Agreed. We're having a tough enough time reaching the Floor as it is, losing his 4.1 contract will result in us having to stupidly spend money elsewhere.
We can probably get him in a 5 mill per year deal, which is less than 1 mill added to our cap.
If we just make the floor, we have ATLEAST 16 mill to play to with when the big 3 need new contracts. Added to their ELC's, the contracts of the big 3, won't take up that much space. Some people forget Hall is already making just under 4 million a year, and the guy won't get paid more than Crosby.
At the same time, Paajarvi's 2nd contract is not going to be a 6 million dollar deal. If it is, than we're likely coming off a solid cup run that season.
Hemsky already makes $5M per year. In the face of a rising cap and with the fact that he has already been caught once by inflation, why would he sign now for no raise when he has the chance to be one of the most saught after UFA's next year?
Hemsky already makes $5M per year. In the face of a rising cap and with the fact that he has already been caught once by inflation, why would he sign now for no raise when he has the chance to be one of the most saught after UFA's next year?
He makes 4.1M per year. Where did you get 5M from?
Can you trade a buyout cap hit? The only reason I ask is because that would look really good, the cap hit for the buyout of Yashin, on the Panther's cap, get the number up, keep the salaries down.
Hemsky already makes $5M per year. In the face of a rising cap and with the fact that he has already been caught once by inflation, why would he sign now for no raise when he has the chance to be one of the most saught after UFA's next year?
He's not going to get much more than that on the open market unless he plays a solid 80 game season. There is also a thing called a hometown discount. It may be a contract that starts at 6 mill per and ends at 4, who knows? He won't get more than 6, which still is not that bad for our cap situation.
Seems to me that this is starting to look like the pre lockout/no cap era. Have's and have not's. Teams that cannot spend to the max have no chance with the likes of Philly, Detroit, Vancouver and a few others. The cap floor makes it appear to be more equal, but that's just a smoke screen AFAIC.
It means that rich teams that already have assembled good core will be able to keep it and add one or two good player each off-season (See Boston, Philly, Detroit, Vancouver, Washington, Pittsburgh).
Thus Philly won't have to trade Carter. Washington can now likely keep Semin. A team like Detroit might be able to fit in Brad Richards (with Rafalski gone, they have a lot of cap space).
Floor teams or teams that have trouble attracting free agents will have to overpay 2nd tier free agents just to get to the floor because all the tier 1 free agents will go to the successful teams above.
Can you trade a buyout cap hit? The only reason I ask is because that would look really good, the cap hit for the buyout of Yashin, on the Panther's cap, get the number up, keep the salaries down.
Dark times for the NHL ahead, a lockout seems all but inevitable at this point unless something is done about this salary escalation before the current CBA expires. It's never healthy for the league when about 1/4 of the teams will struggle to even clear the salary cap floor.
It'll be pre-lockoutish Small Market vs. Big Market spending before long.
No. Salary cap and salary floor are tied to the league wide revenues. There is a thing called revenue sharing--weaker teams will receive money to reach the floor.
Yeah this rising cap may be the death of the NHL or at least a few teams(probably the later). Which by all means I am completely fine with a 25ish team league.
Ok, ok, ok. I was going off the salary chart off of capgeek but now looking at the real salary, I see it.
And in reality, it is the $5M in salary that will matter to Hemsky. He is not going to want to sit back and watch salary inflation eat into his deal again.
cap might actually help hamilton/quebec city get a team once the southern usa teams start to lose to much, as for the cap why dont we just go out and give huge salary to some 3/4 d-men for 2 yrs on the under the table agreement in 2 yrs they take a "loyalty" salary?
I wonder if this continuing rising cap means teams will favour more life long deals rather than 3-4 years.
They make a lot of sense. Philly will be laughing in a few years with Carter and Richards locked up to those long term contracts, even if they end up eating Prongers. Heck they may be able to trade Pronger to a team just to eat up the cap space.
I think people can forget about Carter getting moved now. In a way that helps our cause significantly, Hemsky's trade value goes way up with Carter off the market.
__________________ Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
And in reality, it is the $5M in salary that will matter to Hemsky. He is not going to want to sit back and watch salary inflation eat into his deal again.
I dunno. There was a point when Hemsky could make a case that he was getting screwed and I think there is also a point(currently) where one could argue that he is overpaid.
I think people can forget about Carter getting moved now. In a way that helps our cause significantly, Hemsky's trade value goes way up with Carter off the market.
I had not thought of that. That is a good point. It might only help us, depending upon whether management definitely wants to move Hemsky and are not asking for the moon. One thing is for sure with this cap going up so much IMO Hemsky's next contract is going to be at least 5.5 mill and it could be more.
