Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

How Does A $71M Salary Cap For Next Season Sound?

added 12/10/13, from TSN,

According to TSN Hockey Insiders Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger, the cap is expected to rise to $71.1 million for the 2014-15 season according to a projection that was presented at the NHL's Board of Governors meeting in Pebble Beach, California.

The cap is currently set at $64.3 million in this, the second season under the NHL's latest collective bargaining agreement.

Teams must currently hit a minimum salary cap obligation of $44 million, based on average annual salary over the length of a player's contract. The cap floor is expected to rise to roughly $52 million.

"These are preliminary estimates, it's in that range," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun of ESPN.com. "And I said to the board there shouldn't be any issue or consternation, if that's the cap level, it's because the revenues have gone up. And that's a good thing."

continued

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

About right.

Posted by timbits on 12/09/13 at 11:18 PM ET

Avatar

Girardi will be too much, so wings could pick up a 3-4 defenseman like Robidas? Derek Morris? I know they are both old raspberry

We’ll need wingers, so we could find a bargain with Setoguchi. Spend a bit more to get Vrbata. spend a bit more to get Callahan (if the rangers let him go).

I don’t like the goalie market. Not a lot of guys out there that serve the same purpose as Monster. If his price goes up too much, just bring Mrazek in.

Posted by fromdowntown on 12/10/13 at 12:04 AM ET

TreKronor's avatar

Sounds like. ..... there will be a lot of overpaid free agents.

Posted by TreKronor on 12/10/13 at 12:30 AM ET

Primis's avatar

Sounds like. ..... there will be a lot of overpaid free agents.

Posted by TreKronor on 12/09/13 at 11:30 PM ET

Yup.

1.) Cap goes up.
2.) The good players are already all locked in to long-term contracts and therefore not hitting the market.
3.) Since that money can’t be spent on the top-tier players, GM’s will simply overpay in a gross way for lesser guys.  You’ll see some 3rd liner get $5.5m/yr or something stupid.  And if GM’s have it, they’ll certainly spend it now rather than later.
4.) Everyone shakes their heads and wonder why we’ve had two lockouts now and what the point ever was.

Posted by Primis on 12/10/13 at 12:44 AM ET

MoreShoot's avatar

4.) Everyone shakes their heads and wonder why we’ve had two lockouts now and what the point ever was.

and,of course, start planning the next one.

Posted by MoreShoot on 12/10/13 at 08:24 AM ET

MoreShoot's avatar

I can smell a big Cleary extension.

Posted by MoreShoot on 12/10/13 at 08:25 AM ET

Avatar

Everyone shakes their heads and wonder why we’ve had two lockouts now and what the point ever was.

This is why I was calling the NHLPA stupid for failing to sign a deal months prior, costing themselves millions of dollars.  They’ll never get those millions back due to finite careers.  The owners didn’t lose anything, and have an effectively indefinite period of time to recoup whatever meager paper losses they might have suffered.

As far as the cap goes, where we’ll start to see more aggressive player movement is post-contract, as longer term deals signed years previous become more and more of a value as their % of cap decreases.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/10/13 at 08:26 AM ET

Slumpy's avatar

Yeah the players unions locked out the players pissing off fans, uh right.
I used to go to a lot more games before bettman and his law firm starting locking out the players over and over again over the decades.
BTW I root for the owners and lawyers because I’m not a hockey fan.
shock

Posted by Slumpy from Detroit on 12/10/13 at 08:34 AM ET

Guilherme's avatar

1.) Cap goes up. 2.) The good players are already all locked in to long-term contracts and therefore not hitting the market. 3.) Since that money can’t be spent on the top-tier players, GM’s will simply overpay in a gross way for lesser guys. You’ll see some 3rd liner get $5.5m/yr or something stupid. And if GM’s have it, they’ll certainly spend it now rather than later.

6) Holland kicks tires and decides it’s better to not pay anyone, except Cleary and Tootoo and Quincey and hey, there’s Hasek back on ice. smile

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 12/10/13 at 09:01 AM ET

Avatar

They’ll never get those millions back due to finite careers.

Certainly not, what with the cap skyrocketing up, resulting in every free agent this summer getting overpaid.

Never gonna get the money back.

Posted by Garth on 12/10/13 at 09:51 AM ET

Avatar

Certainly not, what with the cap skyrocketing up, resulting in every free agent this summer getting overpaid.

And that is precisely why every player should be thanking Gary.  NBC deal was a coup. Getting money from IIOC.  6 or however many outdoor games. Rogers deal.  Almost everything Gary has done in the last 3-4 years has been great for the players and owners.  That’s how partnerships work.

Posted by jkm2011 on 12/10/13 at 10:00 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

How Does A $71M Salary Cap For Next Season Sound?

It sounds like a floor that’s going to require 5 or so teams to magically find a way to put $20M more on their rosters

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/10/13 at 10:06 AM ET

Avatar

Certainly not, what with the cap skyrocketing up, resulting in every free agent this summer getting overpaid.

Never gonna get the money back.

I think he is referring to the players who signed this summer in regards to the players never getting that money back.  Meaning guys like Letang, Malkin, Kunitz, and Dupuis for the penguins… all who signed under a cap number much less than 71 million.

 

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 12/10/13 at 10:25 AM ET

Avatar

Yeah the players unions locked out the players pissing off fans, uh right.

