Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Bettman Says Salary Cap Will Likely Remain Flat for Next Four Years


Phil

Recommended Posts

During a press conference Wednesday, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was asked when the league's new media rights deal with ESPN would have an impact on the NHL's salary cap. In response, Bettman said the salary cap will likely remain stagnant as part of the four-year collective bargaining agreement extension with the NHLPA.

 

"As part of that, the salary cap is basically going to be flat until we recover the overpayments through the escrow that we've built up both in the return to play from last season, which obviously had to be concluded under different circumstances, and this season we're obviously... there's a major escrow building up because of the fact that there's no attendance," Bettman said.

 

Attendance or lack thereof, Bettman added, directly and indirectly accounts for roughly half of the league's revenues.

 

"So I think everybody is focusing on a flat cap or a near-flat cap for the immediate future," he said.

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/bettman-nhl-salary-cap-will-remain-flat-near-flat-immediate-future/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brutal for the league/players, but for the Rangers, this might be a boon. It effectively guarantees all the kids are getting bridge deals. I almost wonder if you can't get someone like Zibanejad to sign a short-term deal, too. 7x3?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brutal for the league/players, but for the Rangers, this might be a boon. It effectively guarantees all the kids are getting bridge deals. I almost wonder if you can't get someone like Zibanejad to sign a short-term deal, too. 7x3?

I think that's the way the entire league is going to be. Players cant just price themselves out of the entire league. I guess they can but they won't. I personally think this is very good news specifically for the Rangers. Players like Ziby, Buch, Chytil, Shesty might take an extra year just for a guaranteed salary even if it means not seeking the last dime from a club. Could even possibly mean a guy like Eichel might even be obtained for less since money is tighter for some other teams.

 

Guys like Hall i really feel sorry for. Wait, no I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brutal for the league/players, but for the Rangers, this might be a boon. It effectively guarantees all the kids are getting bridge deals. I almost wonder if you can't get someone like Zibanejad to sign a short-term deal, too. 7x3?

 

I've been thinking about the Zibanejad situation a lot. I think I buy low and go long term on him if possible. 7 years x 7.5-8M. This is a full 2.5-3M AAV less than he was going to cost.

 

This season might be lost, but I would bet on him rebounding next year. Doesn't have to be a 100 point pace rebound, but I still see a guy who can be a consistent 70 point player who is a very good 2 way player. Take advantage of the dip in play this year. Of course, he may also want to bet on himself and not sign an extension this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the Zibanejad situation a lot. I think I buy low and go long term on him if possible. 7 years x 7.5-8M. This is a full 2.5-3M AAV less than he was going to cost.

 

This season might be lost, but I would bet on him rebounding next year. Doesn't have to be a 100 point pace rebound, but I still see a guy who can be a consistent 70 point player who is a very good 2 way player. Take advantage of the dip in play this year. Of course, he may also want to bet on himself and not sign an extension this summer.

 

Yeah, it's an interesting proposition. Would he be more open to the idea because of the term? Fact is, the money he was likely to get, between a four-year flat cap, gridlocked revenue streams, and his shit contract year performance makes any attempt by him to maximize AAV probably a foolish one. Is it really worth making, say, $9 million per rather than $7 million if it means you have to sign in Detroit to do it? Plus, let's be honest — the Rangers can incentivize it better anyway, and likely afford some significant immediate signing bonuses.

 

And regardless of whether he opts to sign right away or not, what is really going to change? Friedman was on Sportsnet radio recently and said the deficit between the owners and players is a billion dollars. That's billion with a B. Even with the new TV deal and a slow return of gates, that's just an insane gap to close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With no cap fluctuation, I have to anticipate a compliance buyout or 2, eventually.

 

I don't. The owners were dead set against it back in May. Kurt Overhardt's idea, though, was instituting a franchise/exceptional player tag (at least temporarily). There might be something to that, even if it's only temporary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. The owners were dead set against it back in May. Kurt Overhardt's idea, though, was instituting a franchise/exceptional player tag (at least temporarily). There might be something to that, even if it's only temporary.

