stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 If the NHL salary cap does go up to 56 million dollars next year how high should the Sabres spend and why?
spndnchz Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 If the NHL salary cap does go up to 56 million dollars next year how high should the Sabres spend and why? $55,999,999.99 because the chz wants Stanley and don't tell me money doesn't buy a cup (or tell me, just remember I'm an econometrics major)
tom webster Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 $55,999,999.99because the chz wants Stanley and don't tell me money doesn't buy a cup (or tell me, just remember I'm an econometrics major) I don't think you have to spend that much, but I have stated in the past that I think this teams has made a lot of money the last two years and I think they should be committed to spending what they need to improve this team. I know that sounds like a cop out, but I don't want them to spend just to spend, I want them to spend wisely.
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 I don't think you have to spend that much, but I have stated in the past that I think this teams has made a lot of money the last two years and I think they should be committed to spending what they need to improve this team. I know that sounds like a cop out, but I don't want them to spend just to spend, I want them to spend wisely. I had no idea the cap would go up that much..What r the Sabres at now?
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 I had no idea the cap would go up that much..What r the Sabres at now? $44.99 million without Teppo, but with Campbell, Bernier and the "kids" for part of the season. Hecht gets a bit of a raise next year (about $1.3 million higher cap hit, if I remember correctly) and Bernier, Gaustad and Paille need new contracts (Pratt, too, if they keep him). Of course, Kalinin goes bye-bye (I hope), which knocks a couple of million off of the top.
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 $44.99 million without Teppo, but with Campbell, Bernier and the "kids" for part of the season. Hecht gets a bit of a raise next year (about $1.3 million higher cap hit, if I remember correctly) and Bernier, Gaustad and Paille need new contracts (Pratt, too, if they keep him). Of course, Kalinin goes bye-bye (I hope), which knocks a couple of million off of the top. So the cap is going to be 12 million more than we are spending this year if I understand you correct? ANd we will be losing Kalinin's 2.5 mill? So that makes 14 mill..I shouldnt have asked..My blood is starting to boil
wjag Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 That seems like a pretty big jump. I thought attendance was down this year.
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 So the cap is going to be 12 million more than we are spending this year if I understand you correct? ANd we will be losing Kalinin's 2.5 mill? So that makes 14 mill..I shouldnt have asked..My blood is starting to boil You forgot Hecht and the RFA's, who will likely get raises. If it really goes that high, then it will probably be about $10-11 million above our "no outside moves" team.
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 You forgot Hecht and the RFA's, who will likely get raises. If it really goes that high, then it will probably be about $10-11 million above our "no outside moves" team. Didnt Jochen just sign a contract?
R_Dudley Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 I don't think you have to spend that much, but I have stated in the past that I think this teams has made a lot of money the last two years and I think they should be committed to spending what they need to improve this team. I know that sounds like a cop out, but I don't want them to spend just to spend, I want them to spend wisely. I'm with you there, it's not just how much but how they spend it that matters. ;) IMHO opinion .01 under or 10 million under doesn't matter to me if they have the quality players and depth to play their system.
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Didnt Jochen just sign a contract? Yes, he signed a new contract that starts next season. His cap hit will go up from $2.2 to about $3.5 million (don't remember the exact hit) for an additional $1.3 million. Edit: by the way, that would be an 11% increase over this season, which would make the new CBA a complete joke. Salaries should not see double-digit increases.
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 Yes, he signed a new contract that starts next season. His cap hit will go up from $2.2 to about $3.5 million (don't remember the exact hit) for an additional $1.3 million. What is VAneks hit next yr? I think it goes to around 7 mill correct? Needless to say they will have around 10-12 million to spend on free agents? Too bad Phaneuf signed....No excuse to not go get what you need...
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 What is VAneks hit next yr? I think it goes to around 7 mill correct? Needless to say they will have around 10-12 million to spend on free agents? Too bad Phaneuf signed....No excuse to not go get what you need... Cap hit is average of contract year salaries, so it is about $7.1 this year and every year of his contract. It does not change over time.
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 I'm with you there, it's not just how much but how they spend it that matters. ;) IMHO opinion .01 under or 10 million under doesn't matter to me if they have the quality players and depth to play their system. Well if you use this yr as an example they better spend more next year..LOL
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Shouldn't the cap be set to where the smallest market can succeed business wise, no higher? What is the point of the cap if it keeps going up?
BuffalOhio Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Shouldn't the cap be set to where the smallest market can succeed business wise, no higher? What is the point of the cap if it keeps going up? Stop injecting logic. Maybe that's why you've been exiled?
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 Stop injecting logic. Maybe that's why you've been exiled? How would you define small market?
Sherman Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Resign RFA's, extend Miller and Pominville, get a backup goalie, a defenseman or two who will stand up for the goalie and a centerman who can win a faceoff. They have a few to many forwards so we may be able to aquire some of those needs by trade. As far as the salary cap goes we need to leave room. That is the problem we had last year at the trade deadline. We couldn't make a move until we unloaded some cap space.
BuffalOhio Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 How would you define small market? I'm not sure. Perhaps the team with the smallest revenues?
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 Shouldn't the cap be set to where the smallest market can succeed business wise, no higher? What is the point of the cap if it keeps going up? My belief in what the phrase small market meens to me.. I believe it to be an excuse..I have a friend who is a jeweler and he is loaded..However everytime we go out he never has any money, he cries how bad business is etc..Go to his house he has the biggest TV the Nicest car etc... Small market..LOL....Packed house, lead the league in Merchandise sales..Guarantee his house is really nice..
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 I'm not sure. Perhaps the team with the smallest revenues? Smallest revenues can be due to bad team management..Poor product on the ice..All that could lead to poor revenues..A well run business can make due in any enviroment....
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Stop injecting logic. Maybe that's why you've been exiled? :lol: :lol: Who me? AD just had a coronary! No really what is the whole point of the cap then? Then again, with a small cap... The big market owners would become MORE filthy rich... No?
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Posted March 18, 2008 :lol: :lol: Who me? AD just had a coronary! No really what is the whole point of the cap then? Then again, with a small cap... The big market owners would become MORE filthy rich... No? Its a joke..Get rid of the cap..Let the "Big Market teams" sign who they want, they do anyways..Up the age back to 30 for UFA status and move on....
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 Its a joke..Get rid of the cap..Let the "Big Market teams" sign who they want, they do anyways..Up the age back to 30 for UFA status and move on.... I agree... I am as anti-cap as anyone is... In all sports!
tom webster Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 I'm not sure. Perhaps the team with the smallest revenues? Would it surprise you to know that Buffalo hovers near the middle in total revenues? People can say that the CBA is a joke or they can acknowledge that there is more revenue in the game than ever due to a myriad of factors including the Canadian dollar and the explosion of non-traditional sources such as the internet and overseas money. Another factor is that the players % goes up when league revenues pass certain thresholds. In other words they got 54% when hockey related revenue hit $1.8 billion but will get 57% if it hits $2.7 billion. So a $900,000 million increase in total league revenue would result in almost a $20 million cap increase for each team.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.