HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

salary cap floor

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2008, 07:03 PM
  #1
Rafters
Registered User
 
Rafters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Medicine Hat
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,862
vCash: 500
salary cap floor

just curious what happens if a team does not reach the floor limit of salaries(LA).....or if a team is over to start(chi)

Rafters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2008, 07:05 PM
  #2
imkinger
Registered User
 
imkinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafters View Post
just curious what happens if a team does not reach the floor limit of salaries(LA).....or if a team is over to start(chi)
Team gets suspended and forfeits all draft picks for the upcoming draft.

imkinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2008, 07:06 PM
  #3
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafters View Post
just curious what happens if a team does not reach the floor limit of salaries(LA).....or if a team is over to start(chi)
I believe there are several penalties that the commish can levy ranging from draft picks to monetary fines to forfeiting games.

Hemsky4PM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2008, 11:07 PM
  #4
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
This has been discussed in detail on the Business forum. To quote IB

We don't know!!!!

IB has suggested that he will try to find out the answer to this from his contact in the NHL office.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2008, 04:02 AM
  #5
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,916
vCash: 1000
personally I don't trust anyone who has an agrent with the devil

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2008, 10:30 AM
  #6
JonQuixote
Registered User
 
JonQuixote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,188
vCash: 500
When the NHL was starting up after the lockout, with a new salary cap, the Devils were looking like they were going to be over going down to the wire.

When asked what would happen if a team wasn't under the cap by the time their first puck dropped, Bill Daly replied "team doesn't play."

Anyway, it's a lot easier for the Kings to get over the cap than it is for teams to get under it. Worst comes to worse, Glen Murray gets a $9 million, 1 year contract.

JonQuixote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2008, 01:50 PM
  #7
robbiezyg
Registered User
 
robbiezyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,512
vCash: 1234
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonQuixote View Post
Glen Murray gets a $9 million, 1 year contract.
imagine they wanted to unload him at the deadline.

robbiezyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2008, 06:54 PM
  #8
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonQuixote View Post
When the NHL was starting up after the lockout, with a new salary cap, the Devils were looking like they were going to be over going down to the wire.

When asked what would happen if a team wasn't under the cap by the time their first puck dropped, Bill Daly replied "team doesn't play."

Anyway, it's a lot easier for the Kings to get over the cap than it is for teams to get under it. Worst comes to worse, Glen Murray gets a $9 million, 1 year contract.

I am certainly not questioning your memory of what Daly said but the "doesn't play" penalty makes little sense because it can have a direct and substantially negative impact on other teams. Would the Oilers like to refund their revenue for the home dates with the Fames if they (the Flames) remained over the cap? What about TV commitments.

I agree that there is little danger of teams not raching the cap floor, at least this year. Moreover, in the end it is possible to get under the cap by sending a contract or two to the minors. If the players have to clear waivers so be it. This is not the best cap managment but it would definitley beat the "doesn't play" option.

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2008, 07:21 PM
  #9
JonQuixote
Registered User
 
JonQuixote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I am certainly not questioning your memory of what Daly said but the "doesn't play" penalty makes little sense because it can have a direct and substantially negative impact on other teams. Would the Oilers like to refund their revenue for the home dates with the Fames if they (the Flames) remained over the cap? What about TV commitments.

I agree that there is little danger of teams not raching the cap floor, at least this year. Moreover, in the end it is possible to get under the cap by sending a contract or two to the minors. If the players have to clear waivers so be it. This is not the best cap managment but it would definitley beat the "doesn't play" option.
It does seem to be a radical remedy. Who knows it they would actually enforce it? Do you know if the NHL actually has the power to do the solution you suggest?

But forfeits and/or delays aren't exactly unheard of in professional sports. Maybe the radical remedy ensures compliance?

I dunno. Anyway, here's the quote and the original source, from September 2006:

Quote:
It's fine for Glen Sather to express his opinion the Devils should not be able to get LTI relief on Alexander Mogilny, but we bet there are 29 other general managers who don't quite understand why the league cap charges the Rangers only $4.94 million of the $8.36 million Jaromir Jagr earns.

Deputy commissioner Bill Daly, responding by e-mail to a Slap Shots' query of what the league's recourse is if a team is not under the cap by opening night: "Team doesn't play."
Link

JonQuixote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2008, 07:52 PM
  #10
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonQuixote View Post
It does seem to be a radical remedy. Who knows it they would actually enforce it? Do you know if the NHL actually has the power to do the solution you suggest?