 

But something like that only helps rich teams.

More franchises would rather get out from a bad contract than be able to spend an additional $10m per season on another player. I mean, this is a discussion about money, league-wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But something like that only helps rich teams.

More franchises would rather get out from a bad contract than be able to spend an additional $10m per season on another player. I mean, this is a discussion about money, league-wide.

 

So do amnesty buyouts. Owners are hurting. Anyone who's revenue streams dried up and caused them to suffer significant losses (multi- if not hundreds of millions) is at a competitive disadvantage regarding the flexibility amnesty buyouts would otherwise offer. It's not a level playing field. Toronto, the Rangers, etc. can do it without a problem. Even teams like Pittsburgh just can't, or won't really want to because it's probably not all that beneficial.

 

Keeping with the PIT example, though, if you allowed them to "franchise" someone like Crosby, who's base salary drops to just $3 million for the last three years of his deal, would open up $8.7 million in cap. I don't know that every team would have a comparable scenario, but enough of them probably do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. The owners were dead set against it back in May. Kurt Overhardt's idea, though, was instituting a franchise/exceptional player tag (at least temporarily). There might be something to that, even if it's only temporary.

 

I've been saying that this should be a thing since the cap was instituted.

 

Would make keeping star players a lot easier and wouldnt screw teams over so much on deals they HAVE to give out to keep their best guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been saying for years the nhl needs to allow a cap exempt player, like a franchise player. Even before this cap crunch. It just makes sense. Teams shouldn’t be punished for developing talent by having to decide either to pay him and sell off another commodity to do so or trade him before he cap wise prices himself out of the team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do amnesty buyouts. Owners are hurting. Anyone who's revenue streams dried up and caused them to suffer significant losses (multi- if not hundreds of millions) is at a competitive disadvantage regarding the flexibility amnesty buyouts would otherwise offer. It's not a level playing field. Toronto, the Rangers, etc. can do it without a problem. Even teams like Pittsburgh just can't, or won't really want to because it's probably not all that beneficial.

 

Keeping with the PIT example, though, if you allowed them to "franchise" someone like Crosby, who's base salary drops to just $3 million for the last three years of his deal, would open up $8.7 million in cap. I don't know that every team would have a comparable scenario, but enough of them probably do.

 

The PA wont agree to not paying the players anything.

 

But even a team like the Sabres can benefit from buying out shorter contracts like Okposo, than they'd benefit from signing another free agent, or having Eichel's cap not count against them. A compliance buy out is something that can benefit every and any franchise, where a franchise tag doesnt. This isnt the NFL where every team is raking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been saying for years the nhl needs to allow a cap exempt player, like a franchise player. Even before this cap crunch. It just makes sense. Teams shouldn’t be punished for developing talent by having to decide either to pay him and sell off another commodity to do so or trade him before he cap wise prices himself out of the team.

 

That's exactly what a salary cap is for, though.

 

If anything, it makes it more unfair. Now, Edmonton got McDavid AND can spend $12.5m on other players to fill their roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying that this should be a thing since the cap was instituted.

 

Would make keeping star players a lot easier and wouldnt screw teams over so much on deals they HAVE to give out to keep their best guy

 

I guess, yeah, but as I understand it in the NFL, it's no guarantee you can actually keep your guy. Free agency rules still apply, no? They certainly would in the NHL. You'd probably need to craft some kind of rules around preventing abuse, too, to make sure that players who are tagged are still getting paid. Smarter people than me can figure that out.

 

I’ve been saying for years the nhl needs to allow a cap exempt player, like a franchise player. Even before this cap crunch. It just makes sense. Teams shouldn’t be punished for developing talent by having to decide either to pay him and sell off another commodity to do so or trade him before he cap wise prices himself out of the team.

 

Fundamentally, yes, but there's technically an added benefit to "punishing" well-drafting teams: those players can (and sometimes are) traded to other markets who probably wouldn't get them in free agency. So it helps parity, or at least it's designed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what a salary cap is for, though.

 

If anything, it makes it more unfair. Now, Edmonton got McDavid AND can spend $12.5m on other players to fill their roster?

