The bigger issue here is what this does to smaller market teams. It sounds like this will be the first time in the cap era where a significant (more than a handful) number of teams will not be able to spend to the cap anymore.
People are not Ready for the Massive Cap Increases
- Thread starter chuckt
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
The cap number doesn’t even matter, it’s just a projection. At the end of the day the players get 50% of revenue whether that projection is met or not.
The only people not ready for this are the people who think payers value are paid by dollars and not the % of the cap.
The league is making money the cap goes up. Everyone gets 4 nations money. Everyone gets a piece of tv deals. Everyone in need (and meets requirements) gets revenue sharing. Nothing changes, just the dollars are going up.
However, contracts that were recently signed cannot go up for like 5 or 6 years even after the cap goes up, so this, I believe, was the point.
Shesterkin is top 5 in GSAx this year. The rangers defense is truly atrocious
miscs75
Registered User
- Jul 2, 2014
- 7,121
- 6,667
Yeah, but there is always pros and cons to signing long term deals. The main reason a player signs is for security of course...you can sign a short deal with the hopes your game will advance and you'll then get more money on next deal, but lots of risk there.....biggest risk is injury, worst case, career threatening injury. These days, a lot of contracts seem really high for the guys signing them, but the hope is that they will continue to improve and grow into the contract, such that by the end of it, they'll be more than worth it.
If the cap didn't increase each year, I think there would be some contracts that would be pretty bad....some are anyway (long term deals for big $$$ for guys that will be pushing 40 by the end of the contracts).
He is 11th and for actual save %, he's 22nd. I don't care how bad the D is, that's a bad stat.
At the same time, I don't care if he's the best current goalie in the NHL ,the contract is going to look bad before the end of it
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,197
- 15,060
Looks like 11 to me
moneypucks model isn't great for goalies imo
Shesterkin is elite. Worth every penny.
In an age where goaltenders are the incredibly inconsistent year to year, shesterkin has been elite single every regular season and every single playoffs.
Stats are what you make of them. I base my opinions of players by watching them play. In my opinion, he is not a great goaltender.
Deadpool8812
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2018
- 13,308
- 16,992
Yeah. Why judge a player based on watching them when there’s charts that tell you how good he is? Crazy!
No, it's insane to watch igor shesterkin and come to the conclusion that he isn't an elite goalie.
But also yes, I trust numbers from every single save shesterkin has ever made more than the memory of an islanders fan saw in a limited sample size, littered with recency bias and other fallacies (which btw is also almost certainly swayed by the basic stats constantly shown in broadcasts)
Sounds like you'll be filled with terrible takes based on tiny sample sizes of things you vaguely remember from broadcasts (or more accurately, your opinions are very likely based on very basic stats that are highlighted throughout broadcasts that have shaped your views, eg Shesterkins SV%, GAA and record this year that you remember as the "eye test" since they were told to you as you watched a game)
Again, I watch the games. Is it your take that because I’m an Islander fan I can’t watch Ranger games? I’ve been watching games long enough that I can formulate my own opinion. I don’t need Steve Valiquette to tell me what I just saw.
- Jun 13, 2010
- 43,773
- 22,930
Fair enough. I would just like to see more flexibility for teams when players are no longer meeting the performance the team initially paid for (sans injury). I mean, I get the PA would start a riot over such a statement but I lean toward equality and fairness when it comes to contracts. If I don't meet the requirements of my clients' contracts, I would be in breach and could lose the contract or get sued. An athlete does well for a year, gets the big deal, and pulls the rug out from the team making roster moves difficult? Nah, that bothers me. Campbell, Jarry, Marleau, Murray, Clarkson, etc are all situations I wish the teams had more flexibility.
And more so, that's just a general soap box statement. I certainly haven't dove into it enough to think through nitty gritty details so take it as the face value statement/complaint it is.
I think you might be fooling yourself if you don't think actual dollars aren't tied to contract negotiations, team/league financial health, and the salary cap. I think what you just said is, at best, a woeful oversimplification of it. Perhaps the "NHL25 GM" outlook, if you will.
I think a major flaw in you thinking is the idea that “nothing changes, just the dollars are going up”. Players aren’t paid in percentages—they’re paid in real dollars, which have to come from somewhere. The NHL salary cap is directly tied to revenue, but revenue is not immune to global economic downturns, inflation, or market instability. Teams and owners still need actual cash flow to meet these obligations, and not every team is operating under the same financial conditions (even with revenue sharing).
Even though the cap is rising, that doesn’t mean every team will have the same spending power. Smaller-market teams may still struggle to keep up. Revenue-sharing helps, but it doesn’t guarantee teams will spend to the cap if ownership is feeling financial strain. If ticket sales decline due to economic hardship or major sponsors pull back or if GMs sign a bunch of high dollar contracts for middling players creating a mediocre team with limited flexibility, real revenue could suffer which impacts how much teams are actually willing to spend. And while contracts are technically tied to cap percentages by simple math, players still get paid in real-world dollars that can be affected by currency fluctuations, particularly for Canadian teams, especially given how weak the Canadian dollar is right now against the US dollar.
Now at the end of the day, this is really about getting players more money and I get that and I support it. I would just rather see it done in other ways rather than a salary cap that is inflated too quickly. For example, I would rather see the NHL and NHLPA negotiate to reduce escrow withholding rather than just raising the salary cap. This would put more guaranteed money into players’ pockets immediately rather than waiting for a year-end revenue reconciliation.
For example, if players currently lose 6-10% of their salaries to escrow, but revenue growth ensures the league will hit projections, escrow rates could drop, allowing players to take home a higher percentage of their contracted salaries.
I think a balance of raising the cap modestly but reducing escrow withholdings would be a better overall way to do it. I believe that is a more "sustainable" growth model given the behavior of GMs, especially on July 1st.
NHL/PA have agreed to cancel the escrow holdbacks for the remainder of this season. I think it was set at 5-6% to begin the year. So, basically, it will be about 3% total for the year and then they figure out whether any of it needs to be returned to the players.
Last season, I think the PA finally got escrow down to 0%, and actually were due interest from the NHL on the escrow withheld. PA would prefer to maintain that vs increase the cap to the point where players end up having escrow not returned back to them.
