HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Sportsnet: NO Grandfathering

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-08-2005, 05:40 PM
  #1
Jobu
Registered User
 
Jobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
Sportsnet: NO Grandfathering

Kypreos and Dreger just reported on Sportsnet that there will be no grandfathering and no exceptions made to being under the cap by a certain date for the start of the 2005-06 season. There had been some confusion recently about grandfathering provisions.

Jobu is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 05:45 PM
  #2
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Ok big Boys. Get out them wallets,you got some contracts to buy out.

Tra La La is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 06:00 PM
  #3
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,397
vCash: 500
what happens if the cap figure decreases next season and some teams have a payroll of the previous year's cap max? how much time do they have to pare down their payroll?

i'm also curious to know what exactly counts against the cap? is it the cumulative salaries of the team's players or is it the amount of money that a team has paid for player compensation through an entire season? this distinction has important implications because if it is the former, which I suspect it is, then a team cannot ever have a collection of players whose salaries are above the cap max even if they don't intend to retain all of those players. plus, it also means that teams with cap space can't make trade deadline deals for an expensive veteran that a teams would like to unload. i hope there's some flexbility here because if this is the case teams will be immediately punished for having a payroll that was within the limits of the previous year's cap. it also means we can kiss trade deadline frenzies good-bye.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 06:08 PM
  #4
Resolute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
what happens if the cap figure decreases next season and some teams have a payroll of the previous year's cap max? how much time do they have to pare down their payroll?
Presumably they would have to be below by opening day. That is speculative until the CBA is released however.

Quote:
i'm also curious to know what exactly counts against the cap? is it the cumulative salaries of the team's players or is it the amount of money that a team has paid for player compensation through an entire season? this distinction has important implications because if it is the former, which I suspect it is, then a team cannot ever have a collection of players whose salaries are above the cap max even if they don't intend to retain all of those players. plus, it also means that teams with cap space can't make trade deadline deals for an expensive veteran that other teams would like to unload.
Salary and signing bonuses would obviously have to count against the cap. Performance bonusses may or may not. Benefits wont.

I would guess that the payroll cannot go over the cap at any point in terms of overall salary. On the surface it doesnt seem like letting teams float anywhere, so long as their final paid dollars end up below the cap, but what do you do if a team foolishly ends up overpspending on the cap and doesnt have enough payroll space leftover to cover it's salaries for the rest of the year? Do you force them to forefit their remaining games? Do you fine them? It is much cleaner to state that the total payroll can never go over $x at any point.

Resolute is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 06:21 PM
  #5
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute
Presumably they would have to be below by opening day. That is speculative until the CBA is released however.
If this is the case, then I hope the same holds true this summer.

Quote:
I would guess that the payroll cannot go over the cap at any point in terms of overall salary. On the surface it doesnt seem like letting teams float anywhere, so long as their final paid dollars end up below the cap, but what do you do if a team foolishly ends up overpspending on the cap and doesnt have enough payroll space leftover to cover it's salaries for the rest of the year? Do you force them to forefit their remaining games? Do you fine them? It is much cleaner to state that the total payroll can never go over $x at any point.
If a team foolishly ends up overspending, I'm sure the league would punish them accordingly. The thread of such a punishment would prevent this from happening IMO. Plus, it would be nice to have some flexibility...espcially since the cap is a floating cap. It also is in the best interests of the fans to see some trade deadline transactions to generate some interest. Those days are always exciting IMO.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 06:28 PM
  #6
Resolute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Well, 80% of the league has spent the last decade worrying about the financial impact of trades as a primary concern, and the trade deadline has continued to thrive. The other six teams will just have to maintain a little cap space if they wish to be able to add players down the stretch.

That is why I found the unions $53.5 million cap offer so hilarious. They wanted a $49 million cap that allowed a team to go 10% over on occasion if they needed to add players? Err, why not just stay 10% below the cap level so you have the room to maneuver?

Resolute is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 06:49 PM
  #7
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
If this is the case, then I hope the same holds true this summer.



