HFBoards

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

Salary Cap - Could go to 76 million

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2017, 04:45 AM
  #1
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,516
vCash: 500
Salary Cap - Could go to 76 million

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-sal...MwXzEEc2VjA3Ny

So potential good news on the salary cap front. Figure this could serve as a thread to keep around to discuss the Jackets' salary cap issues both current and prospectively.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 05:54 AM
  #2
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-sal...MwXzEEc2VjA3Ny

So potential good news on the salary cap front. Figure this could serve as a thread to keep around to discuss the Jackets' salary cap issues both current and prospectively.
I think the Jackets have enough wiggle room that they don't need an increase this summer. And this raises the price of all players and makes big spending teams stronger. In a few years though we'll really need it.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 06:55 AM
  #3
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,667
vCash: 500
I'm not sure I'd consider the players exercising their escalator clause a good thing, but, yes, it would give some cap teams some breathing room.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 10:23 AM
  #4
mikeyp24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
It's a good thing. Just because the cap goes up doesn't mean you have to pay more. GMs will set precedent with what they feel a guy is worth and players will ask for comparable so as long as rival GMs don't go nuts it won't hurt us only help bring in or keep current talent. It's good for us with Cam needing signed in a year, Bob coming up in a few, and then all our young guys.

mikeyp24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 10:25 AM
  #5
Rick74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
The salary cap increase isn't going to help solve anything.

If anything it will just increase your A+ players's salary. You will see a larger disparity between have's and have nots. And you will still only be able to afford a certain amount of top tier talent.

Rick74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 10:52 AM
  #6
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
 
LetsGOJackets!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick74 View Post
The salary cap increase isn't going to help solve anything.

If anything it will just increase your A+ players's salary. You will see a larger disparity between have's and have nots. And you will still only be able to afford a certain amount of top tier talent.
That is really dependent on each teams Mgmt., and their decisions on how to comprise a team. The cap is put in place to protect the league from itself. Here in Columbus we have seen salaries paid that try to anticipate market value of players projected over the term - in some cases we have over paid to bring in or secure talent. Some of the overpaid players - have been jettisoned when production doesn't equate to salary - but interestingly enough, other teams have always taken those players and we haven't retained salary (to my knowledge)

Now that Columbus has a good young nucleus that could win for many years, it will be interesting to see if the Jackets will be in on more free agents that otherwise would not have considered the Jackets before. Many players that have played here keep their homes & come back to Columbus in retirement. (likely due to affordable cost of living, great schools & elite golf courses). Regardless, the CBJ will likely be a team that continues to be reliant primarily on the draft and development system. I could see Ownership spending to the cap if attendance increases due to winning.

LetsGOJackets!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 12:02 PM
  #7
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick74 View Post
The salary cap increase isn't going to help solve anything.

If anything it will just increase your A+ players's salary. You will see a larger disparity between have's and have nots. And you will still only be able to afford a certain amount of top tier talent.
Sure it will. It will allow teams like the Jackets to re-sign guys like Werenski, Wennberg, Korpi, et al to reasonable contracts while either buying a couple years of UFA or retaining one more go with these guys as RFA's.

If the Jackets continue to improve and become more and more of a serious Cup contender I would hope the increased salary cap (assuming it continues to rise) would allow all current talent to be retained and rewarded and maybe attract the missing piece in free agency.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 04:04 PM
  #8
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Sure it will. It will allow teams like the Jackets to re-sign guys like Werenski, Wennberg, Korpi, et al to reasonable contracts while either buying a couple years of UFA or retaining one more go with these guys as RFA's.

If the Jackets continue to improve and become more and more of a serious Cup contender I would hope the increased salary cap (assuming it continues to rise) would allow all current talent to be retained and rewarded and maybe attract the missing piece in free agency.
I agree with you but only because this club is going to be squeezed hard in a couple years. Now that we're finally good, it is needed big time.

But it really hasn't been a good thing for Columbus generally when the cap goes up. It's just made it easier for teams like the Pens to stick together, had no binding effect on the Jackets roster, and of course it drives up costs for a cash strapped team (with more to pay by ticket holders, local gov, etc...)