But forfeits and/or delays aren't exactly unheard of in professional sports. Maybe the radical remedy ensures compliance?

I dunno. Anyway, here's the quote and the original source, from September 2006:



Link
Thanks for the link. As I said, I was certianly not questioning your memory with respect to what Daly said.

It appears that the CBA does not address penalties for non-compliance directly. These may well be in the by-laws, but unfortunately the by-laws are not publis so far as I know.

I believe that the league does retain fairly draconian powers in enforcing certain aspects of the CBA. But I doubt they would apply a penalty that would have severe negative consequences to a non-offending team. Perhaps forfeiture of home games would be sufficient. However, unless a team was trying to send a message of protest, they would be idiots to let it go that far when demoting a contract or two to the minors until a trade could be made would bring them in compliance. (To be clear, I was not suggesting that the NHL would force such demotiuons but rather that the team could choose to do so.)

Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2008, 08:11 PM
  #11
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
I doubt the over cap is ever going to happen. Step one would be to inform the team that they are reaching a critical date and that if they do not take steps to meet the cap by that date, the league will begin penalising them. The situation could culminate in an orderly fashion with the league arbitrarilly putting players on waivers according to some set of criteria by another date, as well as additional sanctions on the club if the league was forced to go so far. Faced with this, any club would do the sensible thing and choose a player or two to lose on waivers. Any club willing to spend to the cap could be expected to stay on the good side.

The under cap may be trickier. What if a struggling team decides to screw the floor and go with a $20MM salary? They don't get revenue sharing. OK. Draft picks? An owner would have to be near giving up on the venture long before crossing the league like that. I suppose suspension of the franchise would be a final step in this sort of circumstance, but the offending owner would need to be near packing it in anyway, so...

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2008, 06:12 AM
  #12
enthropi
Hiss Hiss (TKA) Hiss
 
enthropi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 3,875
vCash: 500
I have a question not directly related, but I thought I'd ask here.

How do FAs work approaching training camp, because UFAs usually are given a formal invitation to a team's TC. Is it the same for RFA? ie: can the Kings, for example, just leave Stoll without a contract until AFTER training camp to see how well he plays there? Would that require them to sign some kind of invitation in the same way as a UFA? Or is that in the basic clauses of an RFA agreement? (ie: you show up to TC regardless of contract as long as you're RFA status)

Not that it matters much, just wondering... We could all use a little more useless info, right? And yes, I know that made no sense...

enthropi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2008, 07:42 PM
  #13
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enthropi View Post
I have a question not directly related, but I thought I'd ask here.

How do FAs work approaching training camp, because UFAs usually are given a formal invitation to a team's TC. Is it the same for RFA? ie: can the Kings, for example, just leave Stoll without a contract until AFTER training camp to see how well he plays there? Would that require them to sign some kind of invitation in the same way as a UFA? Or is that in the basic clauses of an RFA agreement? (ie: you show up to TC regardless of contract as long as you're RFA status)

Not that it matters much, just wondering... We could all use a little more useless info, right? And yes, I know that made no sense...
I would imagine RFAs would come to camp with some sort of insurance to cover loss of earnings in the event of injury. That might be an issue for Stoll.

nye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2008, 07:49 PM
  #14
philsner99
 
philsner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spruce Grove, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to philsner99 Send a message via Yahoo to philsner99
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
I doubt the over cap is ever going to happen. Step one would be to inform the team that they are reaching a critical date and that if they do not take steps to meet the cap by that date, the league will begin penalising them. The situation could culminate in an orderly fashion with the league arbitrarilly putting players on waivers according to some set of criteria by another date, as well as additional sanctions on the club if the league was forced to go so far. Faced with this, any club would do the sensible thing and choose a player or two to lose on waivers. Any club willing to spend to the cap could be expected to stay on the good side.

The under cap may be trickier. What if a struggling team decides to screw the floor and go with a $20MM salary? They don't get revenue sharing. OK. Draft picks? An owner would have to be near giving up on the venture long before crossing the league like that. I suppose suspension of the franchise would be a final step in this sort of circumstance, but the offending owner would need to be near packing it in anyway, so...
Very smartly put. I like your outside-the-box thinking.

philsner99 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 05:26 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.