LordStanlersCup
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2024
- 124
- 78
Explaining the current situation the best I can
Order of events
The NHL introduced the salary cap in 2005 as part of a new CBA (collective bargaining agreement) following the 2004-2005 lockout. The system ensured a 50-50 revenue split between players and owners. Players are guaranteed approximately 50% of HRR (Hockey Related Revenue). Since the exact HRR for a season is unknown at the start of the year, players' salaries may initially exceed 50% of HRR if actual revenue ends up lower than expected. To ensure the 50/50 split, a percentage of players’ salaries is withheld in an escrow account during the season. This percentage is determined before the season starts, based on revenue projections and this percentage has changed historically to being as high as 20%, but currently it is 6% of a players’ salary. This ensures there’s a pool of money available to balance the revenue split once final HRR is calculated. In the event that HRR exceeds projections, excess funds will be added to the players’ escrow accounts to keep the revenue split at 50-50.
The salary cap is calculated first by taking the HRR from the previous season and making adjustments to it, anticipating future changes for the upcoming season that would affect the HRR. Then calculate the player’s share of HRR, typically 50% of adjusted HRR. Then divide the total player share of the adjusted HRR by the number of teams in the league and this will create the midpoint of the cap. The salary cap ceiling will then be a percentage above and the floor below the midpoint and it was agreed upon in prior CBA’s that it would be 15%. An example would be:
If adjusted HRR is $6.3 billion, 6,300,000,000/2= 3,150,000,000 (players share), 3,150,000,000/32= $98,437,500 (per team midpoint), $98,437,500 * 1.15= $113,203,125 (cap ceiling), $98,437,500 * 0.85= $83,671,875 (cap floor).
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic halted games and slashed revenues, leading to the first major disruption of the cap-setting mechanism. Empty arenas and canceled games reduced league revenues dramatically. To keep the league functioning during this time it was negotiated between the NHL and NHLPA that owners would take most of the burden of the lost income to keep the league active during this time. Players effectively received a “loan” as their compensation exceeded the 50-50 revenue split. This led to a $1.1 billion escrow debt, representing the excess payments to players over their rightful share of league revenues. Players also forfeited 20% of their salaries during the 2019-2020 season to compromise and balance the league’s financial equation some. The NHL and NHLPA agreed to gradually repay this debt through reduced salary cap growth and capped escrow percentages (20% then 18%-14% then 6%) in subsequent seasons. Per the collective bargaining agreement, the NHL and NHLPA agreed to keep the cap flat at $81.5 million until hockey-related revenue surpassed $3.3 billion for the previous season. The salary cap won't rise more than $1 million until HRR reaches $4.8 billion unless the NHL and NHLPA mutually agree to inflate it in excess of $1 million. Once HRR reaches $4.8 billion, the cap could increase by $2 million per season and transition to a formula-based calculation for establishing the cap for the 2023-24 season and beyond. As an example, the 2023-24 salary cap would be calculated using HRR results from 2021-22 and 2022-23. Growth is capped at 5% per year or tied to the two-year trailing average HRR growth rate, whichever is smaller. The repayment strategy prioritized preserving players’ incomes while ensuring the league’s financial stability. They met this benchmark, and the cap increased $1 million from $81.5 million to $82.5 million for the 22-23 season. The debt then continued to be paid off as league revenues increased and the cap rose again from $82.5 million to $83.5 million for the 23-24 season. Then by the summer before the 24-25 season the debt had been completely paid off, which resulted in the cap increasing by $4.5 million or slightly greater than 5% of the cap due to an agreement between the NHL and NHLPA. This made the upper limit of the cap $88 million for the 24-25 season.
Currently the cap for a season is based on actual revenues from two years prior due to the negotiations made during COVID. Since the escrow debt created during the pandemic is repaid, the two-year lag formula will not reflect this recovery. For the 2024-2025 season, the salary cap does not even reflect the adjusted HRR of approximately $5.8 billion from 2022-2023 because even this was greater than the 5% annual growth limit that was implemented from the COVID CBA. The 2023-2024 revenues exceeded $6.3 billion and 24-25 revenues are projected to be $6.5 to $6.6 billion. If the up-to-date annual revenues factor were in force today, the upper limit of the cap for the 24-25 season would be approximately $116.8 million.
