Players to give back 13 % of salaries

[millbank]

Escrow payments 13 % of salary

 

The escrow payments will hurt the league's lower-paid players the most. A player earning the NHL minimum of $475,000 (all currency U.S.) will see his salary shrink to $413,250 with the 13-per-cent escrow payment.

 

However, because players will have held back about 18 per cent of their salaries by the end of the season, a player earning the minimum can expect a cheque for $23,750 plus interest when what remains of his escrow money is returned to him.

 

This season's salary cap is $56.7-million and is based on a formula that awards players 56.7 per cent of the NHL's hockey-related revenue. Since next season's cap is based on the current season's revenue and most of it was collected by September, before the worst of the economic crisis hit, it is not expected to dip by more than $2-million or so.

 

However, an NHL executive who requested anonymity told The Globe and Mail earlier this season that next season's salary cap could turn out to effectively be as low as $48-million.

 

- This of course a most important part on options teams will have in terms of reshaping and improving rosters. What is the current reality of Sabre's economically? Are they still in process of straightening a mixed up situation , going in the right direction but hardly stable or are they now on stable ground, able to at least explore some options of real change.

Whatever the thoughts and desires of change are regarding team, it does need start with what the economic reality is.

Not fair to bash Darcy or Lindy if to some extent their hands be tied by economic limitations. It would seem to me the time has come for Darcy as he is general manager to use some of the assets he has , find a way to be imaginative and take some risks, Sabres a good group of young players, but at this point spinning their wheels in mediocrity, similar to easily 20 other teams.

But being fair, before I jump on them for doing nothing, i want to know better the answer, is team now on viable economic footing where they can take some risks. Everyone fretted about the plight of team moving and being bankrupt just a few years ago, give the current management group their due for stabilizing franchise. Given they had the smarts to do this, I am going to give them credit they have the smarts to move team to be a very good one on ice also.

I don't believe its time for either Darcy or Lindy to go, but it is time for them to take some risks, using assets available , and give this team a shot at rising above mediocrity. Question is are their hands tied?

[wonderbread]

You're not really a leafs fan are you?

[millbank]

Yikes , not sure how to answer that..... :o :blush:

 

 

You're not really a leafs fan are you?

[frisky]

If it's 48 million, we're screwed. We'll be at 47 and change with who we got under contract right now. We'd have to dump a couple of high priced players to make room for improvements.

[carpandean]

I don't believe its time for either Darcy or Lindy to go, but it is time for them to take some risks, using assets available , and give this team a shot at rising above mediocrity. Question is are their hands tied?

The basic reality of the next two season is that they will have to dump salary to make any moves next year and otherwise fill spots cheaply just to stay under the cap.

 

Here's the minimal effort team for next year:

That amounts to letting our UFAs walk, re-signing Sekera/Stafford/Kaleta/Mancari (values are obviously estimates) and bringing up Portland players such as Kennedy, Gerbe, Weber and Butler (well, he just stays up.) If that is all that we do, I am guessing that we end up at around $54-55 million.

 

The only way that we can make any significant moves would be to ship out Tallinder, Lydman and/or Hecht. Of those, only moving Hecht's contract helps us in 2010-11. If the cap goes anywhere near $48 million in 2010-11, someone will have to go. Assuming the contracts that I used above for RFAs were for at least two years, here's what 2010-11 will look like:

That's $44 million+ with lots of young players and a lot of spots (especially on defense) left to fill.

[LabattBlue]

If it's 48 million, we're screwed. We'll be at 47 and change with who we got under contract right now. We'd have to dump a couple of high priced players to make room for improvements.

If true, that would give them a reason to dump dead weight that they would otherwise keep...like Hecht. That wouldn't be the complete answer though. A couple of higher priced players would also have to go. i.e Tallinder and/or Pominville come do mind. :rolleyes:

[millbank]

Your thought that someone will have to go, is going to be a reality over the entire league. Players will be dumped in some cases outright. I really believe its where a Darcy is going have opportunity, the Sabres are not going to be alone in being against the wall in terms of cap, the teams that succeed will be the ones who are innovative in terms of trades and structuring. Its interesting how Montreal for instance, not knowing their actually cap limitations in terms of salary , this coming off season will have 15 free agents. Who know's what they look like next year.

Big challenge ahead no doubt, but they were smart enough to have things in order where others didn't after the lockout and play resumed, based on this I have faith they will succeed again.

These will be not ordinary times, many not ordinary solutions will need be found. I would imagine Sabre's fans will hope Darcy find the innovative answers, I believe he smart man. As negative as these times are, they will also be great opportunity.

 

(thank you for your charts, much substance there and reality from which to ponder and proceed. )

 

The basic reality of the next two season is that they will have to dump salary to make any moves next year and otherwise fill spots cheaply just to stay under the cap.

