HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Under New Proposal CAP to drop to 58M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2012, 02:59 AM
  #101
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
This is the time when buffalo gets that doan offer the **** off the table

McTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:01 AM
  #102
skip2mybordeleau
HF "Soft" Boards
 
skip2mybordeleau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 4719
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
It's also annoying having to string along teams like Colorado, Columbus, Florida, Phoenix etc that are losing money every year.
the avs lost money last year?

http://www.thehockeyfanatic.com/2012...rth-2011-2012/

care to elaborate if you have more info than me.

and on your other note i think the wild are a playoff team, but if they dropped backstrom that changes everything entirely.

skip2mybordeleau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:01 AM
  #103
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
Wow, if this happens, the Sabres would be in Troublllllllllle. Yikes.
Not really, we would be pretty good with a simple trade dump/waiving of leino. and we have a better shot at competing with the top teams forces to cut back on actually good players

McTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:02 AM
  #104
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,103
vCash: 500
The Capitals are over it and need to sign Carlson... Give MoJo and Alzner raises next year... Not good.

SimplySensational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:02 AM
  #105
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
Not really. Cullen and Bouchard aren't in the long term plans as far as this organization goes. Bouchard's loss was only felt because he was the only offensive guy we had. With Granlund, Larsson, Coyle, Zucker and Phillips coming in, we may do better patching than last year. Cullen just...was too streaky and doesn't fit in the top 6 anymore.

Backstrom might be felt but Harding has certainly pushed him and Hackett is a very competitive backup and while he could use another season to season in the AHL, making the leap from AHL to NHL now maybe not so rough.

This team still has the depth.
The team has a ton of depth in terms of prospects that will make the Wild a force going into the future. Currently though, I'd say they may be a little screwed with having to shed players.

Especially Backstrom being sent down because I'm not sold on Harding.

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:02 AM
  #106
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,431
vCash: 500
The crazy thing is the long term effects of the Skinner/Hall contracts. I'm wondering how the NHL is going to reign in those deals because now teams will be paying more for potential than product. You hope the guy can a) stay healthy and b) continuing improving on those deals. Ugh.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:03 AM
  #107
Capathetic
Registered User
 
Capathetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
It's been done before and I don't think the NHLPA will go for that nor the owners.

Arguing for Minnesota, we're just swapping out parts sooner than later. Cullen and Backstrom are more than likely gone unless Backstrom takes a massive pay cut. Bouchard as well.
I know its unlikely but it seems just about every fan in here is banking on some players playing in the minors this season. There should be some sort of penalty other than money out of an owners pockets.

Capathetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:04 AM
  #108
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
The team has a ton of depth in terms of prospects that will make the Wild a force going into the future. Currently though, I'd say they may be a little screwed with having to shed players.

Especially Backstrom being sent down because I'm not sold on Harding.
Harding's only problem is his health. Hackett might end up being a bit streaky but if the team gels, I don't think that might be much of a problem. That's why Suter was such a huge signing for us because now our defense moves down a notch. Instead of being top pairing, Scandella can be a second pairing defenseman and develop where he belongs. Not to mention having some good defensive forwards in Kopo and Mitchell will help tremendously along with Larsson.

The only player they may have to worry about is Backstrom. Cullen is easily replaceable and Bouchard made a minimal impact.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:06 AM
  #109
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubynj View Post
I know its unlikely but it seems just about every fan in here is banking on some players playing in the minors this season. There should be some sort of penalty other than money out of an owners pockets.
Why? If Backstrom or Cullen were signed longer than a year, sure but Cullen is the odd man out for the forwards and what better time to start grooming Hackett?

This isn't a Redden or a Huet situation for the Wild where they are going to keep Cullen, Backstrom or Bouchard in the minors or on LTIR for more than a year.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:13 AM
  #110
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
We're at $68,848,867

Bouchard on the LTIR - 4.08 million

That puts us at 64,768,867 million
Having a player on LTIR doesn't remove their cap hit. Teams keep the same cap impact from the player, but are allowed to add replacement players that would have otherwise put them over the cap up to the amount of the injured player's cap amount.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:14 AM
  #111
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColePens View Post
You can't let it get up to 70M, sign players, then ask to get it back to 58. Come on, now. The owners brought in a low low low ball proposal. This is just silly.
I have to agree, there's more to this story than meets the eye. Even if you took existing contracts and spread them evenly throughout the league, everyone would be at $59,099,730.70.

Yet there's still unsigned talent out there, Evander Kane for example.

allan5oh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:15 AM
  #112
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Having a player on LTIR doesn't remove their cap hit. Teams keep the same cap impact from the player, but are allowed to add replacement players that would have otherwise put them over the cap up to the amount of the injured player's cap amount.
Meh, we'll just bury Bouchard in the minors as well...or he can retire. I don't remember. If they are under 35 and retire, does their contract still count?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:21 AM
  #113
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
The owners knew that this was a rediculous proposal and that's why they didn't build any provisions in to allow teams to make it under the Cap.