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 05:49 PM
  #9
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyp24 View Post
It's a good thing.
At best I would call it neutral.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:59 PM
  #10
mikeyp24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
At best I would call it neutral.
So much negativity in here about this if you look at NBA or NFL situations to compare normally when it comes to cap raising its great for resigning your own people a.d.getting hometown discounts and the UFAs cash in but that's how it ALWAYS happens. Look at guys like Ladd, lucic, and backes. Those guys were extremely overpaid. Just like Horton and Clarkson years before. But if the cap stayed or lowered UFAs still would get overpaid because they have to take scraps as RFAs that they demand finally getting their money.

mikeyp24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 06:25 AM
  #11
JacketsDavid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
vCash: 500
I'm in the cap that it's neutral as well.
The cap rising helps teams that make mistakes. The good consistent teams it helps let them spend more - but gives other teams more money to spend as well.
So maybe it helps, but I would see it as neutral.
Obvioulsy good for the players so they can make more money!

JacketsDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 06:47 AM
  #12
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyp24 View Post
So much negativity in here about this if you look at NBA or NFL situations to compare normally when it comes to cap raising its great for resigning your own people a.d.getting hometown discounts and the UFAs cash in but that's how it ALWAYS happens. Look at guys like Ladd, lucic, and backes. Those guys were extremely overpaid. Just like Horton and Clarkson years before. But if the cap stayed or lowered UFAs still would get overpaid because they have to take scraps as RFAs that they demand finally getting their money.
Negativity to what?

Think it through. The players are using an escalator, which means the financials aren't there to support a cap raise on their own. Think beyond the immediate impact to teams that could use some cap space next season. Think about the the situation with the world financials as a whole.

Read my original post.

I really wish people would actually try and understand what people are writing an why. What you posted, I really don't give a crap about. That's cap management at a team level.

Oh and yeah, yeah. The player could say the owners are cooking the books to keep the cap down and not pay as much. Maybe there is some of it, which is why I said "I'm not sure". There is also the consideration of the escrow. Teams probably aren't paying out the players entire salary now. It's fairly complex.


Last edited by blahblah: 03-10-2017 at 06:52 AM.
blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 12:11 PM
  #13
The Bread Man
Registered User
 
The Bread Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Cap going up is not a good thing, unless the small market teams can comfortably spend to that limit, if not, then the system favors the large market teams. Curious how much revenue the jackets bring in compared to what they spend annually ? Anyone have that info ?

The Bread Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 12:33 PM
  #14
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Saad View Post
Cap going up is not a good thing, unless the small market teams can comfortably spend to that limit, if not, then the system favors the large market teams. Curious how much revenue the jackets bring in compared to what they spend annually ? Anyone have that info ?
Per Forbes it's 100m. I don't know enough about the cost side - I know there is a lot of fuzzy accounting where the arena expenses are offloaded.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 01:01 PM
  #15
The Bread Man
Registered User
 
The Bread Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Per Forbes it's 100m. I don't know enough about the cost side - I know there is a lot of fuzzy accounting where the arena expenses are offloaded.
So is that the total value of franchise , or money the jackets bring in from money shared within the nhl, tv contracts, ticket , and merchandise sales ? Just curious, because I know Worthington Industries does well, but if we know that they are spending 76 million alone in payroll, what money is coming in to offset that ?

Guess I'm trying to wrap my head around how we can determine if this is a good or bad thing. My first instinct , is this is a bad thing, because up until a few years ago, we didn't spend near the cap. In the past few we have, but some of that were contracts that were bad and we were just stuck with . Is the money coming in sufficient to support us spending to the cap ?

The Bread Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 01:58 PM
  #16
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Saad View Post
So is that the total value of franchise , or money the jackets bring in from money shared within the nhl, tv contracts, ticket , and merchandise sales ? Just curious, because I know Worthington Industries does well, but if we know that they are spending 76 million alone in payroll, what money is coming in to offset that ?

