|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 24, 2015 10:47:16 GMT -5
The NHL has set the cap at $71.4 million...Assuming we follow suit, that should put us at a number around 76.4, not sure what affect that has on where we were last year...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2015 11:17:19 GMT -5
I have been leaning towards having our cap remain static this year (and in future years as well).
If someone thinks of a reason we should follow the ups and downs of the NHL cap, please post it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Jun 24, 2015 13:16:47 GMT -5
if it's in the game, it's in the game
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 24, 2015 13:38:21 GMT -5
I think my biggest issue with the cap is that our players assigned to our minor league system count against our cap numbers, those of us trying to build our organizations through the draft use more cap room on these players vs 100k fillers leaving less for our big roster. What would our cap be if we went with a static number? My cap spent on a 23 man roster for the 14-15 season was 64.75 million, my available cap showing on my team page is 1.06 million...as compared to the NHL, I would have had another 3.25 million last year to play with as their cap for that same 23 man roster was 69 million. Add another 2.5 million to that this year and just my team alone underspent by 6.65 million as compared to the NHL. That's a big difference!
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 24, 2015 17:31:23 GMT -5
The cap must go on... And up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jun 24, 2015 20:21:45 GMT -5
Ideally it would be great to have a salary cap for the guys on your 23 man roster. But then things like in season waivers/signings, one way vs two way contracts, call ups, and probably a plethora of other problems would arise.
Scott does make a great point about drafted guys costing more. Would be nice to see teams get an extra slush fund, say $5 mil, to help deal with home grown drafted players. By the time a lot of them are good they become RFAs and get a hefty pay raise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 24, 2015 20:38:02 GMT -5
The only problem with raising the cap to create a slush fund for the drafted players is that teams that spent all of their draft picks (or most of them anyways) would have another 5M or so to throw at FAs further inflating their price even more (Mike Weaver anyone?). I think the better solution is to lower the ELC that drafted player get (next year not this) to make them more in line with what the minor league pool is paid. I think this has been floated before.
Also, as has been discussed as well making players sign UFA to a minimum term based on the dollars spent and age of the player. Matt, can you post your charts relating to this here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jun 24, 2015 21:59:30 GMT -5
I agree that we don't want teams who choose not to build through the draft to have extra $ to inflate free agent prices but the most ideal way to get around that is having the cap only apply to our 23 or 25 man rosters. I get the feeling that that ideal is not agreeable to the commish so the other solution would be to lower the cap hit of the draft picks. I would prefer a cap based on only your 23 man roster but... How would we lower the cap hits of the draft picks to make a meaningful difference? I believe we actually raised or minimum pro salary from 500k to 600k last season, did we not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jun 25, 2015 0:19:28 GMT -5
Here is my baby, been sitting on this for almost a year now! Basically this chart shows you the MINIMUM term you would be obligated to sign a player to based off of his age and the salary you sign him for. These apply BEFORE any term discounts. | Salary \ Age: | <25 | 26-32 | 33-34 | 35+ | | 1.99M & under | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | | 2-3.99M | 2 years | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | | 4-5.99M | 3 years | 2 years | 1 year | 1 year | | 6-7.99M | 3 years | 3 years | 2 years | 2 years | | 8M+ | 4 years | 3 years | 3 years | 2 years |
The biggest thing here is that if you want to pay a 37 year old 6 million dollars, you're on the hook for him for two years...even if he is retired in the NHL and on his last card. Suddenly you'll have 10 teams who bid 5.95mil on a 37 year old 45-20 card, and the subsequent tie breaker (whatever that is) is essentially that player choosing his destination. |
|
|
|
Post by John-Michigan on Jun 25, 2015 8:13:41 GMT -5
I think I suggested something similar that got shot down but I am all in favor of this proposal
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 29, 2015 11:04:12 GMT -5
Here is my baby, been sitting on this for almost a year now! Basically this chart shows you the MINIMUM term you would be obligated to sign a player to based off of his age and the salary you sign him for. These apply BEFORE any term discounts. | Salary \ Age: | <25 | 26-32 | 33-34 | 35+ | | <2M | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | | 2-4M | 2 years | 1 year | 1 year | 1 year | | 4-6M | 3 years | 2 years | 1 year | 1 year | | 6-8M | 3 years | 3 years | 2 years | 2 years | | 8M+ | 4 years | 3 years | 3 years | 2 years |
The biggest thing here is that if you want to pay a 37 year old 6 million dollars, you're on the hook for him for two years...even if he is retired in the NHL and on his last card. Suddenly you'll have 10 teams who bid 5.95mil on a 37 year old 45-20 card, and the subsequent tie breaker (whatever that is) is essentially that player choosing his destination. This is really good. We are not implementing this, this year??? We addressed unrealistic trading and brought it into realism. Now we need to make sure owners don't just buy one year players and try to 'game' their way to a cup.... also unrealistic and shabby. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt-Colorado on Jun 29, 2015 11:14:40 GMT -5
Pretty sure this is happening this offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jun 29, 2015 11:20:14 GMT -5
Pretty sure this is happening this offseason. Correctamundo |
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jun 29, 2015 12:02:55 GMT -5
Pretty sure this is happening this offseason. Correctamundo  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 9, 2015 17:31:27 GMT -5
I know the Commish was pondering whether we would raise our cap to follow suit with the NHL. I would like to recommend that we do, the NHL raised theirs from $69M up to $71.4M. Other than the year the NHL dropped theirs, we have always followed suit as we have tried to follow suit with not making too many last minute rule changes. I would like to remind everyone that I was in favor of dropping our cap the year the NHL dropped theirs, however, if we want to broach implementing a hard cap from this point with no changes, maybe we should start that next year as I do see the archenemy for a steady cap seeing as how we do not rely on the financial terms of business that the NHL based monetary decisions on.
|
|