With revenues rebounding, the NHL and NHLPA must decide whether to maintain restrictive measures or allow cap growth to reflect actual revenues. There will be beginnings of CBA negotiations in January.
Two Scenarios:
Dramatic increase
If they decide to keep capping growth at roughly 5% each year until the end of the CBA, the cap would see roughly this projection:
25-26: $92.40 million
-------(end of CBA)---------
26-27: ???? ($110 million?)
The 26-27 amount would most likely not adopt the two-year lag formula and would have to more closely reflect current actual revenues. However, escrow percentages would likely be negotiated in the new CBA to stay at or around 6% which would lower the cap a bit. If the HRR was projected to increase to $6.9 billion for the 26-27 season up from its projection of $6.5 billion in 24-25, then the upper limit of the cap would be $124.0 million, but accounting for the comprise for lower escrow percentages it could be in the range of $110 million which is coincidentally also the number that Friedman reported the cap could possibly jump to at this point.
27-28: ???? ($113.5 million?) If the HRR was projected to increase to $7.1 billion for the 27-28 season, then the upper limit of the cap would be $127.5 million and that would be a $3.5 million increase from $124.0 million of the prior season before accounting for the compromise of lower escrow percentages. $110 million + $3.5 million = $113.5 million.
Gradual increase
If they decide to implement a gradual increase between next year and the following that would result in 26-27 reflecting current HRR:
25-26: $99,000,000 ($110,000,000-$88,000,000= $22,000,000/2(years)= $11,000,000, $88,000,000 (current cap)+$11,000,000 = $99,000,000)
Friedman reported there were talks to increase the cap to $95-$97 million using this same logic but if the cap were to increase to $110 million the following season then $99 million would result in a more evenly distributed increase.
-------(end of CBA)---------
26-27: ???? ($110 million?)
Same reason as above.
27-28: ???? ($113.5 million?)
Same reason as above.
Impacts of a rising cap on the upcoming Trade Deadline and Free Agency
A rapid cap increase will greatly benefit upcoming free agents while depressing the salaries of those locked into older, long-term contracts. This would favor teams with long-term player contracts under older cap figures.
With the cap increasing at such a high rate most players’ salary will no longer be talked about in terms of dollars but instead in terms of percentage of the cap. A player making $10 million in a league where the upper limit is $88 million would be 11.4% of the cap while a player making $10 million in a league where the upper limit is $97 million would only be 10.3% of the cap. I know that difference does not sound like a lot but 11.4% of a $97 million cap would be $11,058,000, so more than a million-dollar difference. Additionally, this would only be the difference for this first year. The cap is projected to grow significantly again next year with continual growth following that. There could be a world where with continual growth the cap is at $131.5 million in 32-33 making the $10 million contract signed in 25-26 only 7.6% of the cap by the end of an 8-year deal. That 7.6% in an $88 million upper limit would be about $6.7 million, so a $3.3 million difference between when it was signed and the last year of the contract.
Another thing to consider is that in a hypothetical where the cap rises to $97 million, many contending teams will then have the extra cap space to resign players that they previously would not have been able to. This would greatly decrease the high-end talent that would enter Free Agency and cause players that would have normally hit FA to just be resigned by their current teams. Here is a look at the upcoming TDL and FA players that could become available:
Possible players available at the TDL (very broad list, not all of these players will be available, also did not include some depth players for brevity)
Possible TDL Forwards:
Possible TDL Defenseman:
An important thing to note is that to fully take advantage of the rising cap it will be crucial to sign players to long term deals either at the TDL or in this offseason because the cap will only be going up. Even if players bargain to be paid in percentages of the cap based on the projections for the future year it will still be well worth it as the cap will continue to rise and competition to sign whatever little remaining players that hit FA will be fierce.
The ideal players to be trading for at the TDL are players under the age of 30 and have 2 years or less on their contract so that they could be extended to long contracts either at the TDL or in the offseason. So, if we sort by players that are 30 or younger and have 2 years or less on their deal you would end up with this:
A look ahead at the 2025 Free Agency group shows that it is a pretty underwhelming class. This will only be compounded by the fact that most competitive teams will have the cap to resign their players. The market will be oversaturated with less sought-after players that will have to be overpaid to fill out rosters. This could lead to the TDL prior to FA seeing players go for astronomical prices as teams try to secure their future players before they reach FA.
