Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2023 Off-season

[Holtbyisms]

We created a fake injury to circumvent the Cap?

Huh, I had no idea

We circumvented the cap in a different way. Cheating is still cheating.

 

[Ridley Simon]

We circumvented the cap in a different way. Cheating is still cheating.

We traded a player who got waived by his team. We had to send a really good goaltender out to do it as well. How is that cheating?!?!

Sounds like you just have an ax to grind here.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

We circumvented the cap in a different way. Cheating is still cheating.

Oh Bullshit….

 

[twabby]

The salary cap is stupid and was primarily put in place to suppress player salaries. I don't think the Orpik deal was circumvention, but even if it was who cares! Everyone should circumvent the cap!

 

[twabby]

I'm not saying Nylander isn't great but the cap situations aren't comparable and Nylander is very clearly the 4th wheel at best in their cap structure.

Like, it's an abstract comparison but ultimately if Toronto was shopping Matthews, Marner, or Tavares we'd hear about it, and after that you have to consider positional value, there's no guarantee Nylander is even 4th. He's been in trade rumors for years, Wilson's have been shut down. It isn't one to one, but the concept is exactly the same just with a player you value more.

I'm still not sure I agree. The motivation for Toronto trading Nylander is completely different from why I want Washington to trade Wilson.

Toronto wouldn't trade Nylander because they think they can upgrade. They'd do it because they're forced to by cap constraints. Nylander has been underpaid his entire career. Matthews is up next year. Marner the following year. Tavares is on a unmovable contract.

No such constraints exist for re-signing Wilson. Mantha will be gone and no one is really due a raise except Sandin. Sure Kuznetsov and Backstrom are still on the books for another year but with the cap rising it shouldn't be a problem. The idea of trading Wilson is solely to make an impactful upgrade to the roster right now. Avoiding Wilson's likely albatross of a contract extension is kind of a secondary motivation to trading him, though it's certainly a perk.

 

[Calicaps]

The salary cap is stupid and was primarily put in place to suppress player salaries. I don't think the Orpik deal was circumvention, but even if it was who cares! Everyone should circumvent the cap!

Yes the cap sucks and was basically a union-busting effort. But arbitrary circumvention also sucks and is cheating. The NHLPA can and should continue to claw back power where ever it can. But what Tampa and Chicago did gave them a gross advantage and won them Cups they probably wouldn't have won otherwise. Can't be cheering that.

 

[g00n]

The cap was needed to save the owners from a circular firing squad. Very good chance the NHL would not be as financially healthy as it is now without a cap. People looking to back labor can bitch about it but if a team goes under that's a full roster of players without a job and competing with other guys, maybe for less money. And the cap means you can't just dump $20M in the lap of one superstar, you have to spread the wealth.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Over 20 years ago we gave Jagr a $10mill contract. You cant say its OK Ovie and Sid still make less then that. Now do all the other sports salaries since year 2000... its criminal what the owners did to hockey players.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Over 20 years ago we gave Jagr a $10mill contract. You cant say its OK Ovie and Sid still make less then that. Now do all the other sports salaries since year 2000... its criminal what the owners did to hockey players.

Hockey is what it is in terms of revenue……the players get their share.


The league is much healthier now than back when Bobby Holik got $9 mil a year….

 

[Capitals40]

Over 20 years ago we gave Jagr a $10mill contract. You cant say its OK Ovie and Sid still make less then that. Now do all the other sports salaries since year 2000... its criminal what the owners did to hockey players.

The league was paying 75 percent of the revenues to players before the cap..this was not sustainable

 

[Hivemind]

The league was paying 75 percent of the revenues to players before the cap..this was not sustainable

This seems like a lot... until you realize how they league defines and how the owners game "hockey related revenue."

