CBJ's willingness to spend closer to cap...

[Doggy]

I am thankful that for a small market team I have never felt McConnell has been cheap when letting the GM put a roster together. That said, the multiple big long term contracts handed out over the past few years seems unprecedented: Horton, Dubi, Foligno, Saad and Bobs.

My question is: do you think there has been a correlation between the city buying the arena and negotiating a more favorable lease for the CBJ -> the organization's willingness to spend closer to the cap.

Click to read more...

 

[1857 Howitzer]

I am thankful that for a small market team I have never felt McConnell has been cheap when letting the GM put a roster together. That said, the multiple big long term contracts handed out over the past few years seems unprecedented: Horton, Dubi, Foligno, Saad and Bobs.

My question is: do you think there has been a correlation between the city buying the arena and negotiating a more favorable lease for the CBJ -> the organization's willingness to spend closer to the cap.

I'm sure that factors in.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I am thankful that for a small market team I have never felt McConnell has been cheap when letting the GM put a roster together. That said, the multiple big long term contracts handed out over the past few years seems unprecedented: Horton, Dubi, Foligno, Saad and Bobs.

My question is: do you think there has been a correlation between the city buying the arena and negotiating a more favorable lease for the CBJ -> the organization's willingness to spend closer to the cap.

They were pretty close to the cap with Wiz, *arter, Prospal, etc. that year and that was before the arena deal.

 

[CBJSlash]

I think we've always been willing. It just hasn't ever really made sense. On the FA market crazy money is always out there and we haven't won that a lot and we haven't had quality RFAs to push it forward.

Honestly how many RFAs did we extend for big money/term into their UFA years? Nash...

Adding JD probably has also made this even more viable.

 

[JacketsDavid]

The team has got to be gambling a little that spending now will increase revenues (especially ticket sales) in future.
We have a lot of long term contracts and a lot of young guys who will be due to get big deals in coming years.
Hopefully we win, people buy tickets, sponsors line up, and we live happily ever after

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Probably had something to do with it, but ownership has said they'd be willing to spend for a contender. The messages sent by Howson apparently did not sell the McConnell's to go all out for spending until 2011-12 and lost trust in Howson after that. Now they really believe in JD and JK, so we're back to spending.

 

[major major]

The team has got to be gambling a little that spending now will increase revenues (especially ticket sales) in future.
We have a lot of long term contracts and a lot of young guys who will be due to get big deals in coming years.
Hopefully we win, people buy tickets, sponsors line up, and we live happily ever after

I wouldn't use the word "gamble" here. It's well established, winning increases revenues substantially. And being skimpy with spending also bears risk - a lot of teams have thrifted themselves into semi-permanent mediocrity.

Probably had something to do with it, but ownership has said they'd be willing to spend for a contender. The messages sent by Howson apparently did not sell the McConnell's to go all out for spending until 2011-12 and lost trust in Howson after that. Now they really believe in JD and JK, so we're back to spending.

I could be wrong but in recent years we've been close to the cap a lot, haven't we? I think last year Jarmo really pruned back, which didn't ultimately save any money thanks to the (expensive)injury crisis. But before that we were at the cap, right?

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I wouldn't use the word "gamble" here. It's well established, winning increases revenues substantially. And being skimpy with spending also bears risk - a lot of teams have thrifted themselves into semi-permanent mediocrity.



I could be wrong but in recent years we've been close to the cap a lot, haven't we? I think last year Jarmo really pruned back, which didn't ultimately save any money thanks to the (expensive)injury crisis. But before that we were at the cap, right?

I think we were in the bottom 5 of spending last year. Only reason we shot up so quickly is Bob, Dubi, and Foligno's extensions all kicked in at the same time.

 

[EspenK]

I think we were in the bottom 5 of spending last year. Only reason we shot up so quickly is Bob, Dubi, and Foligno's extensions all kicked in at the same time.

and added Saad's 6 mill. That was a killer now and going forward. Not that I mind having him,its just that we have a ton of F's signed for awhile, a bunch of young guys who hopefully will be ready soon, guys who will need to be extended and the very low pay of our D corps is going to make cap management very tricky for a few years.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

and added Saad's 6 mill. That was a killer now and going forward. Not that I mind having him,its just that we have a ton of F's signed for awhile, a bunch of young guys who hopefully will be ready soon, guys who will need to be extended and the very low pay of our D corps is going to make cap management very tricky for a few years.

