotiate your first salary is to not go to your boss and make things up...

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 04:26 PM
  #769
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by free0717 View Post
They might agree to a 5% roll back and 53% of revenues if the owners take out the escrow.
Its impossible to take out escrow. Its a core function of the cap system.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 05:35 PM
  #770
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
GagLine- I might have misunderstood you, but it seems like you have misunderstood what a roll back means.

Let's say the PA gets 1,500,000,000 USD for next season, they will get 1,500,000,000 USD no matter if there is a roll back or not (!). What the players get, and the issue if there is a roll-back or not, has nothing to do with each other.
No, I know what a rollback is.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...s-New-CBA.aspx

Quote:
7/6: With a deal near, Kings C Sean Avery tells the L.A. TIMES, “[Goodenow] thought he was bigger than he was. Bob brainwashed players like me.” 7/13: Sides complete deal, which includes: team-by-team salary cap with a payroll range of $21-39M; provision that total expenditure on player costs cannot exceed 54% of defined hockey-related revenue; 24% salary rollback on existing contracts; cancellation of players’ contracts from ’04-05 season; maximum individual salary of 20% of a team’s cap ($7.4M); minimum salary of $450,000. 7/14: Flyers C Jeremy Roenick: “The deal is not great for the players. It is definitely an owner-friendly deal.” Maple Leafs D Ken Klee: “If the executive committee is bringing this to us to ratify, they think it is the best deal out there.”
That means whatever they were making before, they were now making 24% less. They didn't just roll back the cap dollars. They rolled back actual salaries. If it was just the cap hits, the NHLPA wouldn't care. They'd be in favor of it, in fact, as it allows the teams to spend more money.

Look at Jagr:

http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=1910

He was making 11 mil before the lockout and 8.36 mil after.

24% of 11 mil is 2.64 mil.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 06:17 PM
  #771
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
GagLine- I might have misunderstood you, but it seems like you have misunderstood what a roll back means.

Let's say the PA gets 1,500,000,000 USD for next season, they will get 1,500,000,000 USD no matter if there is a roll back or not (!). What the players get, and the issue if there is a roll-back or not, has nothing to do with each other.

If the cap goes down 15%, there would i) be very hard for teams to sign FAs the first summer after the lockout and ii) there would be a ton of money put into escrow.

A roll back is the exact same thing as an escrow, its just done before the season. And it opens up a little room for the FA the first summer...

But the players as a group will get paid the exact same amount no matter if there is a roll back or not.



But the bolded part is not true, its a lie. The cap would go down to the same extent as the roll back, so the FA's would pay as much as the existing contracts.

An advice CM punk when you negotiate your first salary is to not go to your boss and make things up...
glad to see your interest in a mature discussion instead of just talking down to people...i made a mistake replying to you. i'll go back to ignoring you since its been years since i've read anything you posted that didn't make me want to stab myself in the eye

advice for you just cause you have the time to write 37 paragraphs in each post doesn't make it right

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 06:24 PM
  #772
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,403
vCash: 500
wow, almost a $6M cap increase. that's enough to go sign us a big UFA and keep our RFAs in the coming years. Also, the higher floor limit will force the lower teams to take on more salary and possibly take on some other teams' bad or expiring contracts. Tim Thomas reportedly waived his no-trade clause explicitly so the Bruins could send him to a team who would just use his salary to make the limit (although why would you do that for a player who isn't even going to play for you? you'd be "better" off getting yourself a Wade Redden who is at least capable of playing ice team on your team and provide leadership and defense ) Also, this dilutes the value of cap space in trades. A player taking up X cap space isn't as bad with the added space.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 04:11 AM
  #773
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
No, I know what a rollback is.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...s-New-CBA.aspx



That means whatever they were making before, they were now making 24% less. They didn't just roll back the cap dollars. They rolled back actual salaries. If it was just the cap hits, the NHLPA wouldn't care. They'd be in favor of it, in fact, as it allows the teams to spend more money.

Look at Jagr:

http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=1910

He was making 11 mil before the lockout and 8.36 mil after.

24% of 11 mil is 2.64 mil.
No, sorry, but with all due respect, the first and bolded part is not what a roll back is about. Its only connected with the second bolded part, but that's not correct either. You wouldn't even roll back "actual salaries", you would only roll back the number on the contract. Let me explain it. The cap has nothing to do with the salaries, the cap is tied to the HRR (the NHL org's combined hockey related revenues).

