NHL Increases Salary Cap to $56.8M

Captain Ron · 06-26-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwm1986

Its hard to call this an increase..maybe this will cover the salary to that creepy strength coach they just hired..

So now strength coaches count against the cap?

LombardiTool · 06-26-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

Well that is the thing....the only way Dean is going to get a big name free agent player is to outbid playoff teams....because other than money the Kings really have no advantage over teams like Vancouver and Montreal.

If Dean is not willing to overpay then he should just say he is not going to sign free agents instead of getting everyone's hopes up the week before.

I have yet to hear him say he is going to definately get a guy no matter what the cost. I have constantly heard him say he wants to add a big piece if it fits in the long term plans. I may be wrong but this was always the assumption I made.

Captain Ron · 06-26-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frolovfan

I have yet to hear him say he is going to definately get a guy no matter what the cost. I have constantly heard him say he wants to add a big piece if it fits in the long term plans. I may be wrong but this was always the assumption I made.

I always heard Dean talking about the contract fitting in with his plans....obviously overpaying (both money and term) for a free agent would not fit into those plans.

**Sydor25** · 06-26-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

I always heard Dean talking about the contract fitting in with his plans....obviously overpaying (both money and term) for a free agent would not fit into those plans.

That's just Dean doing his pre-emptive spinning. He can then claim, like always, that he made the offers, but no one was willing to sign with the Kings.

DeeMeck · 06-26-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frolovfan

I have yet to hear him say he is going to definately get a guy no matter what the cost. I have constantly heard him say he wants to add a big piece if it fits in the long term plans. I may be wrong but this was always the assumption I made.

Nope...this is Dean and his pioneering effort.

He won't overpay and get into cap problems...but the really good teams who contend every year kind of show that this what it takes...while teams not near the cap continue to lose.

Detroit was in such cap hell that they have to give Quincey away...good for us and all...but I'd still rather be in a position to have to let a good guy go once in awhile for free and contend year in and year out.

I know we are building ourselves into this, and I like what Dean has done, but the time has come to turn the corner. If we are contending year after year in 5 years and are on top of the cap...and we have to put Voinov on waivers because we can't afford to keep him...so be it.

I'm setting my hopes low for the next 2 weeks. Schenn, Sturm, and Ohlund..without sacrificing anything too major isn't bad. It isn't vaulting us into the playoff picture for sure either though.

I am holding out hope for more though.

Youngblood93 · 06-26-2009, 04:07 PM

So any chance Zues can get his 2 fellow country men to sign in LA now?

**Sydor25** · 06-26-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivehole93

So any chance Zues can get his 2 fellow country men to sign in LA now?

Nope.

LombardiTool · 06-26-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

I always heard Dean talking about the contract fitting in with his plans....obviously overpaying (both money and term) for a free agent would not fit into those plans.

Dont get me wrong. If Dean goes out and gets a top guy that would be awesome. I, like DeeMack, am keeping my expectations low. If Lombardi stays the course for another year, I wont be crushed like many people. I would prefer to have a Gaborik type player here though.

**Sam** · 06-26-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeMeck

It was projected to go down by a couple million for next season. It didn't.

No, the cap was only projected to go down by a couple million if the NHLPA did not use their 5% inflator. It was expected to remain basically flat if the NHLPA did use their inflator, which is what happened.

Link from May 23

Quote:

"At this point, we don't really have a good estimate of where the cap will be," Daly wrote in an e-mail to The Star-Ledger. "If the NHLPA wants a 5 percent inflator, and we agree, the cap should be relatively 'flat.' If there is no inflator applied, the cap will be down $2-$2.5 million."

Jwm1986 · 06-26-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

So now strength coaches count against the cap?

Haha...i know it doesn't... but i just had to say it..That guy just creeped me out..

PSP · 06-26-2009, 05:00 PM

Can the NHLPA use the 5% inflator every season? If so, why have it? I can't think of a reason NOT to invoke it if I'm the union....

Captain Ron · 06-26-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSP

Can the NHLPA use the 5% inflator every season? If so, why have it? I can't think of a reason NOT to invoke it if I'm the union....

Yes they can utilize it every season.

There are a few reasons to utilixze it or to not utilize it.

The league is guaranteed a certain percentage of revenue. At certain points of the season the league determines if the numbers are consistent with projections and will withhold money from all NHL players salary to ensure the league gets their alloted amount.

When the NHLPA utilizes the 5% inflator in an environment that the league revenues are flat or drop it hurts the many to help the few.

A high cap will give teams more money to sign (re-sign) UFA's and RFA's......but if the revenue does not support the revenue projections it will cause the league to withhold a greater percentage of money from every player in the league....so in essence all of the players get less money in order give some UFA's/RFA's more money.

I hope that makes sense and answers your question PSP.

T2M · 06-26-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeMeck

Sooo...if they played it tighter on advertising...but still turn the same revenue at the gate and jersey sales...then they actually make MORE money and the cap goes up.

Hockey fans aren't as passive as fans in other sports. You're gonna see the same people buying merchandise and attending games regardless of how much you spend on advertising.

You misunderstand me. I'm talking about advertising revenue from having people advertise on the boards and on the ice, not what the teams themselves are spending on advertising. Advertising revenue in, not advertising costs out.

T2M