People are not Ready for the Massive Cap Increases

[PenguinSuitedUp]

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.

 

[TS Quint]

This. While I like seeing the cap go up as it indicates healthy revenues, I do not support it going up THIS much at once (and then each additional season for the next couple of years). Instead of roughly 10%, I would rather see it go up by about 3-5%.

Not unless there are some new additions to the new CBA that help teams get out of anchor contracts better.

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.

 

[ijuka]

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.

 

[dgibb10]

Have you seen Shesterkin play this season? On his average days, he’s bad. On his good days, he’s average. And his slow-motion eight-year heist hasn’t even started yet.

Shesterkin is top 5 in GSAx this year. The rangers defense is truly atrocious

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Shesterkin is top 5 in GSAx this year. The rangers defense is truly atrocious

I was told that he’s 11th.

 

[miscs75]

I know exactly what will happen.

GMs will think they have all the cap space in the world, sign a couple of atrocious deals the next few summer, and then all the teams will be in cap hell once again.

It’ll be a repeat of the 2016 free agency on a much larger scale.

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

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).

 

[Toby91ca]

I was told that he’s 11th.

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]

I was told that he’s 11th.

Looks like 11 to me

NHL Goalie Advanced Stats 2024-2025

NHL Goalie Analytics, Goals Saved Above Expected

moneypuck.com

 

[dgibb10]

I was told that he’s 11th.

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.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

moneypucks model isn't great for goalies imo

View attachment 976189

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.

 

[dgibb10]

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.

Insane take.

 

[Deadpool8812]

Get ready for jacked up ticket and concession prices

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Insane take.

Yeah. Why judge a player based on watching them when there’s charts that tell you how good he is? Crazy!

 

[dgibb10]

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)

 

[TS Quint]

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.

That’s not a point. The cap has always been rising.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

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)

I base my opinion on watching the games. Do you?

 

[dgibb10]

I base my opinion on watching the games. Do you?

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)

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

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.

 

[SEALBound]

I wish they hadn’t signed an easily foreseeable bad contract, but that’s life.

I would love for everything to go great for the Leafs. But if you get rid of the stakes it’s going to get pretty boring pretty fast.

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.

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.

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.

 

[StreetHawk]

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.

 

[SEALBound]

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.

The escrows can indeed adjust in season. It went from 6% to 0% for the remainder of the year. No word yet on what it will be at the beginning of next year. My suggestion was instead of a 10% salary cap increase, go back and tell players "the max the escrow will be is 3% and we will look to decrease that to 0% again, quicker if practical".

And really, let me circle back to my original point - I don't necessarily care what the cap goes too as long as it's done in a way that continues to foster financial sustainability and overall league and team financial health. I do not believe that handing out bloated contracts to middling players that have a high risk of becoming anchors are good for the player, the team, the owners, or the league overall. I want to figure out ways to decrease the likelihood of that happening.

 

[VEGASKING]

The price of gold is affected by many factors. Two big factors are inflation and global politics. When people feel uncertain about their nation currency, they buy commodities like gold (or pork bellies, which is used to make bacon, which you might find in a bacon and lettuce and tomato sandwhich). This increase in demand leads to the price increase of commodities.

 

[TS Quint]

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.

This is a big wall of text to show you don’t know what you are talking about. The fact you don’t understand how what I said doesn’t tie all of that together is missing the most simple part of how contracts work. I already told you where the real dollars come from it’s not a mystery. The rest of this wall is just telling me how you don’t understand how it works. That’s ok. Keep working at it.

 

[SEALBound]

This is a big wall of text to show you don’t know what you are talking about. The fact you don’t understand how what I said doesn’t tie all of that together is missing the most simple part of how contracts work. I already told you where the real dollars come from it’s not a mystery. The rest of this wall is just telling me how you don’t understand how it works. That’s ok. Keep working at it.

Lol, good post. No ability to reply.

Move on little boy.