The $1.1 BILLION in franchise fees from the Golden Knights ($500M) and Kraken ($650M) paid to the league? Not "Hockey Related Revenue." Teams' growth in franchise valuations (which they can then leverage as equity to reinvest in new loans)? Not "Hockey Related Revenue." If the arena is operated by a different group than the team, the concession sales aren't "Hockey Related Revenue" (despite some of those being paper-only differences, with the money ultimately ending up in the same pockets). And if they DO own their stadium, the proceeds from the real estate and leasing of their stadium (and other properties) are not "Hockey Related Revenues." Any payments to franchises either to relocated OR not to relocate? Not "Hockey Related Revenue." Only 65% of arena sponsorship deals (for single-tenant arenas) count as "Hockey Related Revenue" (I guess all those dasher board ads are expected to stay posted when they host Taylor Swift concerts there and claim that's 35% of the sponsorship value? ). Hell, even the proceeds of the World Cup of Hockey - which is directly run by the NHL and uses rinks owned by NHL franchises for the sake of literally playing hockey - is somehow not "Hockey Related Revenue."

And this isn't even touching on the fact that the owners across every league in North America are still coming out way ahead, regardless of how much they "lose" on operating their sports' teams, thanks to the fact they're using their ownership of a sports franchise to essentially commit tax fraud.

Ballmer pays such a low rate, in part, because of a provision of the U.S. tax code. When someone buys a business, they’re often able to deduct almost the entire sale price against their income during the ensuing years. That allows them to pay less in taxes. The underlying logic is that the purchase price was composed of assets — buildings, equipment, patents and more — that degrade over time and should be counted as expenses.


But in few industries is that tax treatment more detached from economic reality than in professional sports. Teams’ most valuable assets, such as TV deals and player contracts, are virtually guaranteed to regenerate because sports franchises are essentially monopolies. There’s little risk that players will stop playing for Ballmer’s Clippers or that TV stations will stop airing their games. But Ballmer still gets to deduct the value of those assets over time, almost $2 billion in all, from his taxable income.


This allows Ballmer to perform a kind of financial magic trick. If he profits from the Clippers, he can — legally — inform the IRS that he is losing money, thus saving vast sums on his taxes. If the Clippers are unprofitable in a given year, he can tell the IRS he’s losing vastly more.

And ultimately, here's the bottom line:

In reality, the right to operate a franchise in one of the major leagues has in the last few decades been a license to print money: In the past two decades, the average value of basketball, football, baseball and hockey teams has grown by more than 500%.

The owners would do just fine without a salary cap. They just cooked the books so they could cry poor.

 

[Jags]

The owners would do just fine without a salary cap.

Yeah, but the league would suck. I'll take the competitive parity of a league with a meaningful salary cap over any alternative every time. Championships are essentially purchased in leagues without that balance.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

It’s just hard to see Ted pay Bradley Beal $55 mill a year for a team that draws no fans. And Ovie is still $9.5.
How much money did Ovie make the Caps and Ted?

 

[g00n]

Ain't none o y'all's money so why

It’s just hard to see Ted pay Bradley Beal $55 mill a year for a team that draws no fans. And Ovie is still $9.5.
How much money did Ovie make the Caps and Ted?

It's revenue based. The NBA and NHL both pay players 50% of revenue.

 

[Misery74]

Tarasenko going to the Sens torpedos our best chance to get rid of Mantha.

I see us finishing 7th in the Metro.

 

[Roshi]

Tarasenko going to the Sens torpedos our best chance to get rid of Mantha.

I see us finishing 7th in the Metro.

While that might happen, Ill go with Mantha rocketing under Carbs and contract year, leading us to stanley cup finals.

Also asked from 8ball and it said ”Its certainly possible”, so thats where im at..

 

[koalabear9301]

Yeah, but the league would suck. I'll take the competitive parity of a league with a meaningful salary cap over any alternative every time. Championships are essentially purchased in leagues without that balance.