A roll back is that you adjust existing contracts. The amount of money the PA gets is not directly tied to their contracts. They get a certain % of HRR. If there are indications that all existing contracts will superseed that amount, a certain % is put into escrow and the players are forced to pay back that amount after the HRR has been calcluated.

So the cap can go down without a roll back(!).

That's what being discussed. Like many have pointed out, it would be possible to lower the cap without having a roll-back, if, like in this case, the cap only goes down with like 3-4m in comparision with last season (down to 60 insted of up to 70)... And this would especially be doable if Bettman gets the PA to accept like 50-52% instead of 57%, but the PA gets Bettman to go from 57% to 50-52% step by step over a three year period, or whatever.

Example:
Bettman and the PA agree on 50/50. For example, lets say that HRR is 100 and that the upper level of the cap is HRR/2 +5 and that the lower level is HRR/2 -5 (we jump over the step with 30 teams to simplify the numebrs). Instead of getting 57 (cap range=52-62) the players get 50 (cap range=45-55). 50 here is the amount all players will get.

And lets say that if you add up all existing contracts going into next off-season, they total 47 (there is some thought behind this number because we assume that all teams always spends up to the max cap 47 is roughly 3/4 of the previous roof of 62). Lets assume that 1/4 of all players are FA in a off-season, spread evenly over the board, this would mean that normally the FA's were due to make 15 (47 / (3/4) - 47 = roughly 15. And 47+15=62(the previous max under the cap)) that summer. But the room under the cap is only 8. Let's say that hypotetically, that they do get 8 (everyone maxes out their cap (in real life there is basically a set room to, but its of course less than the range under the cap because teams have budgets lower than the cap etc., but in principle its the same thing)), all contracts added up would then total 55. But since the players no matter what only will get 50, roughly 10% of 55 would go into escrow. The result is the following.

No roll back:
After the first summer after the lockout, players with existing contracts gets 100% on paper and 90 % after escrow.

After the first summer after the lockout, players without existing contracts gets 8/15=0.53% to divde among them (the smaller room under the cap holds back what they get), of what normally would be available, and after escrow they get 0.53 * 0.9 = 0,48. 48 % as opposed to 90 % for players with contracts. They are screwed.

Roll back:
The alternative is to have a roll back. Do you remember that 47 number we talked about above? The amount of all existing contracts going into the summer. A roll back means that you roll back those contracts on paper. The mid point went down from 57 to 50. Thats 12.3%. Lets say you roll back all contracts with like 10 %, you start with 47 * 0.9 = but tget 42.3 instead. The FA were due to normally have 15 to divde among them, but the room under the cap is only 12.7 (upper level cap - 42.3). Everyone maxes out their cap (meaning that all contracts total 55 while the players only are entitled to get 50) meaning that a escrow of around 10% will be applied again.

Players with contracts going into the summer after the lockout gets 47 * 0.9 * 0.9 / 47 = 81 %.

Players without contracts going itno the summer after the lockout gets 12.7 * 0,9 / 15 = 76 %.

A third option could be amnesty buy outs. But as is apparant when you look at the above numbers, the room would certainly grow some, but combined it would never be that much.

HRR 3,300,000,000
Player's percentage 57%
Today's share: 1,881,000,000
Players with contracts after the first season (assumed share in relation to FA's): 3/4
Assumed player's percentage 50%
Combined players share: 1,650,000,000
On the books going into the first summer: 1,237,500,000
Room opend up with a rollback of 10%: 123,750,000

How much money would you free up with a amnesty buyout? 123,750,000 is 4,125,000m per team. With a amnesty buyout, I recon roughly that around 30 m maybe would be freed up (30m divded with the combined players share opens up 30,000,000 / 1,650,000,000 = 1.8 % more for the FA's only. If no roll back, that 1.8 % or whatever is only added to the number of 48% above. As you realize, you need massive buyouts to close the gap for FA's (48%) in relation to players with contracts (90%)).

Hence, its easy to understand why the PA decided on a roll back last time, and in many situations, it would make sense this time too.


Last edited by Ola: 06-29-2012 at 04:45 AM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 05:41 AM
  #774
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
No, sorry, but with all due respect, the first and bolded part is not what a roll back is about. Its only connected with the second bolded part, but that's not correct either. You wouldn't even roll back "actual salaries", you would only roll back the number on the contract. Let me explain it. The cap has nothing to do with the salaries, the cap is tied to the HRR (the NHL org's combined hockey related revenues).