I disagree. We have Jenner and Murray coming up, likely to get bridge deals, with Bourque (3.5) and Boll (1.7) expiring in addition to the inevitable cap rising in the next few years. This isn't even factoring in the likely expansion draft and (hopeful) drafting of Clarkson's deal. The tricky one is going to be Joey's long term deal.

 

[Xoggz22]

Not that it matters but I am putting an article together on the cap flow and impact. More focused on what the big contracts will do short and long term. But an opinion piece...

 

[EspenK]

Not that it matters but I am putting an article together on the cap flow and impact. More focused on what the big contracts will do short and long term. But an opinion piece...

Nice. To me its a big problem that the Jackets are going to have to deal with. I'll be interested to read your take on it.

 

[EspenK]

I disagree. We have Jenner and Murray coming up, likely to get bridge deals, with Bourque (3.5) and Boll (1.7) expiring in addition to the inevitable cap rising in the next few years. This isn't even factoring in the likely expansion draft and (hopeful) drafting of Clarkson's deal. The tricky one is going to be Joey's long term deal.

Also Savard, (not to mention Prout and Connauton) who if he has another decent season isn't coming cheaply. See Justin Schultz at 3.9 mill.

Would you take Clarkson in an expansion draft?

Joey's deal is going to be huge. Imo it could go as high as 10 and won't be a dime less than 8. The closer to 10 the bigger problem it is going to cause.

As for the inevitable rise, maybe, maybe not. Canadian dollar has to get stronger; that would help. Barring a trade I see an issue next year and for sure 2 years down the road. Not that we can't stay within it, its just that its going to be next to impossible to upgrade the roster without giving up an equal or more in salary.

 

[stevo61]

Also Savard, (not to mention Prout and Connauton) who if he has another decent season isn't coming cheaply. See Justin Schultz at 3.9 mill.

Would you take Clarkson in an expansion draft?

Joey's deal is going to be huge. Imo it could go as high as 10 and won't be a dime less than 8. The closer to 10 the bigger problem it is going to cause.

As for the inevitable rise, maybe, maybe not. Canadian dollar has to get stronger; that would help. Barring a trade I see an issue next year and for sure 2 years down the road. Not that we can't stay within it, its just that its going to be next to impossible to upgrade the roster without giving up an equal or more in salary.

Tyutin and Hartnell are going to be our future cap casualties that we will have to move just for money savings. Take off Bourque, Boll and Campbell and that's 6.5mil. We'll be fine, it's how it works in a cap system and why having a GM like Jarmo who is so good at drafting is huge.
As for Joeys contract i think it will be 8-8.5 unless he absolutely explodes next year

 

[EspenK]

Tyutin and Hartnell are going to be our future cap casualties that we will have to move just for money savings. Take off Bourque, Boll and Campbell and that's 6.5mil. We'll be fine, it's how it works in a cap system and why having a GM like Jarmo who is so good at drafting is huge.
As for Joeys contract i think it will be 8-8.5 unless he absolutely explodes next year

I agree that Hartnell & Tyutin are likely candidates for trades to help the cap situation.

As to the rest I'm not sure. Add 4 for Joey at a minimum, 6 minimum for Murray, Jenner, Savard, Connauton, Prout and that's 3.5 over this year's cap hit after you subtract the 3 amigos who are leaving. If the cap only rises 3 % a year for the next 2 we're over or right at.

As for drafting to pay off you have to have places to put guys. We have a ton of guys signed for a lot of years. So either trades must happen or we will have a very talented 4th line of Rychel-Milano-Bjorkstrand with Bittner in the press box come next year or two.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I think we were in the bottom 5 of spending last year. Only reason we shot up so quickly is Bob, Dubi, and Foligno's extensions all kicked in at the same time.

http://www.nhlpa.com/the-players/team-compensation

NHLPA chart shows that the CBJ were 16th.

The cap was $69m last season. The Jackets were within 5% of that number. That makes them a "cap team" for all intents and purposes. Most other teams are as well. Other than Arizona, Florida, Carolina, and New Jersey, there doesn't appear to be an aversion to spending to the cap.

 

[db2011]

http://www.nhlpa.com/the-players/team-compensation

NHLPA chart shows that the CBJ were 16th.