 

I don’t think it makes it unfair. But I had other stipulations. Only one player, has to have been drafted by team, and has to be in top echelon of salaries. Can only be used on player one time for a max number of years. Obviously would need more tinkering.

 

I just look at a team like Tampa and think it’s a bit unfair to them. I’m not going to cry myself to sleep thinking oh poor poor Tampa but they mostly built from within. No team is ever going to completely draft all players but they are up there. One franchise like player isn’t going to make them unstoppable but it certainly would help limit cap circumventing as well. Honestly, so they become a harder team to beat if it’s one more player they can retain? It’s not such a bad thing.

 

The McDavid thing is so few and far between. And yes, I understand it could lead to some dynasties but I don’t see that as a hugely bad thing. Every sport has them from time to time. Football is one of the more successful versions of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, yeah, but as I understand it in the NFL, it's no guarantee you can actually keep your guy. Free agency rules still apply, no? They certainly would in the NHL. You'd probably need to craft some kind of rules around preventing abuse, too, to make sure that players who are tagged are still getting paid. Smarter people than me can figure that out.

 

 

 

Fundamentally, yes, but there's technically an added benefit to "punishing" well-drafting teams: those players can (and sometimes are) traded to other markets who probably wouldn't get them in free agency. So it helps parity, or at least it's designed to.

 

Not sure I follow.

 

I was thinking more along the line of; Player x wants 11mil a season to play. You give him that and tag him as your franchise player. His cap hit is 1/2 of his cost- 5.5 mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow.

 

I was thinking more along the line of; Player x wants 11mil a season to play. You give him that and tag him as your franchise player. His cap hit is 1/2 of his cost- 5.5 mil.

 

That's entirely appropriate. What I mean is the tag itself can't be a means to reduce salary compensation for players, just reduce the cap charge of it that hits the teams' salary cap (not payroll).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PA wont agree to not paying the players anything.

 

But even a team like the Sabres can benefit from buying out shorter contracts like Okposo, than they'd benefit from signing another free agent, or having Eichel's cap not count against them. A compliance buy out is something that can benefit every and any franchise, where a franchise tag doesnt. This isnt the NFL where every team is raking.

 

Why not both?

 

The reality of the NHL right now is that you have a number of small-market teams that need liquid cash, a significant number of teams hugging the cap, a deficit of a billion dollars between players and owners, and some teams that have serious money they're willing to spend.

 

Why can't we have a luxury tax and a compliance buyout? Or a franchise tag? Or the ability to rework contracts in mutual negotiation?

 

Part of the beauty of the NFL or the Premier League or even the NBA is the level of flexibility franchises have - and players have - to seek better arrangements. It's crippling to small market, non-traditional market, or teams that have to deal with currency fluctuation to be stuck with deals like Okposo, Skinner, Bob, Lucic, Eriksson, Neal, Subban, Johansen, etc.

 

I pity Florida. They've figured it out, and they're stuck with fucking Bobrovsky, will lose Dreidger in the Krakendraft, and probably don't have the cash to keep the players they really need to. Should we not give them a means of having a real shot at finally establishing a presence and get them off that Bob deal in some way?

 

At the same time - fuck, you think Johansen wants to stay in Nashville for a rebuild? Think Skinner wants to spend the next 7 years playing fourth line hockey? Yeah, there's a money consideration, but many of these solutions provide some sort of guarantor to help the franchise and the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's entirely appropriate. What I mean is the tag itself can't be a means to reduce salary compensation for players, just reduce the cap charge of it that hits the teams' salary cap (not payroll).

 

Yea we're on the same page there.

 

If anything I think it helps other guys on the team get paid more too so win-win there I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flat cap for four years underscores the limited market for Eichel and is $10 per contract.

 

Yeah, that's a factor for sure. I'm sure the Sabres would want to open this up to the biggest tent of bidders possible, but how much bigger can it get, really? We already have teams operating with internal caps on spending who also have to adhere to the external cap the league imposes. I'm not sure this is going to become the bidding war they think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...