PDA

View Full Version : Rumor/Report: Salary Cap Could Go Down By As Much As $4M Next Season



Morphinity
02-12-2016, 06:33 PM
:tweet: @MurphysLaw74
Told by an NHL & NHLPA source that 2016-17 cap could go down as much as $4 million. If true, interested in what that does to trade deadline

--

Ouch.

Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc
02-12-2016, 06:36 PM
Can they do that? It will fuck up a lot of teams.

Morphinity
02-12-2016, 07:00 PM
Sure it can. It's tied directly to hockey related revenue which is affected by the Canadian dollar (which is in shambles, if you haven't seen):

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/01/29/falling-canadian-dollar-will-mean-salary-cap-headaches-for-NHL-teams


The impact on Canadian teams is immediate. They take in Canadian dollars but pay out their biggest expenses—salary and travel—in American currency. They have protected themselves to some degree by stockpiling U.S. funds purchased at more favorable rates, but those reserves can only last so long. The next time they load up on American dollars, they’ll feel it.

The significance extends south of the border as well. Canadian teams make up less than 25% of the league, but they account for approximately 35% of all hockey-related revenue (HRR). If that pile shrinks, so does the pile that is made available to players under the salary cap.

In the short term, Canada’s dwindling dollar isn’t apocalyptic. Most of the money that will go into calculating HRR—TV deals, marketing partnerships and season ticket purchases—is already in the pile, which is why Commissioner Gary Bettman could safely say last weekend that the salary cap for 2015–16 will not “fall off a cliff.”

This is an article written last January, so it's even worse now with the Canadian dollar sitting at .72 compared to USD. If revenue falls, the cap falls.

And if I recall correctly, the NHLPA exercised the option to use the cap escalator last season which has a one time use.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 08:00 PM
If this happens, a lot of players who you wouldn't otherwise think would are gonna get bought out.

DiJock94
02-12-2016, 08:55 PM
Nhl will be littered with AHL players next year, you should be able to restructure contracts and cut players.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 08:56 PM
Neither of those things are likely to ever happen. The NHLPA is too powerful to ever collectively bargain back down from guarnateed contracts.

DiJock94
02-12-2016, 08:59 PM
Well it fucks teams and the league when you're locked into shitty declining players.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:05 PM
Doesn't matter. They'll never back down that far. The best you'll get is agreements on buyouts, limitations on contract term, etc.

Going into the next CBA, I'd imagine a much stronger fight will be put up by the league over the number of NMC/NTC's in the league, and over how they are given out and to whom and why.

Pete
02-12-2016, 09:23 PM
Doesn't matter. They'll never back down that far. The best you'll get is agreements on buyouts, limitations on contract term, etc.

Going into the next CBA, I'd imagine a much stronger fight will be put up by the league over the number of NMC/NTC's in the league, and over how they are given out and to whom and why.


Neither of those things are likely to ever happen. The NHLPA is too powerful to ever collectively bargain back down from guarnateed contracts.
When players who are nhl caliber find themselves in the AHL or SEL, things will change.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:36 PM
When players who are nhl caliber find themselves in the AHL or SEL, things will change.

I think it'd take a full season cancelled, again, for things to change that dramatically with regard to guarnateed contracts. That was the players "hill to die on" for a long, long time. They're not giving that up. Ever. Not without a serious threat of never playing again.

Pete
02-12-2016, 09:38 PM
I think it'd take a full season cancelled, again, for things to change that dramatically with regard to guarnateed contracts. That was the players "hill to die on" for a long, long time. They're not giving that up. Ever. Not without a serious threat of never playing again.
Then they'll find themselves out if the league. Irrevocably.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:39 PM
I'm only talking about the guaranteed nature of contracts. With the NHL being a $4B league and climbing (Canadian dollar notwithstanding), there's just no way you're ever going to convince the NHLPA to take that off the table. The only way that might ever happen is if the NHL lifted the concept of the salary cap entirely.

NHL: Give up guarnateed deals.
NHLPA: No problem. Give up on the salary cap and it's a deal.