I dunno. There was a point when Hemsky could make a case that he was getting screwed and I think there is also a point(currently) where one could argue that he is overpaid.
I don't think Hemsky is overpaid. He's consistently a near PPG player when healthy and they don't grow on trees so $4-$5 million isn't an overpayment for a player like him who's "theoretically" still in his prime playing years. I say theoretically because he's chronically injury prone every year so his overall value from that point of view may be reduced but I don't think his salary is too high compared to other similarly skilled forwards in the NHL.
This rising salary cap system in the CBA looks like it was designed by 5th graders.
Each year they adjust (raise) the top end of the cap and then have the bottom end also rise so that there is always a consistent spread of $16 million between them.
Basic math scribbled on the back of an envelope would have told them this hurts struggling teams.
Look at the yearly increases for the top end and bottom end of the salary cap limits over the last 5 years:
07/08 Maximum $50.3 million - Minimum $34.3 million
08/09 Maximum $56.7 million - Minimum $40.7 million
09/10 Maximum $56.8 million - Minimum $40.8 million
10/11 Maximum $59.4 million - Minimum $43.4 million
11/12 Maximum $64.0 million - Minimum $48.0 million
Now the year over year percentage increases at the top and bottom ends of the salary cap:
08/09 increase: Top end +12.72% Bottom end +18.66%
09/10 increase: Top end +0.18% Bottom end +0.25%
10/11 increase: Top end +4.58% Bottom end +6.37%
11/12 increase: Top end +7.74% Bottom end +10.60%
Overall increase from 07/10 to 11/12: Top end +27.24% Bottom end +39.94%
So the teams least able to afford the salary cap increases each year are the ones with the largest percentage increases that they HAVE to meet each year according to the CBA rules.
Meanwhile... the teams rolling in money that are up against the cap ceiling have comparatively lower percentage increases each year and they of course don't HAVE to hit those limits if they choose not to.
Yes there is revenue sharing in place which takes from the rich and gives to the poor like Robin Hood but the system as set up is flawed in it's structure and makes it a certain that the teams which are financially weakest each year are the ones facing the largest mandated % cap hikes.
The system in place is essentially designed so the weak get weaker and the rich get richer. It's obvious that there will be several more Atlanta type situations if this continues. Certainly great news for the possibility of more Canadian teams in the near future but does the league regularly want teams being relocated every 3-5 years?
I think people can forget about Carter getting moved now. In a way that helps our cause significantly, Hemsky's trade value goes way up with Carter off the market.
Yep. Hemsky is apparently Howson's 3rd resort behind Burns and Carter. With the salary hike, Carnet won't be moved so it comes down to Hemsky vs Carter, and Colombus could easily trade for both.
Sounds good, but I'll keep on the same train that wants to trade him because the dude will only play about 50 games a season due to his wreckless play and aging body.
that's fine, your point is a completely understandable one... the people who were freaking out about what our cap situation was going to be like in *three years* from now are the ones i was targeting
Yes there is revenue sharing in place which takes from the rich and gives to the poor like Robin Hood but the system as set up is flawed in it's structure and makes it a certain that the teams which are financially weakest each year are the ones facing the largest mandated % cap hikes.
Yea, but the revenue sharing is a straight 5% of revenues, so the amount teams at the bottom get in revenue sharing increases every time the cap rises. So they get more money every year even if their revenues don't increase. The percentage of their salaries paid by sharing would increase in the same manner as the bottom end of the cap.
This season the NHL made almost $3 billion. So if they are going by gross revenue, that means the revenue sharing teams have $150 million dollars to split between them. We're talking up to $10 million per team to help them reach their spending goals.
Do you have a link to the books of the Oilers that shows they made money in say 2009-2010? Do you have any actual justification for your position or are you simply pouring a different flavour of koolaid?
For the record, I am quite sure they made money last year, but I would also be surprised if they had not been losing money for several years before that.
(And for the record we have preety good reason to believe that at the time a capped team would have needed about $95M in revenue to break even without revenue sharing ).
I'd be happy to see you justify your statements. In particular, can you provide a detailed estimate of revenues vs costs, with sources for your implied claims?
I am more than willing to say that I could be wrong. But if you are going to call people who disagree with your position koolaid drinkers the least you might do is be prepared to back up your claim.
You've done a great job with your estimates. I wish I had the time to argue them and do the research. First impression are television revenues are way low considering the sharing from US TV Contracts, CBC, local rights etc.; second impression is that concession revenues are also way low.
Forbes would agree with me. As they indicate the Oilers have the 7th highest profit in the NHL at $12 million in 2008.
They then estimate operating income of $8.2 million in 2010. I am guessing they have better access to factual information than my 'speculations', so I will trust their numbers for the most part.