Guess I'm trying to wrap my head around how we can determine if this is a good or bad thing. My first instinct , is this is a bad thing, because up until a few years ago, we didn't spend near the cap. In the past few we have, but some of that were contracts that were bad and we were just stuck with . Is the money coming in sufficient to support us spending to the cap ?
100m total revenue - though that's going up as we speak. The team hasn't actually been breaking even.

It would have to go up by a lot (maybe to a total 125m) to sustain 76m in player salary. I don't know the current total cost figures, like I said the accounting with the arena costs is weird so you can't infer the real costs from revenues minus operating income. So we can't say for sure how much is needed to break even. But I think not counting the fuzzy accounting / govt help, the break even revenue should be close to 125m.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 02:23 PM
  #17
BoonesJenner
Registered User
 
BoonesJenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 250
I think that's pretty attainable if the jackets can get some kind of playoff streak going for the next 3-5 years. Being a perennial playoff contender should mean more filled seats during the first half of the year. It'll give something for the city to cheer during the week before OSU

BoonesJenner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 10:32 PM
  #18
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Saad View Post
SJust curious, because I know Worthington Industries does well, but if we know that they are spending 76 million alone in payroll, what money is coming in to offset that?
Worthington Industries does not have ownership stake in the Jackets, at least that I'm aware of. McConnell does.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 07:55 AM
  #19
MoeBartoli
Chex-to-Jax
 
MoeBartoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Worthington Industries does not have ownership stake in the Jackets, at least that I'm aware of. McConnell does.
Pretty sure you are correct on that.

MoeBartoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2017, 05:10 AM
  #20
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,516
vCash: 500
Salary cap is set at 75 million for next year.

Assuming we keep Hartnell which it looks like it will happen,
Bridge Wennberg at 3.5 and Anderson at 2 and Sedlak at a million
Here's the roster:

Jenner 2.9
Foligno 5.5
Calvert 2.2
Atkinson 3.5
Dubinsky 5.85
Hartnell 4.75
Saad 6
Wennberg 3.5
Anderson 2
Bjorkstrand 0.675

Sedlak 0.825
PLD 0.925
Forwards 13
Total Forwards 39

Defensemen 7
Murray 2.825
Jones 5.4
Savard 4.25
Johnson 4.357

Werenski 0.925
Nutivaara 0.817
Carlsson 0.925


Defense Subtotal 19.499


Goalie 8.5

Buyouts
Boll 0.567
Tyutin 1.958
2.525
Total 69.524

Cap 75

Assuming Clarkson is gone or we can play the game to maximize his LITR we have approximately 5.5 to play with.

What do you do with it?

Re-sign Gagner at 2 to 3 mill for another 1 year?
Try to get a veteran like Patrick Eaves on a 1 to 2 year deal at the same $ as Gagner
Count on Milano or another of the cheap youngsters to make the team?
Buyout Hartnell and get the best UFA you can?
Go longer term on Wennberg & Anderson?


We have a young team already with PLD, Sedlak, Bjorkstrand as F's. Do we add a 4th young guy to that group?

My preference is to re-sign Gagner or get a UFA like Eaves as cheaply as possible. Don't know if it doable but with lots of good teams having cap issues it might hold down UFA $.


Last edited by EspenK: 06-22-2017 at 04:09 AM. Reason: changed Sedlak
EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2017, 07:25 AM
  #21
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Re-sign Gagner at 2 to 3 mill for another 1 year?
Try to get a veteran like Patrick Eaves on a 1 to 2 year deal at the same $ as Gagner
Count on Milano or another of the cheap youngsters to make the team?
Buyout Hartnell and get the best UFA you can?
Go longer term on Wennberg & Anderson?


We have a young team already with PLD, Sedlak, Bjorkstrand as F's. Do we add a 4th young guy to that group?
No
No
Maybe
No
Maybe

Yes

We need to trade for a true number 1 center or just go with who we have already.

RDriesenUD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2017, 08:03 AM
  #22
DarkandStormy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 614
Country: United States
Posts: 2,936
vCash: 500
^^Sedlak already has a contract in place. $825K AAV the next two years.

DarkandStormy 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 03:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.