Pete
02-12-2016, 09:46 PM
I'm only talking about the guaranteed nature of contracts. With the NHL being a $4B league and climbing (Canadian dollar notwithstanding), there's just no way you're ever going to convince the NHLPA to take that off the table. The only way that might ever happen is if the NHL lifted the concept of the salary cap entirely.

NHL: Give up guarnateed deals.
NHLPA: No problem. Give up on the salary cap and it's a deal.
Way more or profitable leagues forgo guaranteed contracts.

If the NHL were to say, "we'll give you NTC, so we can't trade you to an undesirable destination... But we reserve the right to kill the contract at any time," what can players say?

If the contract is killed they have the right to sign at the destination of their choosing.

CreaseCrusader91
02-12-2016, 09:48 PM
I'm genuinely curious how much turnover would be if there would be allowance for contracts that aren't guaranteed. Maybe a provision that allows for some that are but overall I wonder how much year to year movement there would be.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:49 PM
Have any of them ever had guaranteed contracts and then collectively bargained them back out? Because that's important. It's one thing to have never had them. It's quite another to have had them and given them up.

Pete
02-12-2016, 09:51 PM
Have any of them ever had guaranteed contracts and then collectively bargained them back out? Because that's important. It's one thing to have never had them. It's quite another to have had them and given them up.
Pretty sure the NFL did. The biggest league in the hemisphere.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:52 PM
Sure, or pretty sure? I'm legitimately asking.

CreaseCrusader91
02-12-2016, 09:53 PM
Have any of them ever had guaranteed contracts and then collectively bargained them back out? Because that's important. It's one thing to have never had them. It's quite another to have had them and given them up.

Well in other sports there are situations where X percent of the money is guaranteed no matter what. It could be a 5 year deal worth $100M with $50M guaranteed. If it's year one or year three they get paid if deal is terminated.

I would be for a system with a luxury tax. Let teams spend up to a certain limit over cap. That excess goes into revenue sharing system that helps other teams. Gotta wonder how much potential money is left on table by limiting how much the richest teams can spend.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 09:55 PM
So if Yandle signs a 5-year deal worth $30M with $20M guaranteed in the first three years (I'm spitballing here), and he gets cut in year two... he still gets that $20M, regardless?

CreaseCrusader91
02-12-2016, 10:00 PM
So if Yandle signs a 5-year deal worth $30M with $20M guaranteed in the first three years (I'm spitballing here), and he gets cut in year two... he still gets that $20M, regardless?

Yes. There are also variations with opt outs in which player can walk away from money to become free agent.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13235398/why-nfl-lags-nba-guaranteed-contracts

Some good details here.

Pete
02-12-2016, 10:01 PM
So if Yandle signs a 5-year deal worth $30M with $20M guaranteed in the first three years (I'm spitballing here), and he gets cut in year two... he still gets that $20M, regardless?
Yes, but not over time frame.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 10:15 PM
Yes. There are also variations with opt outs in which player can walk away from money to become free agent.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13235398/why-nfl-lags-nba-guaranteed-contracts

Some good details here.

Thanks. Gonna read this later tonight or tomorrow morning.

Dunny
02-12-2016, 10:20 PM
This deal simply has to be the most convoluted piece of shit sports labour agreement ever signed. They all pretended that it was normal for the Canadian $ to be .90-95 cents US.

What a fiasco this will be.

Phil in Absentia
02-12-2016, 10:24 PM
This deal simply has to be the most convoluted piece of shit sports labour agreement ever signed. They all pretended that it was normal for the Canadian $ to be .90-95 cents US.

What a fiasco this will be.

Would you go so far as to say it's loonie?

Dunny
02-13-2016, 12:12 AM
Loonie or even possibly Moonie.

Captain Clutch
02-13-2016, 12:53 AM
Let's say it does go down 4 million, could the NHL give each time a complimentary buyout?

DiJock94
02-13-2016, 02:45 AM
Who would you buy out? Staal or Girardi?

Pete
02-13-2016, 06:54 AM
Staal.

Then I'd fire AV and hire a coach who'd play Klein/McIlrath/Girardi down the right and bring up Skjei.