Unrestricted Free Agents (that were not listed as possible traded players):
Who I would target F at the TDL:
Laine
Gourde
Bunting
Granlund
Vatrano
Tolvanen
B. Tanev
Frederic
M. Geekie
D. O’Connor
Who I would target D at the TDL:
Pettersson
Casey
Kesselring
Oleksiak
Pelech
Bahl
Walman
Valimaki
Most Valuable Tradeable assets:
1 2026 1st rd pick
2 2025 2nd rd picks
1 2026 2nd rd pick
Isaac Howard
Ethan Gauthier
Niko Huuhtanen
Dylan Duke
Tampa’s biggest needs:
Luckily most of Tampa’s needs are in depth roles which are easier to replace than top of the lineup players. Additionally, all of Tampa’s top players have been putting up great stats and this would indicate that with some small changes this team could be a serious contender. Tampa will have quite a bit of cap space to work with at this TDL if they keep accruing cap which could lead to them making some big acquisitions.
In my opinion, the bottom pair on defense needs the most help. I love the physicality Lilleberg brings but he is too often out of position and the cause of goals against. Perbix and Raddysh could be serviceable if they played with a competent partner, but neither would be ideal to have in the lineup going into the playoffs.
Next as a priority would be bottom 6 forwards as having Glendening, Girgensons and Atkinson in the lineup is less than ideal. I think Chaffee and Eyssimont are serviceable and Paul and Geekie are elite third line players. The bottom 6 acquired players would ideally be good enough to replace Girgensons or Glendening on the PK, or possibly both. Bottom 6 players could be acquired through the TDL, but they could also come through Syracuse as Duke and Huuhtanen look promising. I think Duke would give our PK the added tenacity it needs. Goncalves is also an intriguing prospect, but I am less certain on his readiness and would like to see him string together some good games. He is playing a more simplified game in the NHL compared to what he was in the AHL which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but he is at his best when he is playing with confidence.
The third priority is unfortunately going to be a lot tougher to fill. Tampa needs a right-shot forward with a booming one timer to fill the hole of Stamkos on the Powerplay. Looking through the players that could be made available at the TDL and FA the only name that stands out is Laine. Laine may or may not be available but if he is, he would fill quite a few boxes being only 26 by the TDL and having only 2 years left on his contract. If Laine is unavailable the only other option would be to hope Huuhtanen is ready for that role at the NHL level. He has the shot so if he can find ways to get open, he should excel.
Here is a roster I created that would be sustainable for the foreseeable future if the cap jumped to $97 million next season:
It is possible that if prices increase dramatically at the TDL to account for the lack of Free agents in the offseason that these payments would not be enough, but this would more or less be the idea. Gourde and Pettersson would be extended at the TDL, and Laine would be extended in the offseason.
Order of events
The NHL introduced the salary cap in 2005 as part of a new CBA (collective bargaining agreement) following the 2004-2005 lockout. The system ensured a 50-50 revenue split between players and owners. Players are guaranteed approximately 50% of HRR (Hockey Related Revenue). Since the exact HRR for a season is unknown at the start of the year, players' salaries may initially exceed 50% of HRR if actual revenue ends up lower than expected. To ensure the 50/50 split, a percentage of players’ salaries is withheld in an escrow account during the season. This percentage is determined before the season starts, based on revenue projections and this percentage has changed historically to being as high as 20%, but currently it is 6% of a players’ salary. This ensures there’s a pool of money available to balance the revenue split once final HRR is calculated. In the event that HRR exceeds projections, excess funds will be added to the players’ escrow accounts to keep the revenue split at 50-50.
The salary cap is calculated first by taking the HRR from the previous season and making adjustments to it, anticipating future changes for the upcoming season that would affect the HRR. Then calculate the player’s share of HRR, typically 50% of adjusted HRR. Then divide the total player share of the adjusted HRR by the number of teams in the league and this will create the midpoint of the cap. The salary cap ceiling will then be a percentage above and the floor below the midpoint and it was agreed upon in prior CBA’s that it would be 15%. An example would be:
If adjusted HRR is $6.3 billion, 6,300,000,000/2= 3,150,000,000 (players share), 3,150,000,000/32= $98,437,500 (per team midpoint), $98,437,500 * 1.15= $113,203,125 (cap ceiling), $98,437,500 * 0.85= $83,671,875 (cap floor).
