THE "new" NHL

[inkman]

Teams couldn't accept financial responsiblity and they needed to restructure the dynamics of player contracts that were spiraling out of control. They were paying players more money than they were brining in and needed to be rescued. Well, the salary cap was put into place but teams aren't getting the point. These stupid arbitration rulings wouldn't be so absurd if the teams would stop handing out exorbinent contracts. Is this just a case of the GM's not being wise in the ways of the new CBA and the salary cap ramifications? Is the NHL going to experience an adjustment period, where teams need to figure out how to properly manage the cap and player salaries, a la the NFL?

[Knightrider]

Has anyone found a sight that summarizes where every team's cap number is? I supose someone could use the NHLPA pages, but, I was hoping it was already done.

 

The reason I ask is that I can't believe we're only team that is going to have trouble keeping all their players at the arbitration sized contracts. If too many players are available, the arbitration numbers may not even matter...

[Taro T]

Teams couldn't accept financial responsiblity and they needed to restructure the dynamics of player contracts that were spiraling out of control. They were paying players more money than they were brining in and needed to be rescued. Well, the salary cap was put into place but teams aren't getting the point. These stupid arbitration rulings wouldn't be so absurd if the teams would stop handing out exorbinent contracts. Is this just a case of the GM's not being wise in the ways of the new CBA and the salary cap ramifications? Is the NHL going to experience an adjustment period, where teams need to figure out how to properly manage the cap and player salaries, a la the NFL?

The salary cap will protect the GM's and owners from themselves. A team CANNOT spend more than $44MM in '06-'07. While teams appear to still be willing to shell out big bucks for top name players, they are limited in total payroll spending.

 

As BtP states, the midlevel players and the older role players are going to be the losers because the top dogs will still be winners. I don't see teams forgoing bidding wars to get the Prongers of the world and in a few years the Ovechkins and Crosbys. The top tier guys will still get the $'s because at least one (and likely several) GM's will be willing to bring in the "star" player to excite the fan base. (Hey, they must be serious about winning, they brought in (insert player name here).) For every $ given to 1 player the team has 1 less $ to give to the others.

 

The players did save themselves from themselves to a degree as well when they put a ceiling on how much a particular player can make. No one player can earn more than 20% of the cap. If that provision weren't in there I could very easily imagine scenarios where a dolt like Milbury would give a single player 30 or 40% of the cap.

 

Arbitration adds a very interesting variable to the whole equation. I would not be surprised to see it be a "wildcard" for at least the next 2 seasons as players and management start to understand where individual players will sit in an arbitrator's eyes.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that everyone is still learning how the dynamics of the salary cap will actually play out. The league is in virgin territory here. The unintended consequences of the deal are still fairly well hidden for the most part but will should fairly well know by October '07.

 

Has anyone found a sight that summarizes where every team's cap number is? I supose someone could use the NHLPA pages, but, I was hoping it was already done.

 

The reason I ask is that I can't believe we're only team that is going to have trouble keeping all their players at the arbitration sized contracts. If too many players are available, the arbitration numbers may not even matter...

TSN has most of the data listed by team, but it isn't totaled.

[inkman]

The reason I ask is that I can't believe we're only team that is going to have trouble keeping all their players at the arbitration sized contracts. If too many players are available, the arbitration numbers may not even matter...

 

Well, we were the only team to have half of it's roster to go to arbitration... :blink:

 

Something that should have been avoided , although I'm not certain how easily that would have been.

[Rabbit151]

In the new NHL, those teams who bring in mega-stars and then stock the roster with career minor-leaguers and rookies, will be on the outside looking in most times. Exceptions may come in the form of a "special year" where chemistry was just right, but more often I think the balanced attack like Buffalo had will prevail.

 

This year Buffalo may hurt if Golisano won't budge from the budget. Buffalo will likely have to trade people like Afinogenov, maybe Campbell, maybe cut Mair loose or Connolly to keep Briere. It's too bad the arbitrator gave him so much. Much like Jay McKee, the success of each individual was due to the success of the team concept of playing four lines and balancing assignments.

 

What was Buffalo's record again in games without Briere? you Buffalo folks might remember Peerless Price. Oh he was gonna be a star. With Moulds eating up double coverages, Price went crazy one year. Then fool Atlanta came along to make him their star receiver. Oh oh, turns out he wasn't so good afterall. Danny Briere, we love ya, but sometimes players need to look more at those who surround them as the reason for their success.

[shrader]

Campbell's $1.5 million a year is too much, forcing the team to move him? Mair's less than $1 million contract he's going to be awarded is too?

[Rabbit151]

Hey, I don't know who they're gonna move. All I know is that if they keep to the hardline of 34 million dollar budget, someone goes.

 

If they assess Campbell as their 5th d-man, they may opt to go with an AHLer or rook at 500K. Same with Mair. Who knows how they're gonna cut corners, the point is, they will, where ever possible. A million here, a million there, 500K here, 500K there....

 

I wish we'd have an owner that would shell out a bit more. So many owners are billionaires who have a sports team for their ego or as a pass-time, sort of like how many of us enter hockey and football years. The hundred bucks I lose in a play-off pool, is probably exactly proportionate to Golisano losing 3 or 4 million in a year. Heck, he makes that coin on interest alone in a year!!