Dunny
02-13-2016, 08:02 AM
lol.. well that's easy when Boyle isn't here.

Pete
02-13-2016, 08:03 AM
lol.. well that's easy when Boyle isn't here.

G on the third pair? Not with AV here.

Dunny
02-13-2016, 08:22 AM
I don't think the the use of the 4 through 7 D-man is really a case for dismissal for a coach who's going to end up as one of the 3 or 4 most winningest coaches in the history of the league.

I totally agree with you, but it's nit picking.

Pete
02-13-2016, 08:30 AM
I don't think the the use of the 4 through 7 D-man is really a case for dismissal for a coach who's going to end up as one of the 3 or 4 most winningest coaches in the history of the league.

I totally agree with you, but it's nit picking.
No, I'd fire him for his growing list of other shortcomings.

Cash or Czech?
02-13-2016, 12:49 PM
G on the third pair? Not with AV here.

I'm legitimately curious about this question. What successful NHL coach has a history of benching (or diminishing the role of) veterans and playing youth when going for a championship?

Pete
02-13-2016, 01:00 PM
I'm legitimately curious about this question. What successful NHL coach has a history of benching (or diminishing the role of) veterans and playing youth when going for a championship?
Richards on the 4th line in 2014?

Phil in Absentia
02-13-2016, 01:06 PM
Jon Cooper does it regularly.

Cash or Czech?
02-13-2016, 01:41 PM
Rep for both of you when I get to a computer. Wasn't sure. I appreciate it.

Phil in Absentia
02-13-2016, 02:45 PM
I'd imagine younger-ish coaches would be more inclined to do so than the old guard. Cooper is 48.

Hakstol (47) in Philly did the same with Lecavalier before the trade to the Flyers. Barely played him.

Cash or Czech?
02-13-2016, 03:22 PM
I guess my follow up question is which young coach that isn't afraid to bench vets that aren't performing is available were we to replace AV?

Dunny
02-13-2016, 03:26 PM
I think that's impossible to say. You would think a guy like Vigneault would have the currency to do just the opposite. A young guy with no resume should be the guy riding vets for dear life.

Cash or Czech?
02-13-2016, 03:47 PM
I think that's impossible to say. You would think a guy like Vigneault would have the currency to do just the opposite. A young guy with no resume should be the guy riding vets for dear life.

Yet it doesn't seem that's the case in the league right now. I personally don't think it's about the age of the coach, more the personality. Torts will bench anyone, young or old (Johansen and Hartnell this season). Plus Cooper, Hakstol and Sutter mentioned above. That's a decent spread of age.

Future
02-15-2016, 09:24 AM
Sure, or pretty sure? I'm legitimately asking.
The NFL never had guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed money comes in the form of signing bonuses. Best guess, it never will because rosters are so big.

Future
02-15-2016, 09:27 AM
Let's say it does go down 4 million, could the NHL give each time a complimentary buyout?
I would certainly think so.

The cap going down might actually help the Rangers if that's the case. Allows us to get out of a Staal/G contract

NYR2711
02-15-2016, 09:49 AM
Let's say it does go down 4 million, could the NHL give each time a complimentary buyout?

I was wondering this as well. But would 1 per team be enough? Not only will a lot of team be up against the cap, but taking 1 contract off while having to re-sign players is going to be rough. Could they maybe say offer teams up to a certain amount, like say $10M can be bought out, the rest would count as a regular buy out?

Puck Head
02-15-2016, 12:19 PM
I would certainly think so. The cap going down might actually help the Rangers if that's the case. Allows us to get out of a Staal/G contract

I like this thinking but how does that work?
The only contracts to my knowledge we would be able to shed are Kreider, Miller, Yandle, etc

Future
02-15-2016, 12:28 PM
I like this thinking but how does that work?
The only contracts to my knowledge we would be able to shed are Kreider, Miller, Yandle, etc
Does a NMC apply to buyouts?

My thought is that, even if the cap goes down 4m, you cut G/Staal and save 6m...so you've still got 2m savings.