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic halted games and slashed revenues, leading to the first major disruption of the cap-setting mechanism. Empty arenas and canceled games reduced league revenues dramatically. To keep the league functioning during this time it was negotiated between the NHL and NHLPA that owners would take most of the burden of the lost income to keep the league active during this time. Players effectively received a “loan” as their compensation exceeded the 50-50 revenue split. This led to a $1.1 billion escrow debt, representing the excess payments to players over their rightful share of league revenues. Players also forfeited 20% of their salaries during the 2019-2020 season to compromise and balance the league’s financial equation some. The NHL and NHLPA agreed to gradually repay this debt through reduced salary cap growth and capped escrow percentages (20% then 18%-14% then 6%) in subsequent seasons. Per the collective bargaining agreement, the NHL and NHLPA agreed to keep the cap flat at $81.5 million until hockey-related revenue surpassed $3.3 billion for the previous season. The salary cap won't rise more than $1 million until HRR reaches $4.8 billion unless the NHL and NHLPA mutually agree to inflate it in excess of $1 million. Once HRR reaches $4.8 billion, the cap could increase by $2 million per season and transition to a formula-based calculation for establishing the cap for the 2023-24 season and beyond. As an example, the 2023-24 salary cap would be calculated using HRR results from 2021-22 and 2022-23. Growth is capped at 5% per year or tied to the two-year trailing average HRR growth rate, whichever is smaller. The repayment strategy prioritized preserving players’ incomes while ensuring the league’s financial stability. They met this benchmark, and the cap increased $1 million from $81.5 million to $82.5 million for the 22-23 season. The debt then continued to be paid off as league revenues increased and the cap rose again from $82.5 million to $83.5 million for the 23-24 season. Then by the summer before the 24-25 season the debt had been completely paid off, which resulted in the cap increasing by $4.5 million or slightly greater than 5% of the cap due to an agreement between the NHL and NHLPA. This made the upper limit of the cap $88 million for the 24-25 season.
Currently the cap for a season is based on actual revenues from two years prior due to the negotiations made during COVID. Since the escrow debt created during the pandemic is repaid, the two-year lag formula will not reflect this recovery. For the 2024-2025 season, the salary cap does not even reflect the adjusted HRR of approximately $5.8 billion from 2022-2023 because even this was greater than the 5% annual growth limit that was implemented from the COVID CBA. The 2023-2024 revenues exceeded $6.3 billion and 24-25 revenues are projected to be $6.5 to $6.6 billion. If the up-to-date annual revenues factor were in force today, the upper limit of the cap for the 24-25 season would be approximately $116.8 million.
With revenues rebounding, the NHL and NHLPA must decide whether to maintain restrictive measures or allow cap growth to reflect actual revenues. There will be beginnings of CBA negotiations in January.
Two Scenarios:
Dramatic increase
If they decide to keep capping growth at roughly 5% each year until the end of the CBA, the cap would see roughly this projection:
25-26: $92.40 million
-------(end of CBA)---------
26-27: ???? ($110 million?)
The 26-27 amount would most likely not adopt the two-year lag formula and would have to more closely reflect current actual revenues. However, escrow percentages would likely be negotiated in the new CBA to stay at or around 6% which would lower the cap a bit. If the HRR was projected to increase to $6.9 billion for the 26-27 season up from its projection of $6.5 billion in 24-25, then the upper limit of the cap would be $124.0 million, but accounting for the comprise for lower escrow percentages it could be in the range of $110 million which is coincidentally also the number that Friedman reported the cap could possibly jump to at this point.
27-28: ???? ($113.5 million?) If the HRR was projected to increase to $7.1 billion for the 27-28 season, then the upper limit of the cap would be $127.5 million and that would be a $3.5 million increase from $124.0 million of the prior season before accounting for the compromise of lower escrow percentages. $110 million + $3.5 million = $113.5 million.