The PA could have signed the deal they ended up with and not missed a paycheck… but competition, pride, stubbornness, stupidity, etc interfered and they ended up missing a bunch of dollars.  It happens all the time.

BTW I root for the owners and lawyers because I’m not a hockey fan.

You don’t understand that an appreciation for reality and a comprehension of the tactics that reality requires does not equate to support of the tactics in question on some sort of broader point of morality.  This would be like accusing someone cautioning Datsyuk against getting in a fight with John Scott because he’d get beaten unconscious of actually wanting Datsyuk to get beaten unconscious after he got into a fight with Scott and was beaten unconscious.

Yours is a moderately silly position, perhaps just taken to lob a weak cheap shot, but still.  The PA shouldn’t have gotten suckered into that lockout regardless of provocation (like Datsyuk vs. Scott) because there was no way for them to win that fight (like Datsyuk v. Scott).  They should have gotten the most they could have without suffering any harm and lived to play another day.

It was a strategic blunder which cost their membership around 40% of their pay for that year.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/10/13 at 11:48 AM ET

Avatar

Almost everything Gary has done in the last 3-4 years has been great for the players and owners. 

I would say that many things Bettman has done financially have been great for the NHL.  I would say that he has done very little to actually make the NHL, itself, better… and in many cases I think he’s done the league a series of great disservices.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/10/13 at 11:53 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The PA could have signed the deal they ended up with and not missed a paycheck

That’s not true. There were a ton of things that ended up in the final CBA which weren’t on the table the first time the NHL threw the 50/50 out there just in time for the season to start, including benefits, insurance payments, the agreement on the pension plan, and make-whole.

All-in-all, the differences account for an amount pretty close to what the players lost by not signing the first 50/50 and all for the price of not playing 34 more games.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/10/13 at 12:06 PM ET

Avatar

That’s not true. There were a ton of things that ended up in the final CBA which weren’t on the table the first time the NHL threw the 50/50 out there just in time for the season to start, including benefits, insurance payments, the agreement on the pension plan, and make-whole.

That presumes the NHL offers at the time were immutable, which seems less than likely.

All-in-all, the differences account for an amount pretty close to what the players lost by not signing the first 50/50 and all for the price of not playing 34 more games.

I’d say at a minimum they were easily in the nine figure area short, and the PA total losses were likely more in the neighborhood of a third to a half billion dollars.  Keep in mind Make Whole first showed up in October, before the first game was lost, so that portion of your statement is demonstrably incorrect:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643572

According to that statement, as of October the NHL had offered:

50-50 under current HRR definitions.
6 year term with PA 7th options.
Kept salary arbitration as is.
Moved UFA status to 28/8 accrued.
Increased Revenue sharing to 200 mil.
Make whole of around 150 million.

So the PA gave up a minimum of 1.64 B (player share of a 2013 total revenue baseline assuming a 50-50 split and flat growth over 2012) x 34/82 to get the difference between what they ended up with and what they were offered in October.

So, 680 million bucks in revenue out the door for… bennies, insurance and the pension plan?  Nice strategy.  Maybe they got some steak knives, too.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/10/13 at 04:30 PM ET

Avatar

As an aside, my advice at the time was for the PA to ‘bend over’ (insofar as what they ended up with was distinguishable from what they could have had in October) and sign the deal now but push for a short term (which the NHL was, stupidly in my opinion, offering), and then hope for a better field of battle the next time around…

... which, lookie lookie sweet Miss Sookie, the PA would have certainly had as a result of the NHL’s deal with Rogers.  With that deal there is a ton more pressure on the owners to not miss games and those juicy Rogers rights checks, and correspondingly a much bigger stick for the PA to employ in seeking concessions in all sorts of areas from the NHL.

They could have gotten a 5 or 6 year term and had the CBA lapse very near the middle of most rights deals and been sitting absolutely pretty at contract negotiation time with a perfectly-prepared battlespace, especially if they rumbled about staging a walkoff heading into the final CBA years’ playoffs.

But they did none of those things, let half a billion dollars dribble down their legs, and may not have the backbone to try it again any time soon.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/10/13 at 04:43 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The Make Whole offer in October was predicated on money from “inside the system” (i.e. they were paying against their own players’ share for that money) whereas the end-result $300M in make-whole money is not calculated in any way against HRR or the player’s share, which instantly cuts a $450M swath in your math.

That presumes the NHL offers at the time were immutable, which seems less than likely.

Yes, it seems less than likely that the NHL might have pulled the whole thing off the table at 50/50 based on the NHLPA wanting more than half a billion more in concessions at that point.  Sure.

bennies, insurance and the pension plan?

You’re not familiar with the costs of insurance, benefits and a pension plan?  That’s an interesting take considering everything you keep saying about the city of Detroit.

... which, lookie lookie sweet Miss Sookie, the PA would have certainly had as a result of the NHL’s deal with Rogers.

Speaking of assumed immutability. Are you sure the Rogers deal happens like it does if the CBA cuts right through half of it?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 12/10/13 at 04:50 PM ET

Avatar

You said, Yours is a moderately silly position, perhaps just taken to lob a weak cheap shot

And then said later, I’d say at a minimum they were easily in the nine figure area short, and the PA total losses were likely more in the neighborhood of a third to a half billion dollars.

1/2 a billion is also a nine figure number. How about showing the two numbers for actual comparison or is that not up your ass?

Thanks JJ for schooling on the rest. You are the All Things CBA Master.

Posted by howeandhowe on 12/10/13 at 08:47 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image