NHL/NHLPA announce Salary Cap increases for the next 3 seasons (2025-26: $95.5M, 2026-27: $104M, 2027-28: $113.5M)

[OilersFanatics505]

No one would take Landy (who hasn't played since game 6 of the Cup year) over Rants.

If he’s healthy enough to come back the Avs don’t have a choice…

Something something, people bitching about taxes incoming… that’s amazing luck that’s gonna fall into their laps.

 

[Menzinger]

Great news for most teams.

The cheaper ones will have to start paying up, or being creative trading for guys with higher aavs than what their actual salaries are

A good situation for a GM looking to dump a bad contract

 

[SirSamofHouseBennett]

3 predictions for the new cap world

1. I think both players & league will agree to term limits in next CBA. The stars will benefit from 5 years with higher AAV and then another 5 while still in demand and the owners don’t have to lock up non stars/declining for so long

2. McDavid will get 20m cap. If you take the average of these 3 years cap and then apply the max 20% cap, you get 20.8m. If he takes 20m he can claim to be under market value.

3. Another expansion on the horizon. Much of the cap growth is fueled by the success in Vegas, Seattle and the shedding of Arizona, now in Utah. The players & the owners won’t be able to say no and indeed the owners have a fiduciary duty to grow revenues as their obligation in the Partnership with the players.

1 more prediction
4. Trades will be harder as teams at the floor won’t want to take on salary and won’t be able to give up salary.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Much of the cap growth is fueled by the success in Vegas, Seattle and the shedding of Arizona, now in Utah.

Actually not really true, as the pie just gets divided up further.
Let’s pick any number for the average revenue of teams in the league , let’s say that is $160 million,

If Vegas is $20 million over $160 and Seattle is $12 million over. That’s $32, players get half of that, so a net increase on the cap of 1/2 million.

If Vegas $40 million over the average and Seattle $24 million over average, that’s a 1 million increase on cap roughly.

That’s not taking into account of pensions, benefits etc. that aren’t included.

 

[SirSamofHouseBennett]

Actually not really true, as the pie just gets divided up further.
Let’s pick any number for the average revenue of teams in the league , let’s say that is $160 million,

If Vegas is $20 million over $160 and Seattle is $12 million over. That’s $32, players get half of that, so a net increase on the cap of 1/2 million.

If Vegas $40 million over the average and Seattle $24 million over average, that’s a 1 million increase on cap roughly.

That’s not taking into account of pensions, benefits etc. that aren’t included.

Sure that’s direct revenue but you are not calculating the increase in Gambling revenue channels and the larger footprint impact on broadcast/streaming income.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Golden_Jet]

Sure that’s direct revenue but you are not calculating the increase in Gambling revenue channels and the larger footprint impact on broadcast/streaming income.

Thanks for the feedback!

Gambling revenue is totally different than what I commented on, your point is below, which isn’t the same thing.

Much of the cap growth is fueled by the success in Vegas, Seattle and the shedding of Arizona, now in Utah.

 

[ToDavid]

Says the Leafs fan.

Not everyone is a fan of a big market team that the League bends over backward to please (and still fails to get much of anything done!).

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[ToDavid]

That is your own prerogative so speak for yourself only. Some other fans like to dig into details a bit more. Many fans on these boards are GM pretenders. Let them be.

To clarify, I’m not talking about fantasy GMing, or digging into contract details or CBA details, I’m 100% for that. It’s something I find very interesting. Saying “I don’t care” was probably not the right wording.

I meant specifically the people who assign some morality to it. Like you have “side” with either the players or the owners in contact negotiations. That’s silly to me.

 

[wolfgaze]

Last time I bought a car the salesman said it was a steal of a deal!

You know how our society feels about trusting the word of a car salesman

Honestly, it's just another way to say good value? Guess I could've said that.

That wording seems fine to me and an appropriate way to describe a contract. You'll notice how describing the contract in that manner doesn't convey that the deal agreed upon was strongly lopsided in favor of the organization nor imply that the players agreed to a contract that doesn't compensate them fairly for their services. It's my personal pet peeve when using HFBoards to come across so many posts describing contracts as an 'absolute steal!' when the players merely signed for like $250K to $750K less than some fans were expecting them to.

Realistically speaking, if a player is being undercompensated by like 5-10% of their perceived value then that doesn't translate to a lopsided contract that isn't compensating the player fairly for their services (especially when that's the level of compensation the player personally agreed upon when signing their long term deal). Some players can be the type of individuals who would rather sacrifice their max value in earnings in order to secure a preferred employer and living location. So when players sign for less than fans were expecting - it doesn't imply that a player agreed to a deal that doesn't compensate them fairly. I feel NHL players would be annoyed/miffed if someone ever tried to convince them that they agreed to sign a long term contract that doesn't compensate them fairly for their services.