 

Here's the minimal effort team for next year:

 

That amounts to letting our UFAs walk, re-signing Sekera/Stafford/Kaleta/Mancari (values are obviously estimates) and bringing up Portland players such as Kennedy, Gerbe, Weber and Butler (well, he just stays up.) If that is all that we do, I am guessing that we end up at around $54-55 million.

 

The only way that we can make any significant moves would be to ship out Tallinder, Lydman and/or Hecht. Of those, only moving Hecht's contract helps us in 2010-11. If the cap goes anywhere near $48 million, someone will have to go. Assuming the contracts that I used above for RFAs were for at least two years, here's what 2010-11 will look like:

That's $44 million+ with lots of young players and a lot of spots (especially on defense) left to fill.

[That Aud Smell]

That amounts to letting our UFAs walk, re-signing Sekera/Stafford/Kaleta/Mancari (values are obviously estimates) and bringing up Portland players such as Kennedy, Gerbe, Weber and Butler (well, he just stays up.) If that is all that we do, I am guessing that we end up at around $54-55 million.

i'm tired and can't quite get my head wrapped around this -- am i right that (1) millbank has linked to an article saying that the cap could dip down to $48MM next year and (2) carp is saying that maintaining our existing roster would have us around $54MM?

 

if so: wow.

 

to take up one of millbank's themes: the chinese language uses the same character for the words "crisis" and "opportunity."

[millbank]

oh sure respond to post after last nights game and everyone is wanting to tar and feather anyone associated with Sabres. No the cap next year figures to go down $2 million . It is speculated by some the following year it to go down to $48. The reduction of cap, $2 million, said to be a very realistic estimate. The cap being reduced to $48 a speculated one , it could go even lower.

This dynamic is the first one to comes to terms with before beating any drums in terms of team change. Smart teams will fail, foolish ones make mistakes, frightened

My goodness didnt know myself and Chinese had something in common... :lol:

this page also shows teams salary year to year

It certainly does give some perspective , data to ponder and see better options team might have to orchestrate change.

 

sorry if what i post not so coherent, just an old farmer... :blush:

 

 

i'm tired and can't quite get my head wrapped around this -- am i right that (1) millbank has linked to an article saying that the cap could dip down to $48MM next year and (2) carp is saying that maintaining our existing roster would have us around $54MM?

 

if so: wow.

 

to take up one of millbank's themes: the chinese language uses the same character for the words "crisis" and "opportunity."

[carpandean]

That's $44 million+ with lots of young players and a lot of spots (especially on defense) left to fill.

I just realized that Lalime will be a UFA that season, so we'll probably have Enroth at his $850k in 2010-11.

 

i'm tired and can't quite get my head wrapped around this -- am i right that (1) millbank has linked to an article saying that the cap could dip down to $48MM next year and (2) carp is saying that maintaining our existing roster would have us around $54MM?

if so: wow.

As Millbank said, the cap for next year will not be going down to $48 million. It is based on this year's revenues, which were mostly on the books prior to September and, thus, before the biggest economic downturn. Initial estimates have suggested a drop of $1-2 million from this year's $56.7 million, so we should be OK (cap-wise, anyway.) The cap for 2010-11 will depend largely on the state of the economy over the next six months. I hadn't heard of an estimate as low as $48 million before, but $50-52 million had been suggested. A lot of teams will be in bad shape if it drops to $48 million. In fact, the Ducks might be one of the few teams that are well off. The only contracts that they have beyond next year are Getzlaf, Perry, Carter, Parros, Whitney and J.S. Giguere.

[FogBat]

If it's 48 million, we're screwed. We'll be at 47 and change with who we got under contract right now. We'd have to dump a couple of high priced players to make room for improvements.

I take solace in the fact that we won't be the only ones that will be screwed. I don't know who all the teams are that are at the cap, but they are the ones who will really be hurting to get rid of some dead weight. I'm assuming that the Flyers, Devils, and Rangers will be the ones who will be hurt the most, right?

 

As for Phoenix, they have to struggle to make cap minimum, but this shouldn't be so hard for them next season.

[carpandean]

I take solace in the fact that we won't be the only ones that will be screwed. I don't know who all the teams are that are at the cap, but they are the ones who will really be hurting to get rid of some dead weight. I'm assuming that the Flyers, Devils, and Rangers will be the ones who will be hurt the most, right?

Well, Frisky's comment was based on the incorrect assumption that the $48 million was in reference to next year's cap, when it actually was in reference to 2010-11. You are correct, though, that several teams with lots of big, long-term contracts will be in trouble in 2010-11. Philly is :censored: ed. They have $40 million in cap committed to 6 forwards (Briere, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Hartnell and Lupul), 2 defensemen (Timonen and Carle) and no goaltenders in 2010-11. Admittedly, those are a pretty nice core group of players, but $8 million won't get you anything for the remaining 6-7 forwards, 5 defensemen and 2 goaltenders. Guess whose contract they would most want to get rid of, but will be least likely to find a taker for? Danny boy.

