How will the rising cap impact the length of rebuilds?

[TheBeard]

For the top end guys who come in at 19 or even 20, you are still best to get term of 6 years on the 2nd contract to get to age 28 or 29. That sets you up to get that final big contract to take you to 36/37. Going bridge, that takes you to like 25 or 26, you get more money on contract 3, but end contract 3 at like 33/34. Never know if an injury will destroy your value, like Couturier/Landy. If they went bridge then max term probably would not get a 4th contract with their back and knee issues now.

Players that are 19 or 20 now won't be able to get paid until the cap is already around 110-115. It's the players that are 22 or so now that will probably end up taking shorter term deals unless teams pay them as if the cap is already at 110-115.

For instance, William Eklund is up for a new deal. Why would he take market value (7 million) based on a 93.5 cap now (or 7.5 percent) when in 3 years time, when the cap is 115, that 7 million will be just over 6 percent? He'll probably want to be paid based off that percentage which would be 8.6 mil AAV.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Revenue sharing is the equivalent of a government handout. More than a few owners will be perfectly content squeaking by on the floor because the combination of merch/gate revenue and what they'll get from the league will be a profit.

Ya when the team is not good and rebuilding , like the Sharks for example, makes sense to not be at the cap, and take in revenue sharing.

 

[StreetHawk]

Players that are 19 or 20 now won't be able to get paid until the cap is already around 110-115. It's the players that are 22 or so now that will probably end up taking shorter term deals unless teams pay them as if the cap is already at 110-115.

For instance, William Eklund is up for a new deal. Why would he take market value (7 million) based on a 93.5 cap now (or 7.5 percent) when in 3 years time, when the cap is 115, that 7 million will be just over 6 percent? He'll probably want to be paid based off that percentage which would be 8.6 mil AAV.

If Eklund has another level he can get to, then a bridge may be the better option. I was thinking more in terms of guys who have shown very well on their ELC. Eklund per Puckpedia is listed as an RFA for another year. He should probably wait til the summer after the cap becomes official for 26/27 to sign. Projected now to go up to $104 mill for 26/27. Eklund is born Oct 2002. So, come next summer he's 23 going on 24 in the summer. Probably aims for a 5 year deal to buy the 2 years of security. UFA in 2030, but SJ won't just sign him for 4 years.

Either it's 3 for a bridge to keep the rights or buy 1 or 2 UFA years at 5/6 years.

Really up to him what he wishes to go with. Probably depends on how good a year he has in 25/26. If you are SJ, if you can get term probably try for it. But, I wouldn't go max term if I was Eklund. Don't want my second contract to take me into my 30's unless I'm getting top dollar.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I think further league-expansion will hurt rebuilds (and the league) more than a rising cap will .

 

[TheBeard]

Ya when the team is not good and rebuilding , like the Sharks for example, makes sense to not be at the cap, and take in revenue sharing.

I think it allows teams to certainly be more patient, but my comment is more the potential down the road as the cap rises dramatically and teams find ways around the ceiling.

 

[TheBeard]

If Eklund has another level he can get to, then a bridge may be the better option. I was thinking more in terms of guys who have shown very well on their ELC. Eklund per Puckpedia is listed as an RFA for another year. He should probably wait til the summer after the cap becomes official for 26/27 to sign. Projected now to go up to $104 mill for 26/27. Eklund is born Oct 2002. So, come next summer he's 23 going on 24 in the summer. Probably aims for a 5 year deal to buy the 2 years of security. UFA in 2030, but SJ won't just sign him for 4 years.

Either it's 3 for a bridge to keep the rights or buy 1 or 2 UFA years at 5/6 years.

Really up to him what he wishes to go with. Probably depends on how good a year he has in 25/26. If you are SJ, if you can get term probably try for it. But, I wouldn't go max term if I was Eklund. Don't want my second contract to take me into my 30's unless I'm getting top dollar.

I know they're already discussing an extension, but most players don't like playing the last year of their deal. Factor in the fact he had his wrist sliced by a skate at the WCs this past May and he may rather just want security sooner rather than later.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I think it allows teams to certainly be more patient, but my comment is more the potential down the road as the cap rises dramatically and teams find ways around the ceiling.

Ahh ok,
I do think there will be some changes to LTIR, when the new deal gets announced,

 

[StreetHawk]

I know they're already discussing an extension, but most players don't like playing the last year of their deal. Factor in the fact he had his wrist sliced by a skate at the WCs this past May and he may rather just want security sooner rather than later.

But, like you alluded to earlier, that rather sizeable $8 mill odd cap increase may be a factor. Unless, that is considered since that is the year his contract would begin anyways.

 

[TheBeard]

But, like you alluded to earlier, that rather sizeable $8 mill odd cap increase may be a factor. Unless, that is considered since that is the year his contract would begin anyways.

I assume there will be a middle ground. Somewhere around 8.25-8.75 AAV which is pricey for now but fair for later. I also assume teams have people on the job far better than I am in terms of the specifics for these sorts of things.

 

[TheBeard]

Ahh ok,
I do think there will be some changes to LTIR, when the new deal gets announced,

I think they're going to have to be proactive with skirting teams from exploiting loop holes. The gap between the big markets and small markets is already a concern without some teams finding a way to add even more cap "room". I get it all brings in money to the league though.