If a team foolishly ends up overspending, I'm sure the league would punish them accordingly. The thread of such a punishment would prevent this from happening IMO. Plus, it would be nice to have some flexibility...espcially since the cap is a floating cap. It also is in the best interests of the fans to see some trade deadline transactions to generate some interest. Those days are always exciting IMO.
You have to be able to go over in the Summer .. You have to hand out qualifying offers to RFA .. Sign draft picks etc .. You can't start buyout players until who will accept a what their contracts will be ..

I think you have to be legal by season start .. You must be able to use training camp to assist you in decisions I would guess ..

Mess is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 07:24 PM
  #8
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
It also is in the best interests of the fans to see some trade deadline transactions to generate some interest. Those days are always exciting IMO.
I think trade deadline day, as we know it, is done for. What made trade deadline day possible was having teams with enough cap room to take on big salaries in exchange for draft picks/prospects.

Count me as someone who will not miss trade deadline day that much.

It got pretty damn ridiculous in the last four or five years. Big Market teams trading away prospects and draft picks for small market teams overpaid paid players.

In most cases, the big pickups rarely worked, as teams struggled to find chemistry anyway.

Granted, it was a lot of fun, seeing who would go where. But in the end, it hurt hockey more than it helped.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 10:24 PM
  #9
OilKiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Count me as someone who will not miss trade deadline day that much.
I would. I love trade deadline day. Being a fan of a small market team though, I knew my team would never pull off that "big" trade. But with every team in the same boat moreso with the new CBA, I think trade deadline day will be more fun for every fan.

OilKiller is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 10:28 PM
  #10
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OilKiller
I would. I love trade deadline day. Being a fan of a small market team though, I knew my team would never pull off that "big" trade. But with every team in the same boat moreso with the new CBA, I think trade deadline day will be more fun for every fan.

No way. Teams that have the revenues to take on big contracts can't because of the cap.
Teams that have the cap room can't because they don't have revenues.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 10:32 PM
  #11
OilKiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
No way. Teams that have the revenues to take on big contracts can't because of the cap.
Teams that have the cap room can't because they don't have revenues.
We could still see a lot of player shifting with players having similar contracts. I still say that trades will be around and every team will be able to make them now, not just the rich ones taking on bigger contracts or picking up UFA's, etc.

OilKiller is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 10:33 PM
  #12
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
I think trade deadline day, as we know it, is done for. What made trade deadline day possible was having teams with enough cap room to take on big salaries in exchange for draft picks/prospects.

Count me as someone who will not miss trade deadline day that much.

It got pretty damn ridiculous in the last four or five years. Big Market teams trading away prospects and draft picks for small market teams overpaid paid players.

In most cases, the big pickups rarely worked, as teams struggled to find chemistry anyway.

Granted, it was a lot of fun, seeing who would go where. But in the end, it hurt hockey more than it helped.
Something to consider - a team might be able to trade for a guy with a very small amount of $'s left on his contract, and fit them under the cap.

Let's use the Rob Blake situation as an example. An elite level player, (let's say making $6M), is going to be a UFA, and won't be returning to a team (because they are rebuilding, or they won't be able to fit him under the cap). A team that is under the cap and thinks they can make a run could pick him up for the $1M left to be paid, which is the remaining contract obligation after the trade deadline.

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
07-08-2005, 11:16 PM
  #13
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
Something to consider - a team might be able to trade for a guy with a very small amount of $'s left on his contract, and fit them under the cap.

Let's use the Rob Blake situation as an example. An elite level player, (let's say making $6M), is going to be a UFA, and won't be returning to a team (because they are rebuilding, or they won't be able to fit him under the cap). A team that is under the cap and thinks they can make a run could pick him up for the $1M left to be paid, which is the remaining contract obligation after the trade deadline.
This is news to me. Since when were the Avs in rebuilding mode?

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:08 AM
  #14
Arastiroth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
This is news to me. Since when were the Avs in rebuilding mode?
By the Rob Blake example he meant when the Kings traded him to the Avs.

Arastiroth is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:43 AM
  #15
London Knights
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute
Well, 80% of the league has spent the last decade worrying about the financial impact of trades as a primary concern, and the trade deadline has continued to thrive. The other six teams will just have to maintain a little cap space if they wish to be able to add players down the stretch.