[millbank]

For clarity, the sabre will be committed to 15 players 09/10 to the sum of $46.53 mil. Without trade and change in other words they with prospective change in cap have about 6 - 8 million to fill remainder of roster. The following year they will be committed to 9 players at 37.36 million. So if the cap in this year would go down to 48 million they would need fill it paying the remaining with roughly 9 - 10 million. These figures come from Here

 

Teams all over the league even the rich ones, Toronto , New York, ect, are starting to experience a harder time getting companies to renew their boxes and the current rates, sell advertisements at the current rates, it is why the projections for the year after next to be one of great change and challenge for many teams....

 

Well, Frisky's comment was based on the incorrect assumption that the $48 million was in reference to next year's cap, when it actually was in reference to 2010-11. You are correct, though, that several teams with lots of big, long-term contracts will be in trouble in 2010-11. Philly is :censored: ed. They have $40 million in cap committed to 6 forwards (Briere, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Hartnell and Lupul), 2 defensemen (Timonen and Carle) and no goaltenders in 2010-11. Admittedly, those are a pretty nice core group of players, but $8 million won't get you anything for the remaining 6-7 forwards, 5 defensemen and 2 goaltenders. Guess whose contract they would most want to get rid of, but will be least likely to find a taker for? Danny boy.

[That Aud Smell]

sorry if what i post not so coherent, just an old farmer... :blush:

please, no apologies -- my eyes and brain were just glazing -- to make matters worse, i have never had a head for numbers.

 

As Millbank said, the cap for next year will not be going down to $48 million. It is based on this year's revenues, which were mostly on the books prior to September and, thus, before the biggest economic downturn. Initial estimates have suggested a drop of $1-2 million from this year's $56.7 million, so we should be OK (cap-wise, anyway.)

thx, carp -- and, aye, there's the rub.

[shrader]

Well, Frisky's comment was based on the incorrect assumption that the $48 million was in reference to next year's cap, when it actually was in reference to 2010-11.

 

I was under the impression from reading the article that the $48 million figure was not for the 2010-2011 season, but it would be the value of the cap next season, after the players forked over their excess salary from the escrow. Reporting that number wouldn't really have any real meaning though.

[carpandean]

I was under the impression from reading the article that the $48 million figure was not for the 2010-2011 season, but it would be the value of the cap next season, after the players forked over their excess salary from the escrow. Reporting that number wouldn't really have any real meaning though.

Ah, you are correct. They said that the "effective cap " for next year would be $48 million after the escrow payments. If I'm understanding that correctly, though, when it comes to looking at cap hits for teams, the actual cap for next year would only drop $1-2 million. The high escrow payments come out of the actual salaries, meaning the "effective cap" (sort of looking at net dollars made by players) would be much lower, but as far as the teams staying under the cap, it wouldn't change anything. Those big payments are due to the fact that revenues are expected to fall substantially next season, which will drop the actual cap for 2010-11. That number is far less certain and estimates range from $48-52 million. In effect, the so-called "effective cap" is a leading indicator of the true cap in the following season. If revenues are expected to fall, escrow payments go up and the "effective cap" is lower. If the realized revenues then match up with those expectations, then the actual cap with go down the next year. Again, this is assuming that I am understanding this correctly, as I have not looked into exactly how the cap and escrow payments are calculated.

[millbank]

Yes that is essentially better explained. The union is projecting an 1- 2 million reduction in cap. Owners on the other based on lower revenues as next season progresses a lower cap. This is based of teams even rich ones finding it harder to get corporation to renew boxes ect., project lower advertising revenues and the like. It this hit based on companies all over North America cutting back owners starting to feel to impact now and while revenues will be lower the coming season, the one after projected to lower still. With a number of team is mortal danger of surviving, lower revenues, the year after next a $48 million cap very well may be optimistic. Gone are the times where general managers can spend and sign with the notion of continued revenue growth or it even staying the same. Teams must compose rosters not just with a eye for today but for two and three years down the road. Smart ones are building options , where other teams are strapped to the limit of current cap and beyond. Looking at the Sabres, they appear at least to have some space and thus some options. Personally i think the Sabres management smart people, everything any of us see or now acknowledge they have seen light years before. Team does have some options but it is going to being innovative.