AmericanJesus
02-15-2016, 12:40 PM
Does a NMC apply to buyouts?

My thought is that, even if the cap goes down 4m, you cut G/Staal and save 6m...so you've still got 2m savings.

You can buy out a player with a NMC. Here are the breakdowns for Girardi and Staal if bought out after this season:

Girardi Buyout Cap Hit:

16/17 $1.75M
17/18 $2.75M
18/19 $3.75M
19/20 $3.75M
20/21 $1.25M
21/22 $1.25M
22/23 $1.25M
23/24 $1.25M


Staal Buyout Cap Hit:

16/17 $2.05M
17/18 $2.05M
18/19 $2.05M
19/20 $3.05M
20/21 $5.85M
21/22 $1.35M
22/23 $1.35M
23/24 $1.35M
24/25 $1.35M
25/26 $1.35M

So neither one is very likely.

Future
02-15-2016, 12:48 PM
Yea, but a compliance buyout wouldn't count against the cap. That's what I was referring to.

AmericanJesus
02-15-2016, 01:02 PM
Yea, but a compliance buyout wouldn't count against the cap. That's what I was referring to.

The NHLPA and the League would have to negotiate that out and then amend the current CBA to include it. The league wouldn't have much interest in that, I wouldn't think. It raises the amount of money the league as whole is paying to the players and gives the few really big markets a competitive advantage over the smaller markets.

Phil in Absentia
02-15-2016, 02:12 PM
Yea, but a compliance buyout wouldn't count against the cap. That's what I was referring to.

Compliance buyouts only applied to contracts signed under the old CBA, and each team was limited to two. The Rangers used both. Wade Redden and Brad Richards.

Future
02-15-2016, 02:48 PM
Compliance buyouts only applied to contracts signed under the old CBA, and each team was limited to two. The Rangers used both. Wade Redden and Brad Richards.
I know.

I'm saying, hypothetically, if the cap went down and the league allowed another compliance buyout....

Puck Head
02-15-2016, 04:23 PM
I know. I'm saying, hypothetically, if the cap went down and the league allowed another compliance buyout....

Some pretty big hypotheticals
And it's not the league, it's the NHLPA that will squash that

Pete
02-15-2016, 05:40 PM
Some pretty big hypotheticals
And it's not the league, it's the NHLPA that will squash that
Doubtful. Players still get paid and it doesn't affect cap... So they are still likely to land nhl jobs after being bought out.

Phil in Absentia
02-15-2016, 05:48 PM
I know.

I'm saying, hypothetically, if the cap went down and the league allowed another compliance buyout....

That would have to be collectively bargained. The League can't "allow" it. They have to agree with the NHLPA on it, and I'd bet a vital body part the PA says "fuck off".

Phil in Absentia
02-15-2016, 05:49 PM
Doubtful. Players still get paid and it doesn't affect cap... So they are still likely to land nhl jobs after being bought out.

Players get paid only a two-thirds of their contract value (or one-third for under-25). They're likely to land NHL jobs, but the majority would be signing "prove it" deals like Richards did with Chicago, for example, trying to prove they are worth term, if not another significant cap charge.

I'd imagine the PA tells the NHL to fuck off, hard, when that gets brought up.

Pete
02-15-2016, 05:53 PM
Players get paid only a two-thirds of their contract value (or one-third for under-25). They're likely to land NHL jobs, but the majority would be signing "prove it" deals like Richards did with Chicago, for example, trying to prove they are worth term, if not another significant cap charge.

I'd imagine the PA tells the NHL to fuck off, hard, when that gets brought up.
Not sure how true that is. Players landed good deals after buyouts. Look at Vinny L.

Phil in Absentia
02-15-2016, 06:04 PM
Ehrhoff, Gomez, Kaberle, Redden, Bryzgalov, Brière, Malone, Booth, Ballard, etc. all got bought out, maybe signed one-year deals and are all now gone.

Sure, they got paid to leave, two-thirds of the value of their deals, but they still ultimately lost their NHL careers to those buyouts. Vinny, too. He only got dealt this year because he agreed to retire early.