Feel like this is kinda overblown. MLB has teams that can always outspend others to get top free agents but investing in scouting and development (Rays, Astros, O's right now) builds more sustainable contenders. Even the most lopsided NBA team recently (Warriors) built organically through the draft and were only able to get KD because of an unprecedented salary cap spike. This year's champs were built through the draft along with a few savvy trades and cheap FA signings to plug in some holes. Championships aren't as easy to "purchase" in the NBA as people act like (shoot, this year's Stanley Cup champs operated more in that mold).

A soft salary cap similar to the NBA would probably maintain the competitive balance while also rewarding teams that draft well by helping them to keep their homegrown guys. Don't see an issue with that.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

I am on strike. I won’t give anything up to CEOs and owners being fat cat taking all the money.

 

[Jags]

A soft salary cap similar to the NBA would probably maintain the competitive balance while also rewarding teams that draft well by helping them to keep their homegrown guys. Don't see an issue with that.

I generally agree, though it's hard to argue that the competitive balance aspect of a cap functions any better than it does in the NHL. The NFL is also solid and the NBA does pretty well. The knock against the NHL cap is that it hasn't grown as it should in recent years and has become increasingly restrictive for everyone; so much so that a couple clubs seem to exist primarily to solve everyone else's cap troubles. They need to fix that for sure.

But MLB? Come on. The floor is as important to any cap as the ceiling, and they're dogshit with both. Yes, some of the lesser spenders manage to compete for short windows, but they slam shut the second the big spenders want their best players. Baseball is a joke anymore, and their "cap" is just one of a list of reasons.

I only follow the UK soccer leagues, but they're pretty bad at this, too.

 

[twabby]

Hockey is also such a random sport that even if you have big spenders it's no real guarantee of success. Half the teams make the postseason and once you get in it becomes kind of a crapshoot depending on factors like a hot goalie, injuries, how the referees feel like on a given night, and so on.

A luxury tax would be a much better alternative.

 

[Hivemind]

Yeah, but the league would suck. I'll take the competitive parity of a league with a meaningful salary cap over any alternative every time. Championships are essentially purchased in leagues without that balance.

I mean, Tampa Bay won the last Cup before the salary cap was implemented. They were in the bottom 1/3rd of the league in spending, at $33.5M payroll. The Rangers and Red Wings were both over $77M in salary that season. 2003 Devils won the Cup with a $51.2M payroll (8th in the league), just barely ahead of the Capitals with a $50.4M payroll (lost in the 1st round).

I won't contest the absolute bottom of the league is a big disadvantage, but it's a lot harder to "purchase a Championship" than you're making it out to be.

There are other levers for competitive parity that can be adjusted other than just the salary cap.

 

[Jags]

There are other levers for competitive parity that can be adjusted other than just the salary cap.

Of course there are, but a good cap system is a huge one. Everyone knows that big-spending teams often miss the mark, assembling mercenary squads with top coaches that can't get out of their own way. But spending heavy is a huge potential advantage easily eliminated by a meaningful cap.

Things this complex never boil down to one thing. I said they're essentially purchased in leagues that lack the balance of an impactful cap, and that's pretty true. There are exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between.

And I miss out on most of those stories because if it's okay for one team to spend 6 times more than another, I'm just not interested. That's not sports.

 

[g00n]

Apparently we're all GMs and economists. Who knew?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Hockey is also such a random sport that even if you have big spenders it's no real guarantee of success. Half the teams make the postseason and once you get in it becomes kind of a crapshoot depending on factors like a hot goalie, injuries, how the referees feel like on a given night, and so on.

A luxury tax would be a much better alternative.

So ~5 teams can overspend? Hard pass.

 

[koalabear9301]

So ~5 teams can overspend? Hard pass.

Looking at the NBA model, the only teams that go into the luxury tax are championship level teams that built organically. The tax is still rather prohibitive and teams actively make moves to avoid it (OKC trading Harden comes to mind), but it's more used to help teams retain talent than it is to "buy a championship".