 

 

Ah, you are correct. They said that the "effective cap " for next year would be $48 million after the escrow payments. If I'm understanding that correctly, though, when it comes to looking at cap hits for teams, the actual cap for next year would only drop $1-2 million. The high escrow payments come out of the actual salaries, meaning the "effective cap" (sort of looking at net dollars made by players) would be much lower, but as far as the teams staying under the cap, it wouldn't change anything. Those big payments are due to the fact that revenues are expected to fall substantially next season, which will drop the actual cap for 2010-11. That number is far less certain and estimates range from $48-52 million. In effect, the so-called "effective cap" is a leading indicator of the true cap in the following season. If revenues are expected to fall, escrow payments go up and the "effective cap" is lower. If the realized revenues then match up with those expectations, then the actual cap with go down the next year. Again, this is assuming that I am understanding this correctly, as I have not looked into exactly how the cap and escrow payments are calculated.

[Assquatch]

As each teams payroll is tied to league earnings, IMHO each players salary should be a percentage of the cap instead of a hard number.

"Joe Shmoe, I offer you a three year contract worth 4.5%, 5% and 5.5% of our salary cap for those three years."

 

The cap goes up, your pay goes up (and inversely when the cap goes down). Rosters would not need to change significantly when the cap does.

[shrader]

Again, this is assuming that I am understanding this correctly, as I have not looked into exactly how the cap and escrow payments are calculated.

 

And I never plan on reading that part. It's too much of a headache.

 

Edit: Assquatch, it's a good idea in theory, but how do you then account for guys in the minors who don't count against the cap? What do you do when they're called up and suddenly do count against the cap? What about the LTIR? Really though, with this escrow system they have setup, it is basically what you are suggesting.

[millbank]

My post regarding players giving back 13% and speculated cap reduction, restricted given my own limitations in terms of simply being not smart enough. It was my hope to stimulate some perspective that folks would have better understanding of what team can do to effect change.

Its my opinion while Darcy and other management desire credit for negative of where team is currently, they also deserve accolades and much credit as to how they have positioned team for the future. The Sabres have what appears some options to maintain what is good on roster and improve , where others are going to being lucky to maintain what they have, in many cases teams are going to face making some most improbable changes.

At issue is, if the above supposition halfway close to being right, are the Sabres reasonably stable and if so is Darcy based on his budget and acumen able to effect change . I would think at this point management , players, fans are all extremely disappointed in the current standing of team, mistakes in believing younger players would step up and fill voids quickly has not happened, Buffalo fans have waited in some cases half a century for a winner, asking patience is insulting.

It is on management to take some risks and compose team that has a shot at being more than mediocre. Call me crazy but I have confidence Darcy and current management smart people and they will do so.

-apologies for the ranting ect.... most sincerely don't wish to be pain in behind to anyone... :blush:

[spndnchz]

Can't something be done for home town discounts. Aren't there players out there, not necessarily on the Sabres, that would lower their contracts going forward if they just signed (Pomer, cough,cough) if they want to stay with their team. Not that they would be forced into it, just "asked".

[IKnowPhysics]

I take solace in the fact that we won't be the only ones that will be screwed. I don't know who all the teams are that are at the cap, but they are the ones who will really be hurting to get rid of some dead weight. I'm assuming that the Flyers, Devils, and Rangers will be the ones who will be hurt the most, right?

 

This.

 

As far as the cap hit for '08-'09, we're ranked 24th. As "screwed" as we might be because we might have to move a few players (by letting them go through FA), several other teams with overpaid long term contracts will be completely F'ed. I believe there will be much opportunity to improve.

[millbank]

I think this also. Suppose the issue at hand is will upper management allow and is Darcy competent to do so. I believe he is and has earned a shot at doing so. As much as there is much negative at present , he also has done many thing well.

Don't see though how there can be any argument change in the composition of team is necessary.

 

 

This.

 

As far as the cap hit for '08-'09, we're ranked 24th. As "screwed" as we might be because we might have to move a few players (by letting them go through FA), several other teams with overpaid long term contracts will be completely F'ed. I believe there will be much opportunity to improve.

[carpandean]

As far as the cap hit for '08-'09, we're ranked 24th. As "screwed" as we might be because we might have to move a few players (by letting them go through FA), several other teams with overpaid long term contracts will be completely F'ed. I believe there will be much opportunity to improve.

This is only sort of true. We're 24th this year, but most of our contract will go up after this year; some substantially. We'll lose Spacek and Max, but the new contracts for Pominville, Miller and Connolly will all kick in. We could have been higher than 24th this year, but any higher-priced contracts added would have had to have been one-year only, because of those expected raises. We will be in a worse position next year than this one. Just keeping the same roster and replacing UFAs with rookies from Portland will likely cost more. Some other teams (again, Anaheim is an example) will have no new raises already negotiated and tons of a UFAs taking contracts off the books. They will be able to negotiated in a pessimistic economy, where the cap is expected to decrease and, therefore, player's market values will be lower. Conversely, most contracts over the past couple of seasons, including our own, were negotiated in an optimistic economy, where the cap was increasing year after year. Not saying we're screwed, but we definitely aren't in as good of a position as this year would suggest.

[UncleWally]

WOW, I forgot the pominville population is over $6M per............