Nothing to see here at all.
And while they continue to make rediculous proposals the time is ticking away...when will we see serious negotiations? Next year?

Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:32 AM
  #114
TravisUlrich
Eternal Optimist
 
TravisUlrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,820
vCash: 500
Well if I'm a player, I love that there's no rollback. I like that the revenue is being shared ~50% for the first 3 years and then 50/50 for the last 3 years. There are some questions that I don't really know about like the escrow stuff and some changes to what "Hockey Related Revenues" are.

I hope this has at least laid the foundation for what will eventually be the new CBA. Maybe just have Fehr come back with a higher number for the salary cap and then settle in around $62M for this season.

Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M
So the mean salary cap would be $63,833,333.

TravisUlrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:35 AM
  #115
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connolly2Duchene View Post
the avs lost money last year?

http://www.thehockeyfanatic.com/2012...rth-2011-2012/

care to elaborate if you have more info than me.

and on your other note i think the wild are a playoff team, but if they dropped backstrom that changes everything entirely.
Does that stat include revenue sharing?

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:44 AM
  #116
Scottyk9
Goals? Please!
 
Scottyk9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: West of Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 25,275
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Scottyk9
Backstrom in the minors....that's cute.

Scottyk9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:51 AM
  #117
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas W View Post
And while they continue to make rediculous proposals the time is ticking away...when will we see serious negotiations? Next year?
Last day.

I think as fans we should make it clear that we don't support either the owners or the players and that we just want them to agree on how to split our money quickly. Why should we care who wins? For some reason people believed a cap would reduce ticket prices and supported the owners in getting a cap, it was absolutely retarded.

I wish I could say that I will not watch the NHL if there was a work stoppage but it simply isn't true.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 03:52 AM
  #118
Vajakki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Makes no sense that GMs worked this whole summer with 70 million cap and then they have couple of weeks to shred 12 million of salaries because the cap is suddenly 58 million. Just makes no sense.

Quote:
The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.
This is from the TSN article. What does it mean? Especially the fixed part? Could it mean that it would be allowed for teams to be above the cap if they already are? I totally understand that next year the cap would drop to 60 million like the article says, but dropping to 58 this summer makes no sense at all.

Vajakki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:01 AM
  #119
skip2mybordeleau
HF "Soft" Boards
 
skip2mybordeleau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 4719
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
Does that stat include revenue sharing?
i'm not sure tbh.

skip2mybordeleau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:06 AM
  #120
JackJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Stupid question time: instead of forcing teams and players to go through financial hoops to make a suddenly lowered cap for this season, why not just play this year with this year's number and let the next CBA/cap kick in next year?

I have a feeling the answer is going to mostly be about getting the players to give back more money in the short term to the owners through escrow or whatever else...
Agreed. Absolutely no chance the NHL handcuffs 1/3 of the league. Either its delayed or GMs are given multiple options to cut down salary in a hurry.

JackJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:19 AM
  #121
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajakki View Post
Makes no sense that GMs worked this whole summer with 70 million cap and then they have couple of weeks to shred 12 million of salaries because the cap is suddenly 58 million. Just makes no sense.



This is from the TSN article. What does it mean? Especially the fixed part? Could it mean that it would be allowed for teams to be above the cap if they already are? I totally understand that next year the cap would drop to 60 million like the article says, but dropping to 58 this summer makes no sense at all.
I think I might know what they mean by 'fixed'. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) Previously, the cap was determined every year based on last season's revenue, and players were supposed to put money in escrow in case revenue was lower during the current season than projected. Revenues didn't fall under the old CBA, so players got their escrow back.

Under the NHL's proposal, the cap would inflate by fixed amounts even if revenue growth outpaces projections.

Hammer79 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:26 AM
  #122
Tuomaz
Registered User
 
Tuomaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Cape Verde
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 500
Backstrom, top15 arguably top10 goalie sent to minors? Yep NHL's future is looking bright.

Tuomaz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:26 AM
  #123
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajakki View Post
This is from the TSN article. What does it mean? Especially the fixed part? Could it mean that it would be allowed for teams to be above the cap if they already are? I totally understand that next year the cap would drop to 60 million like the article says, but dropping to 58 this summer makes no sense at all.
I think it means fixed as in "cannot move" or "not variable".

Currently the cap is variable based on league revenues while the owners are proposing a fixed cap at $58, then 60, etc.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:29 AM
  #124
iPunch
50 Mission Cap
 
iPunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,011
vCash: 500
I really hope this happens.

iPunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2012, 04:49 AM
  #125
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,088
vCash: 500
Instead of reducing salary the league can just reduce cap hits of every player signed by whatever percent needed. Very simple, they get paid what they signed for and the cap situation is fixed.

NugentHopkinsfan 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 11:01 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.