Toggle sidebar

Kings Article: Concerning NHL financial news, and how it relates to LA’s cap

deeshamrock

deeshamrock

Registered User
Jul 25, 2011
8,748
2,291
Philadelphia, PA
From Jon Rosen LA KIngs Insider this afternoon, current info on the projected CAP (68.1M possibly ) and how it affects the Kings.

http://lakingsinsider.com/2015/04/21/ominous-nhl-salary-cap-news/

Based partially on information that was available when CapGeek.com operated, the Kings have roughly $64.15 million allotted to 17 players for the 2015-16 season, a figure that includes Slava Voynov’s contract (Los Angeles would have roughly $59.98M spent on players if Voynov’s contract is not included). By these figures, the Kings would have roughly to $3.95M to $8.12M to spend on up to six players who open the season in L.A.
Click to expand...

He references an article from yesterdays Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-as-canadian-dollar-declines/article24040463/

From that article, and from what the NHLPA rumors, the players are not likely to exercise the escalator again

Last season, the players lost 12 per cent of their annual salaries thanks to the shrinking Canuck buck. This season, they have already had 14 per cent of their wages withheld in escrow through the first half of the season, according to The New York Post, and that amount climbed to 16 per cent in the third quarter of the season.
Click to expand...
Click to read more...
 
deeshamrock said:
From Jon Rosen LA KIngs Insider this afternoon, current info on the projected CAP (68.1M possibly ) and how it affects the Kings.

http://lakingsinsider.com/2015/04/21/ominous-nhl-salary-cap-news/



He references an article from yesterdays Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-as-canadian-dollar-declines/article24040463/

From that article, and from what the NHLPA rumors, the players are not likely to exercise the escalator again
Click to expand...

While I know the answer I have to wonder if the league would consider another buy out as a means to help yet again even things out a little. The NHL will remain in trouble as long as the Canadian Dollar has anything to do with figuring into the finances.
 
417th said:
While I know the answer I have to wonder if the league would consider another buy out as a means to help yet again even things out a little. The NHL will remain in trouble as long as the Canadian Dollar has anything to do with figuring into the finances.
Click to expand...

agreed.

I know the initial reaction may be 'we're screwed,' but half the league will be in cap hell as will this year's free agents. Will be an interesting offseason to say the least.
 
417th said:
While I know the answer I have to wonder if the league would consider another buy out as a means to help yet again even things out a little. The NHL will remain in trouble as long as the Canadian Dollar has anything to do with figuring into the finances.
Click to expand...

A very sizable portion of league revenues and seven teams come from Canada. The Canadian dollar link is here to stay as it should.
 
I have prayed nightly for another compliance buyout.

Lord hear our prayers.
 
I almost think it HAS to happen. And, really, who would complain? The owners don't HAVE to buy anyone out and I've got to think a player like Richards would rather be bought out and start fresh.

My only hope is that they don't give every team another buyout - it should only extend to teams that did not previously use their two.
 
If you allow compliance buy outs every time things get tight, then what's the incentive for teams to not overspend in the future?

The cap exists for a reason.

Lombardi made the mistake of not off loading Richards when he had the chance. Now the team is going to suffer the consequences, and rightfully so.
 
jimmy1100 said:
I almost think it HAS to happen. And, really, who would complain? The owners don't HAVE to buy anyone out and I've got to think a player like Richards would rather be bought out and start fresh.

My only hope is that they don't give every team another buyout - it should only extend to teams that did not previously use their two.
Click to expand...

Teams looking to just hit the cap floor would complain. They could get a lot of nice assets to agree to take on someone like Richards. Allow buyout(s) again and they are without. I'd imagine any GM that has an internal budget that doesn't allow for a buyout would complain too, since now it gives an advantage to other GM's he doesn't have, nor one he was expecting to even be available.

As well, I agree with what johnjm22 said. It can defeat the purpose of a cap in the first place.
 
kingsfan said:
Teams looking to just hit the cap floor would complain. They could get a lot of nice assets to agree to take on someone like Richards. Allow buyout(s) again and they are without. I'd imagine any GM that has an internal budget that doesn't allow for a buyout would complain too, since now it gives an advantage to other GM's he doesn't have, nor one he was expecting to even be available.

As well, I agree with what johnjm22 said. It can defeat the purpose of a cap in the first place.
Click to expand...

Are any teams having trouble hitting the floor?