That is why I found the unions $53.5 million cap offer so hilarious. They wanted a $49 million cap that allowed a team to go 10% over on occasion if they needed to add players? Err, why not just stay 10% below the cap level so you have the room to maneuver?
You could set an in season clause for rent-a-players. The cap at the start of the season/end of the season would be 49 million. But it would give you an opportunity to spend a certain amount over the cap in the middle of the year providing you get back to the proper level come the off-season. That is most likely how that would have worked.

London Knights is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:46 AM
  #16
Kaizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moscow , Russia
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobu
Kypreos and Dreger just reported on Sportsnet that there will be no grandfathering and no exceptions made to being under the cap by a certain date for the start of the 2005-06 season. There had been some confusion recently about grandfathering provisions.
Sort of "2 weeks" report, Imo.

Kaizer is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:50 AM
  #17
Resolute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by London Knights
You could set an in season clause for rent-a-players. The cap at the start of the season/end of the season would be 49 million. But it would give you an opportunity to spend a certain amount over the cap in the middle of the year providing you get back to the proper level come the off-season. That is most likely how that would have worked.
If I understand how you are stating this right, you are permitting a team to exceed the cap, so long as they release players to get back to the cap once the season is over. If that is the case, that would violate the intent and the spirit of the salary cap, and almost certantly will not be permitted.

If you meant that a team could carry players with a combined salary over the cap for a time, so long as the actual dollars paid out by the team do not exceed the cap, that seems fine on the surface, but only so long as the penalty for exceeding the cap is prohibative. Hell, if the Leafs were able to carry a $50 million payroll during the season, ended up overpaying by the end and the fine was something like $5 million, they probably wouldnt think twice about breaking the rules.

Personally, I think if the league would conisder allowing a team to go over the actual cap for a time, and the end result was that they broke the cap rules, the penalty should be the forefiture of their playoff spot. That would very likely keep teams in line.

Resolute is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 01:07 AM
  #18
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,854
vCash: 500
probarbly just give up a first round pick...not a playoff spot!..calm down...imagine that actually happend? which fans would go see their time NOT FIGHTING for anything

Traitor8 is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 03:33 AM
  #19
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,501
vCash: 500
It's more likely to be along the lines of several first round picks for a first offense along with possibly a big fine. If the team still tries to cheat, then you start getting into game forfeiting. It won't be something any team tries to flaunt, I guarantee that.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 03:33 AM
  #20
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
A Hard Cap means, no exceeding it in any way, shape, or form.I expect the League will have the Power To approve any contract. And if it would put a team over the cap. It would be dis allowed.

Tra La La is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 09:34 AM
  #21
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
I would think performance bonuses count against the cap.. if they didn't then.. whoa nelly... sign a star player for the league minimum and give him large bonuses for incredibly easy targets.

shakes is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 10:09 AM
  #22
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
performance bonuses will probably be counted against the following years cap, as it is the only way to deal with them, IMHO.

Egil is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 11:21 AM
  #23
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,285
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes
I would think performance bonuses count against the cap.. if they didn't then.. whoa nelly... sign a star player for the league minimum and give him large bonuses for incredibly easy targets.
I've been reading so many rumors I'm getting them mixed up. Wouldn't this be prohibited by the standardized bonuses? Or is that for rookies?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:00 PM
  #24
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invader Zim
A Hard Cap means, no exceeding it in any way, shape, or form.I expect the League will have the Power To approve any contract. And if it would put a team over the cap. It would be dis allowed.
Agreed to a point if its contained to contracts that violate any part of the CBA and its rules ..YES .

However a team overspending by $2 mil on a player that might escalate salaries but within the cap ranges of both player and team ..I would say NO ..

Even if its bad for business if its legal its approved ..IMO

Mess is offline  
Old
07-09-2005, 12:05 PM
  #25
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
performance bonuses will probably be counted against the following years cap, as it is the only way to deal with them, IMHO.
That could open itself up to abuse though ..

You could plan a Stanley Cup run in July UFA season by offering the best stars lower base and playoff performance bonuses and stack a team .. Then pay the piper the following year as lost cap space ..

Trust me teams would exploit this .. and fans might even be willing to support it .. One year you go all out for the CUP .. the next you are in prime entry draft lottery territory.

Mess is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:59 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.