A roll back is that you adjust existing contracts. The amount of money the PA gets is not directly tied to their contracts. They get a certain % of HRR. If there are indications that all existing contracts will superseed that amount, a certain % is put into escrow and the players are forced to pay back that amount after the HRR has been calcluated.

So the cap can go down without a roll back(!).
No ****. I know how the cap is calculated. I said that there wouldn't be rollbacks if the cap only goes down a little. You are the one who disagreed. Let me spell it out for you.

If the cap goes down, that means players will get less money. Raising the cap floor would help to offset that because the cap floor teams would have to spend more money.

If there is a rollback, players on existing contracts will get less money than they would have otherwise. Gaborik is scheduled to make 7.5 mil next season. If there is a 10% rollback, he will only make 6.75 mil and his cap hit will go from 7.5 to 6.75 as well.

That's exactly what happened after the last CBA. All existing contracts were rolled back 24%. That means that those players made 24% less than they would have without the rollback.

What part of that are you not understanding?

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 05:43 AM
  #775
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,678
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Forwards 10 -> 13/14
NameCap HitTypeOther
Brad Richards6,666,667One-way 
Ryan Callahan4,275,000One-way 
Brandon Dubinsky4,200,000One-way 
Artem Anisimov1,875,000One-way 
Brian Boyle1,700,000One-way 
Mike Rupp1,500,000One-way.
Chris Kreider1,325,000*Two-waybonus
Aaron Asham1,000,000*One-waysigned
Derek Stepan875,000Two-way 
Carl Hagelin875,000*Two-waybonus
11 th forward???One-waynew signing
12 th forward???One-waynew signing
13 th forward???One-waynew signing[/COLOR]
Marian Gaborik7,500,000One-wayIR until December
Total31,741,667
 
Defensemen 5 to 7 -> 7/8
NameCap HitTypeOther
Marc Staal3,975,000One-way 
Dan Girardi3,325,000One-way 
Ryan McDonagh1,300,000*Two-waybonus
Stu Bickel750,000One-waysigned
Michael Del Zotto826,825QO One-WayWill get substantial raise from QO
Tim Erixon1,750,000*Two-wayBonus - Might make team out of camp?
Anton Stralman945,000QO One-WayQualified but might not play for NYR next year???
[COLOR="Red"]New Number 4-6 defenseman???One-wayneeds to be resigned
Michael Sauer1,250,000One-wayIR indefinitely
Total14,021,825
 
Goaltenders 1 -> 2
NameCap HitTypeDays
Henrik Lundqvist6,875,000One-way 
Marty Biron1,300,000One-waysigned
Total8,175,000
 
Buy-outs One too many
NameCap Hit
Chris Drury1,666,667
Total1,666,667

SALARY CAP: $70,200,000 ?? What will it be after CBA is signed and what eventual rollback??
CAP PAYROLL: $54,025,209
DEFERRABLE BONUSES: $1,250,000
CAP SPACE (20-man roster including bonuses, 2 men on IR and Drury buyout): $16,194,791
IR (2 men) - $8,750,000


Wade Reddens cap hit on the summer cap nullifies the summer cap overage of 10% (basically)
Say Del Zotto gets around $1,4 m in raise from his qo
That leaves around $16,5 in cap space. Plus the deferrable bonuses ( probably will be put back into new CBA) and also the Substantial IR space for Gaborik and Sauer, at least at the beginning of the year. Hopefully both return asap healthy and better than ever.

We therefore now need to sign the following for the NYR:
  • 4-5 Forwards
  • 1-2 defenseman - at least! (if Strålman stays and Erixon graduates, otherwise add more roster player needed for each of these empty slots)
  • And a plethora of players for Hartford to be used there and as eventual callups

Also seriously needed to be taken into consideration (as RB correctly points out constantly) is the new CBA and an eventual new cap hit ceiling thereafter (with or without a rollback)
So the cap space might in reality wind up being lower and our purchase power also relatively lower (say 65 million instead of 70,2 m)
But this nobody knows today
But as is now --- we need these amount of players
Lots of interesting math lies ahead...
Speculate some more!!
Slather will be very busy on Sunday, be so certain.
Lord help us!


Last edited by BBKers: 07-01-2012 at 01:44 PM.
BBKers 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 11:20 AM.

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.