I’m not saying that teams should be forced to keep these guys well after they start sucking, but the NHLPA’s job is to maintain the security of their clients, the players. Compliance buyouts have proven to be a threat to that security.

Pete
02-15-2016, 06:30 PM
Ehrhoff, Gomez, Kaberle, Redden, Bryzgalov, Brière, Malone, Booth, Ballard, etc. all got bought out, maybe signed one-year deals and are all now gone.

Sure, they got paid to leave, two-thirds of the value of their deals, but they still ultimately lost their NHL careers to those buyouts. Vinny, too. He only got dealt this year because he agreed to retire early.

I’m not saying that teams should be forced to keep these guys well after they start sucking, but the NHLPA’s job is to maintain the security of their clients, the players. Compliance buyouts have proven to be a threat to that security.

Brière signed a 2 year/ $4mil year after that.

Ehrhoff signed a $4 million deal the year after he was bought out.

They didn't lose their career to buyouts, the lost them because they sucked. You're also talking about a handful of players, the NHLPA isn't going to try and protect 10 guys when then have 600 guys. For every player that might suffer a buyout, there are 2-3 more than won't have NHL jobs because teams will be cap-strapped.

Look at the Rangers. If that cap drops, we will not have room for spares unless we trade Nash and take no cap back. So 2-3 guys will lose their NHL job because we're paying Girardi.

And really, the amnesty doesn't STOP a team from buying out a player. It just stops the buyout from counting against the cap.

Phil in Absentia
02-15-2016, 08:01 PM
There'd have to be a give-back going the other way. Something the Players gain for giving up here.

AmericanJesus
02-16-2016, 10:18 AM
Ehrhoff, Gomez, Kaberle, Redden, Bryzgalov, Brière, Malone, Booth, Ballard, etc. all got bought out, maybe signed one-year deals and are all now gone.

Sure, they got paid to leave, two-thirds of the value of their deals, but they still ultimately lost their NHL careers to those buyouts. Vinny, too. He only got dealt this year because he agreed to retire early.

I’m not saying that teams should be forced to keep these guys well after they start sucking, but the NHLPA’s job is to maintain the security of their clients, the players. Compliance buyouts have proven to be a threat to that security.

The NHLPA doesn't just serve the cream of the crop who've past their prime and are on big deals. These players get 2/3rds of the remaining salary and then their entire salaries get reinvested in other players. It's a pretty big net gain for the players as a group. If we were to compliance buyout Girardi, for instance, he gets $12.5M of his remaining $19M. We then go and spend that $19M on other players we wouldn't have been able to. The compliance buyout amount becomes a net gain for the player pool. Lets say 1/5 of that is the average spread across all the NHL teams. That's a $75M net gain for the players.

It's a win for everyone but Girardi, unless he can sign new contracts to make up the $6.5M difference. And maybe Girardi gets bought out down the road anyway.

The 2 compliance buyouts allowed in the previous CBA cost teams a total of $188M.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_buyout

Phil in Absentia
02-16-2016, 10:26 AM
In this specific case, though, you're talking about giving every team at least one "compliance" buyout to be able to get under the cap next season, which means notable names are getting bought out from probably more than half the teams in the league who are likely to be pressed to that ceiling.

That's an issue I think the PA would be willing to accept if they're given something in return. But it's not something they're just going to acquiesce, because the guaranteed nature of NHL contracts is something they fought tooth and nail to achieve.

Pete
02-16-2016, 10:53 AM
In this specific case, though, you're talking about giving every team at least one "compliance" buyout to be able to get under the cap next season, which means notable names are getting bought out from probably more than half the teams in the league who are likely to be pressed to that ceiling.

That's an issue I think the PA would be willing to accept if they're given something in return. But it's not something they're just going to acquiesce, because the guaranteed nature of NHL contracts is something they fought tooth and nail to achieve.

The cap is going down. That's certain. So, if you're the Rangers, you're likely exercising a buyout, compliance or otherwise.

What's better for a majority of the players, an amnesty buyout which leaves teams more cap flexibility, or a standard buyout which leaves the teams less flexibility?