The cap was $69m last season. The Jackets were within 5% of that number. That makes them a "cap team" for all intents and purposes. Most other teams are as well. Other than Arizona, Florida, Carolina, and New Jersey, there doesn't appear to be an aversion to spending to the cap.

To rant for a second- there shouldn't be an aversion to spend to the cap. The cap is supposed to be an equalizer, something that allows small market teams to compete with large market teams.

Every team should spend to the cap. That's why there's a cap.

 

[major major]

http://www.nhlpa.com/the-players/team-compensation

NHLPA chart shows that the CBJ were 16th.

The cap was $69m last season. The Jackets were within 5% of that number. That makes them a "cap team" for all intents and purposes. Most other teams are as well. Other than Arizona, Florida, Carolina, and New Jersey, there doesn't appear to be an aversion to spending to the cap.

I don't know how to check this, but I think last year's salary was on track to be closer to $55-60m and the injuries ruined that.

But I do see that penny-pinching as rare - most of the time ownership/FO are willing to spend to the cap - but only if they think it helps them build the team and that's not always the case.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I disagree. We have Jenner and Murray coming up, likely to get bridge deals, with Bourque (3.5) and Boll (1.7) expiring in addition to the inevitable cap rising in the next few years. This isn't even factoring in the likely expansion draft and (hopeful) drafting of Clarkson's deal. The tricky one is going to be Joey's long term deal.

Unless we give up a 1st round draft pick no one is taking Clarkson in an expansion draft.

If an expansion team needs to spend to the cap they will take on an big contract from an ex-star, someone they can market and sell seats. They will have ZERO interest in the worst contract in the NHL as a marketing tool.

Again if you want to get rid of Clarkson you'll going to have to give up a lot. no one wants him (the contract), including the CBJ.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

"Because he's the hero Columbus deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Blue Jacket."

Almost four meaningless games in the jersey already. Great basis for future projections.

Seeing how Hartnell and Tyutin are also to be given away 'actively' by some how should one approach salary cap, decline and contract years? Do you have to produce at + value for every contract year? If you are more valuable than your cap hit indicates in the first years of the contract isn't possible decline in numbers acceptable since you have already done quite much for the team.

Not to mention what some cup chasing veteran is still willing and able to do in the play-offs which is bit different struggle when compared to combination of 80 regular season games and heavy travel.

So it seems bit short-sighted to only see big contracts through the near future view. Cap management should be more than chasing some perfectly valued fantasy roster. Does any team in the NHL currently have one without any conserns or 'bad contracts'?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I don't know how to check this, but I think last year's salary was on track to be closer to $55-60m and the injuries ruined that.

But I do see that penny-pinching as rare - most of the time ownership/FO are willing to spend to the cap - but only if they think it helps them build the team and that's not always the case.

The only teams that aren't in the near vicinity of the cap are 3 candidates to change markets (Arizona, Florida and Carolina) and the permanent NYC area second fiddle Devils.

I guess if you wanted to figure out what the CBJ original total players comp outlay would have been then you'd need an opening game roster (plus injured reserve) and use the figures from nhl numbers or another site:

http://stats.nhlnumbers.com/teams/CLB?year=2016

 

[Doggy]

The only teams that aren't in the near vicinity of the cap are 3 candidates to change markets (Arizona, Florida and Carolina) and the permanent NYC area second fiddle Devils.

I believe they are third fiddle. I suspect the Islanders have a bigger following.

 

[We Want Ten]

Unless we give up a 1st round draft pick no one is taking Clarkson in an expansion draft.

If an expansion team needs to spend to the cap they will take on an big contract from an ex-star, someone they can market and sell seats. They will have ZERO interest in the worst contract in the NHL as a marketing tool.

Again if you want to get rid of Clarkson you'll going to have to give up a lot. no one wants him (the contract), including the CBJ.

Just show me where I sign.

 

[BluejacketNut]

The "show me" contract for Joey is going to cost us, a lot! JK has made some good moves of late, but that one is going to cost us in the future. If we could have gotten him for Saad's contract, that would have been a steal, but there's no way thats happening now.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

The "show me" contract for Joey is going to cost us, a lot! JK has made some good moves of late, but that one is going to cost us in the future. If we could have gotten him for Saad's contract, that would have been a steal, but there's no way thats happening now.

$46M over eight years isn't that far off from Saad's contract.