 

[Mrfenn92]

GM’s will still sign stupid contracts and there will still a market to dump money to rebuilding teams.

 

[cupface52]

I'm not talking about this coming season when the cap is 95 million, but a year from now It's 104, 2 years from now It's projected to be 113-118 million.

Even pre cap I don't remember any team, even the Rangers and Wings who spent ALL the money, I don't remember any team spending 100+ million, it might have happened but I don't remember it.

But it will now, and with the cap being so high I'm wondering if we see the end of the traditional 4-6 year rebuild and instead see teams draft high once, MAYBE twice and just buy their way out of the rebuild after that.

Especially if that pick is a top center.

I think we might see a return to the pre cap days almost because the cap is going to exist but after this coming season It's going to be at a point where It's so high that it does not matter.

It will be basically irrelevant

While they weren't spending $100million pre cap, $100 million was far more more money 22+ years ago with the league having far lower revenue.

Season just before the lockout, rangers had $79million in player salaries, with $113million in revenue. Or you could say 70% of their revenue went towards player salaries.

Last year, Leafs, Oilers and Kings each had a revenue of ~280mil while the salary cap was $88mil. Max those teams could spend was 31.4% of the revenue on player salaries. If these teams spent the same proportionally as the Rangers did pre-lockout, they would have been spending ~195mil on player salaries.

 

[ForumNamePending]

I think there are going to be a lot of teams that can't spend 100+ million, I think there will be teams having a hard time hitting the floor.

I remember the pre cap days, not everybody was equal

Ya, that was more or less the scenario I was trying to lay out in my OP... Obviously teams willing and able to spend $110-120 or whatever million/year will have a advantage over teams spending $20-30 or whatever million less, and in theory could rebuild faster by acquiring players (UFA, RFA, trades) that other teams are unable/unwilling to pay.

Of course, if this did become a "problem" for the league/enough owners, it's something that could be mitigated by a increase in revenue sharing.

 

[Voight]

I think between the rising cap and the league's indifference to things like the no-tax advantage and LTIR, they're sort of saying they don't really care about parity. It's on the cusp of watering down the competition like they've done in baseball.

There hasn't been a back to back champion in 24 years.

Eight different teams have won the World Series in the last ten years.

The competition isn't watered down at all.

 

[TheBeard]

There hasn't been a back to back champion in 24 years.

Eight different teams have won the World Series in the last ten years.

The competition isn't watered down at all.

I mean you've had two teams compete in the finals in the East in three consecutive seasons. Dallas has been in the conference finals like 3 of the last 4 years. Vegas and Carolina as well not to mention Edmonton. It's pretty much been 5 teams in the last half decade.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

At least in the short term, I think the cap going up significantly is going to make it more difficult to rebuild, since there will likely be fewer good RFAs who get moved relatively cheaply due to cap reasons. And, there will also be more teams with available cap space that could plausibly go after the few good guys who hit the market. I also don't think that there's enough high end talent that makes it to UFA for a team to simply spend their way into a successful rebuild.

 

[chaz4hockey]

The significant cap rise in the next few years means the big revenue teams will once again have a market advantage. Time will tell if they spend wisely though.

 

[PistolPete]

I think there are going to be a lot of teams that can't spend 100+ million, I think there will be teams having a hard time hitting the floor.

I remember the pre cap days, not everybody was equal

There wasn't the same amount of money from TV deals and advertising in the pre-cap era either.

The leage is a $5B+ business now compared to $2B or so before the cap

I would think this renders things different between the two eras

 

[PistolPete]

I mean you've had two teams compete in the finals in the East in three consecutive seasons. Dallas has been in the conference finals like 3 of the last 4 years. Vegas and Carolina as well not to mention Edmonton. It's pretty much been 5 teams in the last half decade.

What would have stopped that from happening?

 

[wetcoast]

I disagree that the cap "is getting so high it won't matter".

It just means salaries will slowly start going up on average. Players who "earn" 2M right now might be getting paid around 4M in a few years.

The star players in the league get their contracts based on % of team cap, not just the number.

We are going to see the "adjustment" to the cap with salaries this FA season being much higher than they would have been and everything will end up adjusting to a new equilibrium.

 

[3074326]

There hasn't been a back to back champion in 24 years.

Eight different teams have won the World Series in the last ten years.

The competition isn't watered down at all.

Yes it is. Look at the bottom of the league's payrolls. Shohei basically makes the same as the entire A's roster. There are simply teams that exist who can't pay their stars because of the payroll structure of the league.

 

[wetcoast]

I think between the rising cap and the league's indifference to things like the no-tax advantage and LTIR, they're sort of saying they don't really care about parity. It's on the cusp of watering down the competition like they've done in baseball.

The no tax advantage thing is the current most overblown thing around here.

Do any of the other Big sports accommodate for the no tax advantage?

I honestly don't know but I doubt it because rich people, which players are, always have tax advantages and loopholes to work with.

 

[PistolPete]

Yes it is. Look at the bottom of the league's payrolls. Shohei basically makes the same as the entire A's roster.

An A's roster that the owner has no interest in spending money on because they're lame ducks in Oakland.