Gradual increase
If they decide to implement a gradual increase between next year and the following that would result in 26-27 reflecting current HRR:
25-26: $99,000,000 ($110,000,000-$88,000,000= $22,000,000/2(years)= $11,000,000, $88,000,000 (current cap)+$11,000,000 = $99,000,000)
Friedman reported there were talks to increase the cap to $95-$97 million using this same logic but if the cap were to increase to $110 million the following season then $99 million would result in a more evenly distributed increase.
-------(end of CBA)---------
26-27: ???? ($110 million?)
Same reason as above.
27-28: ???? ($113.5 million?)
Same reason as above.
Impacts of a rising cap on the upcoming Trade Deadline and Free Agency
A rapid cap increase will greatly benefit upcoming free agents while depressing the salaries of those locked into older, long-term contracts. This would favor teams with long-term player contracts under older cap figures.
With the cap increasing at such a high rate most players’ salary will no longer be talked about in terms of dollars but instead in terms of percentage of the cap. A player making $10 million in a league where the upper limit is $88 million would be 11.4% of the cap while a player making $10 million in a league where the upper limit is $97 million would only be 10.3% of the cap. I know that difference does not sound like a lot but 11.4% of a $97 million cap would be $11,058,000, so more than a million-dollar difference. Additionally, this would only be the difference for this first year. The cap is projected to grow significantly again next year with continual growth following that. There could be a world where with continual growth the cap is at $131.5 million in 32-33 making the $10 million contract signed in 25-26 only 7.6% of the cap by the end of an 8-year deal. That 7.6% in an $88 million upper limit would be about $6.7 million, so a $3.3 million difference between when it was signed and the last year of the contract.
Another thing to consider is that in a hypothetical where the cap rises to $97 million, many contending teams will then have the extra cap space to resign players that they previously would not have been able to. This would greatly decrease the high-end talent that would enter Free Agency and cause players that would have normally hit FA to just be resigned by their current teams. Here is a look at the upcoming TDL and FA players that could become available:
Possible players available at the TDL (very broad list, not all of these players will be available, also did not include some depth players for brevity)
Possible TDL Forwards:
| Name | Handedness | AAV x Term | Age(at TDL) |
| Laine | R | 8.70 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Couture | L | 8.00 x 3 years | 35 yrs old |
| Kadri | L | 7.00 x 5 years | 34 yrs old |
| Lee | L | 7.00 x 2 years | 34 yrs old |
| Giroux | R | 6.50 x 1 year | 37 yrs old |
| Gallagher | R | 6.50 x 3 years | 32 yrs old |
| Killorn | L | 6.25 x 3 years | 35 yrs old |
| Malkin | L | 6.10 x 2 years | 38 yrs old |
| Nelson | L | 6.00 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Palat | L | 6.00 x 3 years | 33 yrs old |
| Hall | L | 6.00 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Schmaltz | R | 5.85 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Zegras | L | 5.75 x 2 years | 23 yrs old |
| Copp | L | 5.63 x 3 years | 30 yrs old |
| Kuzmenko | R | 5.50 x 1 year | 29 yrs old |
| Schwartz | L | 5.50 x 2 years | 32 yrs old |
| Anderson | R | 5.50 x 3 years | 30 yrs old |
| Burakovsky | L | 5.50 x 3 years | 30 yrs old |
| Teravainen | L | 5.40 x 3 years | 30 yrs old |
| Bjorkstrand | R | 5.40 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Coyle | R | 5.25 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Rust | R | 5.13 x 4 years | 32 yrs old |
| Gourde | L | 5.16 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Compher | R | 5.10 x 4 years | 29 yrs old |
| Granlund | L | 5.00 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Palmieri | R | 5.00 x 1 year | 34 yrs old |
| Pageau | R | 5.00 x 2 years | 32 yrs old |
| Wennberg | L | 5.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| R. Strome | R | 5.00 x 3 years | 31 yrs old |
| Zucker | L | 5.00 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Farabee | L | 5.00 x 4 years | 25 yrs old |
| Rakell | R | 5.00 x 4 years | 31 yrs old |
| Coleman | L | 4.90 x 3 years | 33 yrs old |
| Tarasenko | L | 4.75 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Zacha | L | 4.75 x 3 years | 27 yrs old |
| Bunting | L | 4.50 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Saad | L | 4.50 x 2 years | 32 yrs old |
| Crouse | L | 4.30 x 3 years | 27 yrs old |
| Dickinson | L | 4.25 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Kane | L | 4.00 x 1 year | 36 yrs old |
| Fabbri | L | 4.00 x 1 year | 29 yrs old |
| Perron | R | 4.00 x 2 years | 36 yrs old |
| Vatrano | L | 3.65 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| Goodrow | L | 3.64 x 3 years | 32 yrs old |
| B. Tanev | L | 3.50 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Mantha | L | 3.50 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Kerfoot | L | 3.50 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Tolvanen | L | 3.48 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Nyquist | L | 3.185 x 1 year | 35 yrs old |
| Laughton | L | 3.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| Greenway | L | 3.00 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| M. Joesph | L | 2.95 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Cates | L | 2.625 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Hathaway | L | 2.38 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Frederic | L | 2.30 x 1 year | 27 yrs old |
| Frost | L | 2.10 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Bjugstad | R | 2.10 x 1 year | 32 yrs old |
| Acciari | R | 2.00 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Lafferty | R | 2.00 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Lomberg | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| M. Geekie | R | 2.00 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Donato | L | 2.00 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Evans | R | 1.70 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Krebs | L | 1.45 x 2 years | 24 yrs old |
| Maroon | L | 1.30 x 1 year | 36 yrs old |
| Beauvillier | L | 1.25 x 1 year | 27 yrs old |
| Reichel | L | 1.20 x 2 years | 22 yrs old |
| Olivier | R | 1.10 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| D. O'Connor | L | 925k x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| N. Robertson | L | 875k x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Berggren | L | 825k x 1 year | 24 yrs old |
| Kaliyev | L | 825k x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Turcotte | L | 775k x 3 years | 24 yrs old |
| Carcone | L | 775k x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
Possible TDL Defenseman:
| Name | Handedness | AAV x Term | Age(at TDL) |
| Trouba | R | 8.00 x 2 years | 31 yrs old |
| Provorov | L | 6.75 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Parayko | R | 6.50 x 6 years | 31 yrs old |
| Fowler | L | 6.50 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Pulock | R | 6.15 x 6 years | 30 yrs old |
| Letang | R | 6.10 x 4 years | 37 yrs old |
| Pelech | L | 5.75 x 5 years | 30 yrs old |
| Ristolainen | R | 5.10 x 3 years | 30 yrs old |
| Matheson | L | 4.88 x 2 years | 31 yrs old |
| Oleksiak | L | 4.60 x 2 years | 32 yrs old |
| Andersson | R | 4.55 x 2 years | 28 yrs old |
| Murphy | R | 4.40 x 2 years | 31 yrs old |
| Carlo | R | 4.10 x 3 years | 28 yrs old |
| Pettersson | L | 4.025 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Leddy | L | 4.00 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Gudbranson | R | 4.00 x 2 years | 33 yrs old |
| Byram | L | 3.85 x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Savard | R | 3.50 x 1 year | 34 yrs old |
| Walman | L | 3.40 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Clifton | R | 3.33 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Ferraro | L | 3.25 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Ceci | R | 3.25 x 1 year | 31 yrs old |
| Dumoulin | L | 3.15 x 1 year | 33 yrs old |
| Jokiharju | L | 3.10 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Liljegren | R | 3.00 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Maatta | L | 3.00 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Peeke | R | 2.75 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Borgen | R | 2.70 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Romanov | R | 2.50 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Fabbro | R | 2.50 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Lauzon | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 27 yrs old |
| Valimaki | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Gustafsson | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 32 yrs old |
| Kesselring | R | 1.40 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Reilly | L | 1.25 x 1 year | 31 yrs old |
| Bahl | L | 1.05 x 1 year | 24 yrs old |
| Casey | R | 950k x 3 years | 21 yrs old |
| Jiricek | R | 918.3k x 2 years | 21 yrs old |
An important thing to note is that to fully take advantage of the rising cap it will be crucial to sign players to long term deals either at the TDL or in this offseason because the cap will only be going up. Even if players bargain to be paid in percentages of the cap based on the projections for the future year it will still be well worth it as the cap will continue to rise and competition to sign whatever little remaining players that hit FA will be fierce.
The ideal players to be trading for at the TDL are players under the age of 30 and have 2 years or less on their contract so that they could be extended to long contracts either at the TDL or in the offseason. So, if we sort by players that are 30 or younger and have 2 years or less on their deal you would end up with this:
| Name | Handedness | AAV x Term | Age(at TDL) |
| Provorov | L | 6.75 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Andersson | R | 4.55 x 2 years | 28 yrs old |
| Pettersson | L | 4.025 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Byram | L | 3.85 x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Walman | L | 3.40 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Clifton | R | 3.33 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Ferraro | L | 3.25 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Jokiharju | L | 3.10 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Liljegren | R | 3.00 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Maatta | L | 3.00 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Peeke | R | 2.75 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Borgen | R | 2.70 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Romanov | R | 2.50 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Fabbro | R | 2.50 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Lauzon | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 27 yrs old |
| Valimaki | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Kesselring | R | 1.40 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Bahl | L | 1.05 x 1 year | 24 yrs old |
| Casey | R | 950k x 3 years | 21 yrs old |
| Jiricek | R | 918.3k x 2 years | 21 yrs old |
| Laine | R | 8.70 x 2 years | 26 yrs old |
| Schmaltz | R | 5.85 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Zegras | L | 5.75 x 2 years | 23 yrs old |
| Kuzmenko | R | 5.50 x 1 year | 29 yrs old |
| Bjorkstrand | R | 5.40 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Wennberg | L | 5.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| Bunting | L | 4.50 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Dickinson | L | 4.25 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Fabbri | L | 4.00 x 1 year | 29 yrs old |
| Vatrano | L | 3.65 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| Mantha | L | 3.50 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Kerfoot | L | 3.50 x 1 year | 30 yrs old |
| Tolvanen | L | 3.48 x 2 years | 25 yrs old |
| Laughton | L | 3.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| Greenway | L | 3.00 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| M. Joesph | L | 2.95 x 2 years | 29 yrs old |
| Cates | L | 2.625 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Frederic | L | 2.30 x 1 year | 27 yrs old |
| Frost | L | 2.10 x 1 year | 25 yrs old |
| Lomberg | L | 2.00 x 2 years | 30 yrs old |
| M. Geekie | R | 2.00 x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| Donato | L | 2.00 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Evans | R | 1.70 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| Krebs | L | 1.45 x 2 years | 24 yrs old |
| Beauvillier | L | 1.25 x 1 year | 27 yrs old |
| Reichel | L | 1.20 x 2 years | 22 yrs old |
| Olivier | R | 1.10 x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
| D. O'Connor | L | 925k x 1 year | 26 yrs old |
| N. Robertson | L | 875k x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Berggren | L | 825k x 1 year | 24 yrs old |
| Kaliyev | L | 825k x 1 year | 23 yrs old |
| Carcone | L | 775k x 1 year | 28 yrs old |
A look ahead at the 2025 Free Agency group shows that it is a pretty underwhelming class. This will only be compounded by the fact that most competitive teams will have the cap to resign their players. The market will be oversaturated with less sought-after players that will have to be overpaid to fill out rosters. This could lead to the TDL prior to FA seeing players go for astronomical prices as teams try to secure their future players before they reach FA.
Unrestricted Free Agents (that were not listed as possible traded players):
| Name | Handedness | Previous AAV | Age (by July 1st) |
| Tavares | L | 11.00 | 34 yrs old |
| Marner | R | 10.90 | 28 yrs old |
| Benn | L | 9.50 | 35 yrs old |
| Rantanen | L | 9.25 | 28 yrs old |
| Orlov | L | 7.75 | 33 yrs old |
| Ekblad | R | 7.50 | 29 yrs old |
| Boeser | R | 6.65 | 28 yrs old |
| Petry | R | 6.25 | 37 yrs old |
| Marchand | L | 6.13 | 37 yrs old |
| Ehlers | L | 6.00 | 29 yrs old |
| Pionk | R | 5.88 | 29 yrs old |
| Gavrikov | L | 5.88 | 29 yrs old |
| Mangiapane | L | 5.80 | 29 yrs old |
| Smith | L | 5.00 | 34 yrs old |
| Chychrun | L | 4.60 | 27 yrs old |
| Lindgren | L | 4.50 | 27 yrs old |
| Dvorak | L | 4.45 | 29 yrs old |
| Bennett | L | 4.43 | 29 yrs old |
| Iafallo | L | 4.00 | 31 yrs old |
| Armia | R | 3.40 | 32 yrs old |
| Faksa | L | 3.25 | 31 yrs old |
| Cole | L | 3.00 | 36 yrs old |
| Duchene | L | 3.00 | 34 yrs old |
| Skinner | L | 3.00 | 33 yrs old |
| Roslovic | R | 2.80 | 28 yrs old |
| Jeannot | L | 2.67 | 28 yrs old |
| Drouin | L | 2.50 | 30 yrs old |
| Eller | L | 2.45 | 36 yrs old |
| Appleton | R | 2.17 | 29 yrs old |
| Johansson | L | 2.00 | 34 yrs old |
| Namestinkov | L | 2.00 | 32 yrs old |
| Tatar | L | 1.80 | 34 yrs old |
| Suter | L | 1.60 | 29 yrs old |
| Kolesar | R | 1.40 | 28 yrs old |
| Dowd | R | 1.30 | 35 yrs old |
| N. Schmidt | L | 800k | 33 yrs old |
| Pearson | L | 775k | 32 yrs old |
| Kovacevic | R | 767k | 27 yrs old |
Who I would target F at the TDL:
Laine
Gourde
Bunting
Granlund
Vatrano
Tolvanen
B. Tanev
Frederic
M. Geekie
D. O’Connor
Who I would target D at the TDL:
Pettersson
Casey
Kesselring
Oleksiak
Pelech
Bahl
Walman
Valimaki
Most Valuable Tradeable assets:
1 2026 1st rd pick
2 2025 2nd rd picks
1 2026 2nd rd pick
Isaac Howard
Ethan Gauthier
Niko Huuhtanen
Dylan Duke
Tampa’s biggest needs:
Luckily most of Tampa’s needs are in depth roles which are easier to replace than top of the lineup players. Additionally, all of Tampa’s top players have been putting up great stats and this would indicate that with some small changes this team could be a serious contender. Tampa will have quite a bit of cap space to work with at this TDL if they keep accruing cap which could lead to them making some big acquisitions.
In my opinion, the bottom pair on defense needs the most help. I love the physicality Lilleberg brings but he is too often out of position and the cause of goals against. Perbix and Raddysh could be serviceable if they played with a competent partner, but neither would be ideal to have in the lineup going into the playoffs.
Next as a priority would be bottom 6 forwards as having Glendening, Girgensons and Atkinson in the lineup is less than ideal. I think Chaffee and Eyssimont are serviceable and Paul and Geekie are elite third line players. The bottom 6 acquired players would ideally be good enough to replace Girgensons or Glendening on the PK, or possibly both. Bottom 6 players could be acquired through the TDL, but they could also come through Syracuse as Duke and Huuhtanen look promising. I think Duke would give our PK the added tenacity it needs. Goncalves is also an intriguing prospect, but I am less certain on his readiness and would like to see him string together some good games. He is playing a more simplified game in the NHL compared to what he was in the AHL which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but he is at his best when he is playing with confidence.
The third priority is unfortunately going to be a lot tougher to fill. Tampa needs a right-shot forward with a booming one timer to fill the hole of Stamkos on the Powerplay. Looking through the players that could be made available at the TDL and FA the only name that stands out is Laine. Laine may or may not be available but if he is, he would fill quite a few boxes being only 26 by the TDL and having only 2 years left on his contract. If Laine is unavailable the only other option would be to hope Huuhtanen is ready for that role at the NHL level. He has the shot so if he can find ways to get open, he should excel.
Here is a roster I created that would be sustainable for the foreseeable future if the cap jumped to $97 million next season:
It is possible that if prices increase dramatically at the TDL to account for the lack of Free agents in the offseason that these payments would not be enough, but this would more or less be the idea. Gourde and Pettersson would be extended at the TDL, and Laine would be extended in the offseason.