[LexLuthor871]

Hey, I don't know who they're gonna move. All I know is that if they keep to the hardline of 34 million dollar budget, someone goes.

 

If they assess Campbell as their 5th d-man, they may opt to go with an AHLer or rook at 500K. Same with Mair. Who knows how they're gonna cut corners, the point is, they will, where ever possible. A million here, a million there, 500K here, 500K there....

 

I wish we'd have an owner that would shell out a bit more. So many owners are billionaires who have a sports team for their ego or as a pass-time, sort of like how many of us enter hockey and football years. The hundred bucks I lose in a play-off pool, is probably exactly proportionate to Golisano losing 3 or 4 million in a year. Heck, he makes that coin on interest alone in a year!!

 

Amen brother. Why can't this team even approach the cap? Paychex is a gazillion dollar company. He bought the damn team now he's going to skimp on 10 million dollars per year at the expense of decimating a Stanley Cup Contender (at the expense of alienating the fan base)? Sounds very penny foolish to me at the moment. I could see not wanting to do that every year, but you just bought this organization! WTF?

[Screamin'Weasel]

The players did save themselves from themselves to a degree as well when they put a ceiling on how much a particular player can make. No one player can earn more than 25% of the cap. If that provision weren't in there I could very easily imagine scenarios where a dolt like Milbury would give a single player 30 or 40% of the cap.

I believe I read it is 20%, not 25 %. That means players can make at most $8.8 million dollars per season. Chara's $7.5 million per season puts him at about 86% of that max. Also, teams can only have one player per season that can make that amount, so a maximum of 30 players per year can make $8.8 million per year as long as the cap stays at $44 million.

 

Also, another safeguard is that 12% of all players salaries are put into escrow. Player's salaries, no matter what, cannot be more than 54% of the league revenue. If the league revenue is lower than forcasted, then that 12% starts to get paid back to the owners. If the league revenues are more than 54% of the player's salaries, the player gets thier escrow money back.

 

In the new NHL, those teams who bring in mega-stars and then stock the roster with career minor-leaguers and rookies, will be on the outside looking in most times. Exceptions may come in the form of a "special year" where chemistry was just right, but more often I think the balanced attack like Buffalo had will prevail.

I agree wholeheartedly. Teams will not be able to afford more than one or two superstars and the balanced team will do much better. Players will price themselves right out of a job. Even though there is a limit on salaries per the new CBA, the quantity of self-proclaimed "superstars" will be too many for teams to support. It will settle down and balance out (I think and hope) in a year or three.

 

Amen brother. Why can't this team even approach the cap? Paychex is a gazillion dollar company. He bought the damn team now he's going to skimp on 10 million dollars per year at the expense of decimating a Stanley Cup Contender (at the expense of alienating the fan base)? Sounds very penny foolish to me at the moment. I could see not wanting to do that every year, but you just bought this organization! WTF?

First off, B. Thomas Golisano owns the Sabres, not Paychex. As an incorporated business, Paychex is its own entity. If Mr. Golisano bought the team in his own name with Paychex's money, he'd be arrested and tried for embezzelment and other federal financial fraud charges. Secondly, he maintains a budget to be eligible to recieve the revenue sharing from the league as a small market team. All major professional sports franchises are businesses after all. Lastly, would you rather Mark Hammister bought the team with shady accounting, bad business, local tax breaks and public funding only to move the team to a more profitable market before their first game after he purchased them?

[Taro T]

I believe I read it is 20%, not 25 %. That means players can make at most $8.8 million dollars per season. Chara's $7.5 million per season puts him at about 86% of that max. Also, teams can only have one player per season that can make that amount, so a maximum of 30 players per year can make $8.8 million per year as long as the cap stays at $44 million.

 

Also, another safeguard is that 12% of all players salaries are put into escrow. Player's salaries, no matter what, cannot be more than 54% of the league revenue. If the league revenue is lower than forcasted, then that 12% starts to get paid back to the owners. If the league revenues are more than 54% of the player's salaries, the player gets thier escrow money back.

I agree wholeheartedly. Teams will not be able to afford more than one or two superstars and the balanced team will do much better. Players will price themselves right out of a job. Even though there is a limit on salaries per the new CBA, the quantity of self-proclaimed "superstars" will be too many for teams to support. It will settle down and balance out (I think and hope) in a year or three.

First off, B. Thomas Golisano owns the Sabres, not Paychex. As an incorporated business, Paychex is its own entity. If Mr. Golisano bought the team in his own name with Paychex's money, he'd be arrested and tried for embezzelment and other federal financial fraud charges. Secondly, he maintains a budget to be eligible to recieve the revenue sharing from the league as a small market team. All major professional sports franchises are businesses after all. Lastly, would you rather Mark Hammister bought the team with shady accounting, bad business, local tax breaks and public funding only to move the team to a more profitable market before their first game after he purchased them?

Thanks for catching the typo (20% vs 25%). I fixed it in the original post.

 

There is no official limit to the number of players on the roster that can receive the league maximum, although practical matters of the salary cap would limit most teams to 0-2 players receiving it.