On a micro-scale, if the Rangers tell G "We're buying you out, end of story. You can either have other teams have budget to sign you, or not. What do you choose?" What's G going to say? The league absolutely has all the leverage.

Also, I'm not really even sure of the rule regarding buyouts. Would the PA even have to weigh on on if buyouts affect cap or not?

And let's not forget, the NHL played nice and allowed some players to be bought out early to allow them to play, rather than have to sit a year, no?

Phil in Absentia
02-16-2016, 11:11 AM
It's not certain. It's rumored. I think in all likelihood it'll stay flat.

There is no additional clause under the current CBA regarding this type of compliance buyout. The only one they agreed to write in prior was the one regarding back-diving deals. But it has to be collectively bargained and agreed to by the NHL and the NHLPA. So let's say you're right and the cap is expected to sink. If that's true, and the league is concerned about the market, they and the PA can sit down and agree to write in another clause to allow an additional type of compliance buyout that woudln't negatively impact the salary cap of teams.

But don't expect the PA to take it lying down. They're going to want something coming back their way. I have no idea what, but to agree to this, I think they probably negotiate some other factor in their favor.

The NHL and NHLPA did agree to allow advanced buyouts though, yes, to allow players like Redden to sign and play that same season.

Pete
02-16-2016, 11:28 AM
It's not certain. It's rumored. I think in all likelihood it'll stay flat.

There is no additional clause under the current CBA regarding this type of compliance buyout. The only one they agreed to write in prior was the one regarding back-diving deals. But it has to be collectively bargained and agreed to by the NHL and the NHLPA. So let's say you're right and the cap is expected to sink. If that's true, and the league is concerned about the market, they and the PA can sit down and agree to write in another clause to allow an additional type of compliance buyout that woudln't negatively impact the salary cap of teams.

But don't expect the PA to take it lying down. They're going to want something coming back their way. I have no idea what, but to agree to this, I think they probably negotiate some other factor in their favor.

The NHL and NHLPA did agree to allow advanced buyouts though, yes, to allow players like Redden to sign and play that same season.
In that case the PA will say "What can you give me?" and the NHL will say "A chance to stay in the NHL."

AmericanJesus
02-16-2016, 11:41 AM
In this specific case, though, you're talking about giving every team at least one "compliance" buyout to be able to get under the cap next season, which means notable names are getting bought out from probably more than half the teams in the league who are likely to be pressed to that ceiling.

That's an issue I think the PA would be willing to accept if they're given something in return. But it's not something they're just going to acquiesce, because the guaranteed nature of NHL contracts is something they fought tooth and nail to achieve.

And if you have half the teams up against the cap, you're going to see UFAs unable to find teams, younger players up for raises traded to small market teams that can afford them and ordinary course buyouts which pay these players teams no longer want the same amount as an amnesty buyout, while not freeing up nearly as much cap space for other players. You'll see teams unable to buy UFA years and more players hitting free agency younger, but without a strong market when they are UFAs because teams will be strapped.

It is always in the players best interest to have teams with more real salary to spread around. And I'm not talking about the escalator, which only creates room if HRR increase more than expected.

Phil in Absentia
02-16-2016, 12:09 PM
Sure, I agree with this. I'm just saying it's never as simple as common sense. These groups are diometrically opposed to one another when it comes to negotiations. It's never an easy fix.

Personally, I'd love to see a compliance option collectively bargained into the CBA to allow teams to get under the flat or decreasing cap, and I think you're both right in terms of how those negotaitions will go. I just think something will be going the other way in addition.

Captain Clutch
02-16-2016, 01:13 PM
Sure, I agree with this. I'm just saying it's never as simple as common sense. These groups are diometrically opposed to one another when it comes to negotiations. It's never an easy fix.

Personally, I'd love to see a compliance option collectively bargained into the CBA to allow teams to get under the flat or decreasing cap, and I think you're both right in terms of how those negotaitions will go. I just think something will be going the other way in addition.

OT will now be only two goalies flinging shots at each other

SaveByRichter35
02-16-2016, 07:23 PM
Maybe something like 3/4 of the contract instead of 2/3?