#nocapgeek
 
From what I read in the CBA, a team that is over the cap when the season starts can go through some painful consequences. I did read where they get a 10% cushion from July 1 to start of season (thanks to who pointed that out to me). But when the season starts, that is gone. So, you're looking at the various way to trim cap. First, trade, waivers, buyout. These are obvious. These may or may not get you under the cap. Next, is going with fewer players. Instead of 23, go down to as little as 20. This might expose players to waivers. Next, is the emergency rule. If your active roster is below 18 and 2 to meet your cap, then you can call up or sign players to get back to 20 at league minimum plus 100k, or for next year, $675k. Emergency players don't count against cap. So, you don't want to be in a situation where you're like still 2M over the cap with only 20 players, and then need to place guys on the waivers, not get claimed or get claimed and lose a good player. Also, not claimed means all but 900k or so still counts against cap, so in my example, one player wouldn't be enough, and you might have to waive trade as many as three players, and then sign emergency players. This all seems wacky, and maybe I don't understand all this. But to sign guys first, and then have way too many players signed, and then act like we'll just move people somehow at the start of the season or after VV coming off LTIR if he returns, seems like you could be headed down the emergency player route, while paying a lot of money for guys to play in the minors. So, even though there's a 10 percent cushion during the summer, to me it's looks like you really need to be careful how you use it.
 
johnjm22 said:
If you allow compliance buy outs every time things get tight, then what's the incentive for teams to not overspend in the future?

The cap exists for a reason.

Lombardi made the mistake of not off loading Richards when he had the chance. Now the team is going to suffer the consequences, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Yep, perfectly said.
 
johnjm22 said:
If you allow compliance buy outs every time things get tight, then what's the incentive for teams to not overspend in the future?

The cap exists for a reason.

Lombardi made the mistake of not off loading Richards when he had the chance. Now the team is going to suffer the consequences, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in principle, but the cap is based on something that is completely at the mercy of global economics. It is impossible to gauge future fluctuations of currency for people who study it for a living, let alone a hockey GM.

Buyouts are a bit extreme, but there should be something to account for external factors. It doesn't matter if its based on the CDN or USD, what if they dropped to .70? Teams who have done a perfect cap job could be over the cap just with their current roster, all of which are on guaranteed contracts. The NHL is unique in that it is spread somewhat evenly between two countries, so there are always going to be cap unpredictability that other leagues don't have to deal with.
 
There's no need for more compliance buyouts.

For us, we aren't in a dire situation. Not re-signing any of the UFAs pretty much solves the problem for us.

It just means we won't be as good, but managing the cap is every bit as important as, say, drafting well. Teams that don't draft well don't get do overs. Why should we?
 
HeadInjury said:
There's no need for more compliance buyouts.

For us, we aren't in a dire situation. Not re-signing any of the UFAs pretty much solves the problem for us.

It just means we won't be as good, but managing the cap is every bit as important as, say, drafting well. Teams that don't draft well don't get do overs. Why should we?
Click to expand...

Someone still has to replace them. Are we ok cap wise once those replacements salaries are factored in? Who are the replacements?
 
kingsfan said:
Someone still has to replace them. Are we ok cap wise once those replacements salaries are factored in? Who are the replacements?
Click to expand...

Players that are younger (and maybe not as good), and make a lot less money.

Don't forget that in the owners' minds the real purpose of the cap is to ensure a 50/50 split of revenue.
 
HeadInjury said:
There's no need for more compliance buyouts.

For us, we aren't in a dire situation. Not re-signing any of the UFAs pretty much solves the problem for us.

It just means we won't be as good, but managing the cap is every bit as important as, say, drafting well. Teams that don't draft well don't get do overs. Why should we?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Right now they have 65M spent on 17 players. 4M to get the rest signed. CAP is expected/projected 68 - 70M

It's a problem...Toffoli, Sekera, Jones nad SHore are the 4 that have to get signed, McBain and Andy Andy won't.

But DL needs at least, being very conserative, about 11 M to get those 4 done, if not more.
 
kingsfan said:
Likely won't know until we know what the floor is but I'd wager Arizona for one will likely just come in around the floor next year, especially since they now won't get McDavid or Eichel.
Click to expand...

They could trade for a guy like Sharp for a bag of pucks and only deal with that contract for a couple more years.
 
deeshamrock said:
No, it doesn't. Right now they have 65M spent on 17 players. 4M to get the rest signed. CAP is expected/projected 68 - 70M

It's a problem...Toffoli, Sekera, Jones nad SHore are the 4 that have to get signed, McBain and Andy Andy won't.

But DL needs at least, being very conserative, about 11 M to get those 4 done, if not more.
Click to expand...

This is why, in my opinion, Richards will be bought out and a defenseman making something in the $4M range will be traded.
 
kingsfan said:
Someone still has to replace them. Are we ok cap wise once those replacements salaries are factored in? Who are the replacements?
Click to expand...

I much rather see Dean Lombardi and Darryl Sutter, employing the protege and farm systems, instead of draining them like the late George Steinbrenner did. This gets magnified in hockey, given the short shelf life an average NHL player has.
 
KINGS17 said:
This is why, in my opinion, Richards will be bought out and a defenseman making something in the $4M range will be traded.
Click to expand...

That would have to be Voynov, right? The Kings cannot handle the depth hit of trading Martinez or Muzzin.
 
fsanford said:
They could trade for a guy like Sharp for a bag of pucks and only deal with that contract for a couple more years.
Click to expand...

Don't think he's in their radar, too old for a team rebuilding. And he's got a NMC of some variety, can't see that as a team on is A list. Right now, the Yotes have 32M and 11 players signed. 12 more to sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom