Kopitar signs 8year/$80M contract confirmed with link

[KINGS17]

Two things--one, it's not a certainty so you need to stop framing it as one. There's lots of supporting evidence that can affect it and it's likely, but you cannot pass that off as a fact. Two, thrice was actually pointing out that the Caps have someone with a gigantic cap, as do the Hawks, as will the Kings, and these are three of a handful of 'teams-to-beat' so that does actually get in the way of your idea about being able to compete with huge contracts. Now, the real issue isn't those contracts but the depth around them as OTHER salaries rise (i.e. Toffoli eventually, Kuznetsov, Panarin, etc.), which I think EVERYONE agrees with (the second part I mean), but the Hawks have shown one way around it over the last 6 years, and the Kings will have to find a way as well.

One benefit is that the Hawks have Keith/Hossa on long-term-era deals to slightly offset Toews/Kane and we have Carter to offset Kopi a bit. We'll have Muzzin to offset Doughty. I think our cap 'issues' are overstated from the core standpoint and the real issue will be replacing guys as depth.

To your last two paragraphs though, you're completely downplaying what the Hawks have been able to accomplish. Kane is simply fulfilling his salary. Their depth has been adequate. At this point, the Kings are clearly a more 'complete' team on paper and that's likely to change in the next couple of years, but let's not pretend there's not a model out there for how this works, even with a stagnant cap.

Brad, if I pull the pin on a grenade and toss it in a room, it goes off 99% of the time. None of you that keep saying that, "You can't say that, because you don't know for sure.", have provided anything other than a quote from Bettman, who was wrong last year by the way.

Give me some numbers on how U.S. revenue has gone up in the NHL this season to compensate for the drop in the Canadian dollar, and you start to have a case. Otherwise, you are just hoping that it won't happen.

Yes, Kane is fulfilling his salary. Is Toews? Think Kane will continue to score at a 1.5 PPG pace for the remainder of his deal? C'mon, you know you are seeing an anomoly in Chicago right now.

You're right, there is no model for how this all works with a stagnant salary cap, but it's a good idea to keep a bit of your powder dry. I don't think Dean had a choice in this. Dean went to Kopitar and presented his case. Kopitar had the choice and he took the extra money. As I said, this is Kopitar's team now, and I don't want to hear any more crap from him about how no one needs to be great. You think Doughty would say that? That's why for me, as petulant as Doughty can be, I prefer he wear the "C" after Brown is gone, if Dean can find a taker for Brown.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Brad, if I pull the pin on a grenade and toss it in a room, it goes off 99% of the time. None of you that keep saying that, "You can't say that, because you don't know for sure.", have provided anything other than a quote from Bettman, who was wrong last year by the way.

Give me some numbers on how U.S. revenue has gone up in the NHL this season to compensate for the drop in the Canadian dollar, and you start to have a case. Otherwise, you are just hoping that it won't happen.

Yes, Kane is fulfilling his salary. Is Toews? Think Kane will continue to score at a 1.5 PPG pace for the remainder of his deal? C'mon, you know you are seeing an anomoly in Chicago right now.

You're right, there is no model for how this all works with a stagnant salary cap, but it's a good idea to keep a bit of your powder dry. I don't think Dean had a choice in this. Dean went to Kopitar and presented his case. Kopitar had the choice and he took the extra money. As I said, this is Kopitar's team now, and I don't want to hear any more crap from him about how no one needs to be great. You think Doughty would say that? That's why for me, as petulant as Doughty can be, I prefer he wear the "C" after Brown is gone, if Dean can find a taker for Brown.

I'm not saying the cap ISN'T going to be stagnant either, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it's not a certainty that it will be and despite economic evidence I think there are other ways around it (i.e. jersey ads, etc.). So it's fine to project, it's not okay to say 'we're screwed no matter what.'

I think Kane is fulfilling his salary and Toews currently is not, fwiw, but that can change on a moment's notice either way, the problem here is you're not giving Kane his credit where it's due and asserting it's an anomaly but you're treating Toews as if his situation is normal. You can't have it both ways.

And maybe I said it wrong but I'm saying, with thrice above, that the 'teams to beat' this year all have the most massive cap hits in the NHL (not Kopi yet obviously), so the idea that we're absolutely screwed at this point is actually being disproved by at least two teams thus far; and using Chicago as a model, depth can be recycled if something has to leave. Hell, using ourselves as a model, we never had a purge quite like chicago, but we lost Williams but found Lucic; we lost Scuderi and Mitchell, but found Muzzin and McNabb; who is to say that Dean doesn't have an ace in the hole yet? Maybe not quite Panarin, but isn't there just about always a roster surprise at training camp? Maybe Paul Ladue comes in and blows the doors off, hell Trevor Van Riemsdyk and Erik Gustafson seem to be faring more than okay in Chicago. The core is there and solid, you just have to build around it. ...but you can't prevent aging and even Ovy, Kane, Toews, Kopitar will eventually get passed up by the league's younger talent and they'll sink, it is what it is. Not going to hold off McDavid forever.

Anyway, point is, you're being realistic and I appreciate it, but try to look for the silver linings too, it's not all rainclouds and you're speaking in certainties when really they're simply probabilities of a moderate-to-high degree

 

[KINGS17]

I'm not saying the cap ISN'T going to be stagnant either, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it's not a certainty that it will be and despite economic evidence I think there are other ways around it (i.e. jersey ads, etc.). So it's fine to project, it's not okay to say 'we're screwed no matter what.'

I think Kane is fulfilling his salary and Toews currently is not, fwiw, but that can change on a moment's notice either way, the problem here is you're not giving Kane his credit where it's due and asserting it's an anomaly but you're treating Toews as if his situation is normal. You can't have it both ways.

And maybe I said it wrong but I'm saying, with thrice above, that the 'teams to beat' this year all have the most massive cap hits in the NHL (not Kopi yet obviously), so the idea that we're absolutely screwed at this point is actually being disproved by at least two teams thus far; and using Chicago as a model, depth can be recycled if something has to leave. Hell, using ourselves as a model, we never had a purge quite like chicago, but we lost Williams but found Lucic; we lost Scuderi and Mitchell, but found Muzzin and McNabb; who is to say that Dean doesn't have an ace in the hole yet? Maybe not quite Panarin, but isn't there just about always a roster surprise at training camp? Maybe Paul Ladue comes in and blows the doors off, hell Trevor Van Riemsdyk and Erik Gustafson seem to be faring more than okay in Chicago. The core is there and solid, you just have to build around it. ...but you can't prevent aging and even Ovy, Kane, Toews, Kopitar will eventually get passed up by the league's younger talent and they'll sink, it is what it is. Not going to hold off McDavid forever.

Anyway, point is, you're being realistic and I appreciate it, but try to look for the silver linings too, it's not all rainclouds and you're speaking in certainties when really they're simply probabilities of a moderate-to-high degree

At this point I will be happy if the Kings contend this season and next. If Dean can work a miracle on moving Brown, he may buy us a little more time. I am not being doom and gloom, it's simply what I see in the data.

Maybe you're right about uniform ads, but I would rather see the cap be stagnant than see that crap, but it's the job of every manager to increase revenue. If the majority of fans are willing to see the players on their teams look like NASCAR racers, it's to the NHL's benefit to do it.

 

[tsanuri]

In fact, I have posted numerous links regarding the facts that are going to lead to a stagnant salary cap. You must have been too lazy to read the supporting information. So, when you say I have been drawing arbitrary lines in the sand with no data to support my concerns, you are flat out wrong. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting further on this topic.

I suppose that by two Stanley Cup contenders you mean the Kings and the Blackhawks. The Kings are still operating with all of their depth, a fact that will change when the cap doesn't go up next season, and Kopitar is making $10M AAV.

The Blackhawks are fortunate that Kane is having a phenominal season. He is as close to a superstar as there is in the NHL today. Without Kane playing at his current level, the Blackhawks are not that scary. I doubt he will be able to maintain his current pace much longer.

Yes, there are always pleasant surprises in regards to young cheap players on Stanley Cup teams. That's usually one or two guys, not half the bottom six and a couple of defensemen. We'll see what the cap is going to be for the next couple of seasons, and how it affects the Kings strongest attribute, which is their depth. The Kings are built quite differently than the Blackhawks. In Chicago, if Kane or Toews aren't getting it done, it doesn't happen. Kopitar said it in his interview last night, "If everyone on the Kings plays well, no one has to be great." This sums up his philosophy in a nutshell. Anze better realize that he is going to have to be great far more often.

Here's two things I'm wondering have you taken into effect with the cap. First is that the players only took half the money from the increase in the TV deal for the first year. That's 100M, granted CDN. That is just from the increase in the first year. Do you know how much it's increasing year over year? It hasn't been reported so it would just be a guess. But when the you just figure those two things that can add up to 150M more in revenue. The yearly average is 436M yet they said in the first year it was only 200M more that they took half of to add to the cap. And the old deal was at 150M a year. So the deal started at 350M and goes up every year.

And you know it's an average rate they use not the closing rate at the end of the year? So they started this year at .80 and it's now at .69 but it spend the majority of it's time in the higher range. So as of right now we're probably looking at a .75 for now. Yes it's likely to still go down. But I doubt the average will fall below .70 for this year. And because of that I still see the league having year over year growth. Small but still there.

Then if you add in ads on the jerseys. I know you and many other don't like this, including myself. But if it is done in the way the NBA was going to do it I wouldn't have issue with it. They moved the NBA logo to the back of they jersey to have an ad in the center were it was around the tip of the collar. Of course they decided against it when they hit the jackpot with the new TV deal. I don't see them going the route of European hockey. Or for that matter soccer.

 

[mouser]

The Rogers deals starts at $300m CAD and ends in the final season at $5XXm CAD. There is an up-front payment of $150m spread across the first two seasons, so that's probably a factor in why the players didn't apply every dollar of the first year to the cap--the contract is going to decline from year 2 to year 3.

If the $150m is evenly split in the first two seasons, and the contract goes up linearly from season to season that would give you:

2014-2015: $375m CAD
2015-2016: $397m CAD
2016-2017: $345m CAD
2017-2018: $367m CAD
...increases by ~$22.4m/year till the final season 2025-2026 at $547m CAD.

The prior tv contracts averaged $165m CAD over a six year span. But like this contract probably increased season to season over the term of the contract. Something like $180-$190m CAD in their final 2013-2014 season seems like a reasonable guesstimate.

 

[KINGS17]

The Rogers deals starts at $300m CAD and ends in the final season at $5XXm CAD. There is an up-front payment of $150m spread across the first two seasons, so that's probably a factor in why the players didn't apply every dollar of the first year to the cap--the contract is going to decline from year 2 to year 3.

If the $150m is evenly split in the first two seasons, and the contract goes up linearly from season to season that would give you:

2014-2015: $375m CAD
2015-2016: $397m CAD
2016-2017: $345m CAD
2017-2018: $367m CAD
...increases by ~$22.4m/year till the final season 2025-2026 at $547m CAD.

The prior tv contracts averaged $165m CAD over a six year span. But like this contract probably increased season to season over the term of the contract. Something like $180-$190m CAD in their final 2013-2014 season seems like a reasonable guesstimate.

This sucks for the players when it comes to the HRR pie and splitting it 50/50 with the owners. The highest dollar amount for the next few years may be occurring at a time when the Canadian dollar is at 20 year lows.

Roughly $400M in CDN this year is equivalent to roughly $280M in USD.

Last season $375 CDN with the exchange rate back then was probably in the neighborhood of $300M USD.

Just estimating here, but it looks like HRR in U.S. dollars from the Canadian TV deal will drop a bit this season.

 

[Ron*]

This sucks for the players when it comes to the HRR pie and splitting it 50/50 with the owners. The highest dollar amount for the next few years may be occurring at a time when the Canadian dollar is at 20 year lows.

Roughly $400M in CDN this year is equivatlent to roughly $280M in USD.

Last season $375 CDN with the exchange rate back then was probably in the neighborhood of $300M USD.

Just estimating here, but it looks like HRR in U.S. dollars from the Canadian TV deal will drop a bit this season.

I'm sure the players are crying all the way to the bank.

 

[KINGS17]

I'm sure the players are crying all the way to the bank.

You know that the league just upped the escrow payments from 16% to 20%, right?

http://www.tsn.ca/sliding-loonie-may-hit-nhl-players-within-weeks-1.422272

People that write articles and do financial analysis on NHL HRR and the salary cap say that there is very little chance that the players will see that escrow money returned to them this season. It's okay Ron, I know you don't like reading any bad news, or facts about the financials of the NHL, yet I will try one more time.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/12/08/nhl-salary-cap-2016-17-expansion-board-of-governors-meeting

Do the math. Take the current cap of $71.4M and simply multiply it by the five percent inflator and you get $74.97 million. That's higher than Bettman's blue-sky estimate of $74.5 million, and suggests revenue is flat, if not down slightly.

And despite his protestations, there is real concern around the league about the state of the loonie. With oil prices tumbling, the Canadian dollar hit an 11-year low on Monday, dropping below 74 cents U.S. for the first time since 2004. Given how heavily the league relies on revenue generated within Canada (particularly that massive TV deal it signed with Rogers Communications last year), it’s hard to see how exactly that concern is “off the mark.”

It’s also worth noting that Bettman’s estimate at this time last year was $73 million, about $1.6 million higher than the eventual cap. In other words, don’t be surprised if the league’s GMs are taking the 2016-17 early estimate with a rather large grain of salt.

Note that the CDN $ is at $0.69 today.

 

[tsanuri]

You know that the league just upped the escrow payments from 16% to 20%, right?

I know not everyone looks at it this way but 15% is really what the expected number should be. The 50% is figured at the mid-point of the cap. And most teams spend above that and many are cap spending. And for every dollar over the midpoint that is escrow coming out. And when you consider that 19/30 teams are projected to be within $3m of the cap this year that means the majority or teams are now cap teams. And consider those numbers don't take into effect the players on LTIR that are still being paid or players that had compliance buyouts. All those are part of the players 50% share.

 

[KINGS17]

I know not everyone looks at it this way but 15% is really what the expected number should be. The 50% is figured at the mid-point of the cap. And most teams spend above that and many are cap spending. And for every dollar over the midpoint that is escrow coming out. And when you consider that 19/30 teams are projected to be within $3m of the cap this year that means the majority or teams are now cap teams. And consider those numbers don't take into effect the players on LTIR that are still being paid or players that had compliance buyouts. All those are part of the players 50% share.

I get what you are saying. It doesn't change the idea that the article was trying to get across. The cap only went up for this season due to the players using the escalator clause. It will likely only go up next season if the players invoke the escalator clause again.

The escalator clause only helps those players that a due new contracts during the off season, by allowing teams to spend to a higher cap. Many of the rank and file players no longer want to invoke the escalator clause because revenues are not keeping pace with the 5% increase the escalator clause provides.

If HRR does not increase to cover the 5%, the players that already have contracts will see more of their paycheck withheld in the form of escrow. The owners would then be essentially taking money from the players with existing contracts to pay higher salaries to players that are free agents in the off season.

I think it's a safe bet that most players no longer like this idea.

I don't agree with your 19 of 30 teams being capped out this off season, but would be interested to know why you think that is the case this coming off season. Half the teams in the NHL have around $18M or more in cap space heading into the next off season, with varying numbers of players needing to be signed to fill out their roster.

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/cap/2016/

For example, Arizona has $33M committed to only 10 players this off season, while the Kings have $63.4M committed to 17 players. Essentially, that's $12M to re-sign 6 players even with Bettman's rosy outlook.

 

[tsanuri]

I get what you are saying. It doesn't change the idea that the article was trying to get across. The cap only went up for this season due to the players using the escalator clause. It will likely only go up next season if the players invoke the escalator clause again.

The escalator clause only helps those players that a due new contracts during the off season, by allowing teams to spend to a higher cap. Many of the rank and file players no longer want to invoke the escalator clause because revenues are not keeping pace with the 5% increase the escalator clause provides.

If HRR does not increase to cover the 5%, the players that already have contracts will see more of their paycheck withheld in the form of escrow. The owners would then be essentially taking money from the players with existing contracts to pay higher salaries to players that are free agents in the off season.

I think it's a safe bet that most players no longer like this idea.

I don't agree with your 19 of 30 teams being capped out this off season, but would be interested to know why you think that is the case this coming off season. Half the teams in the NHL have around $18M or more in cap space heading into the next off season, with varying numbers of players needing to be signed to fill out their roster.

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/cap/2016/

For example, Arizona has $33M committed to only 10 players this off season, while the Kings have $63.4M committed to 17 players. Essentially, that's $12M to re-sign 6 players even with Bettman's rosy outlook.

It's just a projection but here.
http://www.generalfanager.com/teams
I never said this off season I said they were spending to the cap. And that is where escrow is being taken from. What teams actually spend.
Notice 19 teams are projected to be within $3M of the cap.
As to the escalator it was rumored that the way the CBA was written it's not about the players having the choice. And granted this is why both sides have lawyers. But it clearly states both parties must agree on a new factor. Pg 258 of the CBA.

(Preliminary HRR for the prior League Year multiplied by fifty (50) percent (the
Applicable Percentage), minus [-] Projected Benefits), divided [/] by the number of Clubs
then playing in the NHL (e.g., 30), shall equal [=] the Midpoint of the Payroll Range
(which figure shall be considered the Midpoint only for purposes of calculating the
Adjusted Midpoint; all references to the "Midpoint" thereafter shall mean the "Adjusted
Midpoint"), which shall be adjusted upward by a factor of five (5) percent in each League
Year (yielding the Adjusted Midpoint, which shall then become the Midpoint of the
Payroll Range) unless or until either party to this Agreement proposes a different growth
factor based on actual revenue experience and/or projections, in which case the parties
shall discuss and agree upon a new factor.

 

[KINGS17]

It's just a projection but here.
http://www.generalfanager.com/teams
I never said this off season I said they were spending to the cap. And that is where escrow is being taken from. What teams actually spend.
Notice 19 teams are projected to be within $3M of the cap.
As to the escalator it was rumored that the way the CBA was written it's not about the players having the choice. And granted this is why both sides have lawyers. But it clearly states both parties must agree on a new factor. Pg 258 of the CBA.

I understand. I think the owners are always okay with the players using the cap escalator. At the end of the day, they only pay them 50% of the HRR, and it doesn't matter what the cap was prior to the season.

Increasing the cap via the escalator clause actually helps the owners, because it keeps people interested in the off season, especially around July 1. It's the players that are already under contract that have recognized that it's not a good deal for them.

 

[tsanuri]

I understand. I think the owners are always okay with the players using the cap escalator. At the end of the day, they only pay them 50% of the HRR, and it doesn't matter what the cap was prior to the season.

Increasing the cap via the escalator clause actually helps the owners, because it keeps people interested in the off season, especially around July 1. It's the players that are already under contract that have recognized that it's not a good deal for them.

I know Fehr has argued it's best to get as much money in the system as possible. It might be artificial but it give the teams the ability to sign other players, even if it ends up costing them in escrow. And to date the players haven't not agreed to use it. I know there were reports either last year or the one before that the player initially said no and Fehr went to work and they agreed in the end.
I've always argued that they have hired him and he is considered one of, if not the best, player rep in the business. So they should listen to him. They might not like the escrow and if it was me I would likely feel the same. But Fehr is no dummy and has the education that most of the players don't have.

 

[mouser]

As to the escalator it was rumored that the way the CBA was written it's not about the players having the choice. And granted this is why both sides have lawyers. But it clearly states both parties must agree on a new factor. Pg 258 of the CBA.

I agree the players (PA) don't have the unilateral option to drop the escalator from 5% to 0% according to the CBA language. As you point out the CBA says if the NHL and PA disagree on the escalator % then both sides will meet and come up with a new %. The CBA doesn't say if the two parties can't agree on a new figure that the original 5% escalator stays in effect.

While the CBA doesn't explicitly say what happens if the NHL and PA can't come to agreement on a different escalator %, the most likely result would be it goes to the CBA system arbitrator where each side could make their argument. If the players wanted the escalator to be reduced to 0% and the NHL wanted it to stay at 5% I think the PA would have a slam dunk win in front of the arbitrator. When the players have been consistently losing more then 5% of their pay checks via escrow it would be hard to win an argument before the arbitrator that the status quo 5% escalator should continue.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

This should be your avatar mouser

 

[Ron*]

You know that the league just upped the escrow payments from 16% to 20%, right?

http://www.tsn.ca/sliding-loonie-may-hit-nhl-players-within-weeks-1.422272

People that write articles and do financial analysis on NHL HRR and the salary cap say that there is very little chance that the players will see that escrow money returned to them this season. It's okay Ron, I know you don't like reading any bad news, or facts about the financials of the NHL, yet I will try one more time.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/12/08/nhl-salary-cap-2016-17-expansion-board-of-governors-meeting



Note that the CDN $ is at $0.69 today.

So the **** what? The lowest salary in the league this year is $575,000. I don't see any hockey players struggling to put food on the table for their respective families.

 

[mouser]

This should be your avatar mouser

Paying respect to the legendary Alan Rickman. Hans Gruber just looks so intimidating heh.

 

[KINGS17]

So the **** what? The lowest salary in the league this year is $575,000. I don't see any hockey players struggling to put food on the table for their respective families.

I must admit these are compelling arguments that you are making Ron, but I think a player that makes $1M, and has his gross pay cut to $800,000 all in the name of increasing the cap just so players that will hit free agency in the off season can make more money, probably doesn't feel that way.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Paying respect to the legendary Alan Rickman. Hans Gruber just looks so intimidating heh.

Peeps should be more afraid of that cat

 

[Ron*]

I must admit these are compelling arguments that you are making Ron, but I think a player that makes $1M, and has his gross pay cut to $800,000 all in the name of increasing the cap just so players that will hit free agency in the off season can make more money, probably doesn't feel that way.

Last time I checked, contracts can not be modified in terms of salary or term.

And the minimum goes up every season. Imagine that.

 

[YP44]

This sucks for the players when it comes to the HRR pie and splitting it 50/50 with the owners. The highest dollar amount for the next few years may be occurring at a time when the Canadian dollar is at 20 year lows.

Roughly $400M in CDN this year is equivalent to roughly $280M in USD.

Last season $375 CDN with the exchange rate back then was probably in the neighborhood of $300M USD.

Just estimating here, but it looks like HRR in U.S. dollars from the Canadian TV deal will drop a bit this season.

It does suck, but only way to change that would be for the TV deal to be in USD. Which would be a crazy ask for a Canadian Company to sign a USD deal. had they you bet your ass it owuld have been for well less than $300M USD/year

 

[YP44]

what year did Kopitar start wearing a letter? I have a 2007-11 blank white kings jersey i want to get lettered. Thinking of putting Kopitar on there..wondering if it should have the "A".
I think it should but we had the likes of smyth and Zues wearing letters during that time

Nevermind

 

[Reclamation Project]

The letters drive my OCD crazy. I can only tolerate them with a Final patch on the other side.

 

[Ron*]

The letters drive my OCD crazy. I can only tolerate them with a Final patch on the other side.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The letters drive my OCD crazy. I can only tolerate them with a Final patch on the other side.

Too much negative space