Speculation: Roster Building Thread XLVIII - “Into the Heartland”

[BBKers]

Ok - here we go...

Click to read more...

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Drop some news bombs on us @BBKers

 

[LaffyTaffy]

Drop some news bombs on us @BBKers

beat me to it. need a bbk bomb

 

[Levitate]

The Rangers might trade some guys

Or they might not

 

[Thirty One]

The Rangers might trade some guys

Or they might not

I'm sure it's not that black and white.

 

[Edge]

If the Rangers remain silent over the next 5 days, it won't be because they didn't explore a ton of options.

I've heard multiple conversations with Buffalo, Colorado, Edmonton, Arizona, Vegas, and Dallas.

Obviously, not all of these are inherently tied to the draft, but that's who I have on my punch card as of 4 p.m. today.

 

[Tawnos]

Since the other thread is closing and this is a good discussion, I figured I'd move this post over here.

Sure,

My guess, exchange rates are one thing, so would certain big market teams being good, making more revenue than their counterparts ever could, that effect the cap for sure.

Yet the teams who are annual revenue losers, if there are such, that should be factored in already.

Similar in escrow, why is escrow so high if the cap is set on past revenue, unless the players share is being dinged for some reasons where it's not effecting/reflected in the cap?

I thought is was the escalator driving a larger percentage than it is if it is really set at 1.25%, the only things I can think of which would drive that up 10-12% would be things like outgoing salary that is not being accounted for in the cap calculations.

I would think, possibly LTIR, compliance buyouts, would be the two major ones as they do not effect the cap ceiling, yet there is real money going to both? If that real money is counted against the players share, yet not reflected in the cap, then that in theory would make for a discrepancy?

But this is what I'm saying about how many teams spend above the midpoint. Last year's cap was $79.5m and floor of $58.8m, which implies a midpoint of just over $69m. Just rough numbers, and there's going to be some variance in actual dollars spent from this, but only 3 teams had a final cap hit under $69m, and even the lowest of those was stil $5m over the floor ( Past Salary Cap Payrolls - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps). The average final cap hit was more than $6m over the midpoint, meaning teams spent nearly $200m more in salary than the midpoint would be suggesting. Nearing a 9% overspend on the part of the teams just from that alone, provided the revenue is in line with what the midpoint was anticipating. Again, these numbers are incredibly rough, because cap hit and salary aren't the same thing. Some contracts have higher cap hit than real salary, some contracts lower... plus other factors, but you get the idea. Also, escrow is calculated quarterly, so depending on how things are going revenue-wise, the escrow withholding percentage fluctuates.

When teams overspend on player salaries, it's the players who end up having to make the 50/50 split right. Of course, if the league grows by more than expected, sometimes it's the players that get the money back... it's happened, but not in a while (and I don't think since the 2012-13 lockout). There's no way around it... but can it be mitigated? That's the question.

 

[Trxjw]

If the Rangers remain silent over the next 5 days, it won't be because they didn't explore a ton of options.

I've heard multiple conversations with Buffalo, Colorado, Edmonton, Arizona, Vegas, and Dallas.

Obviously, not all of these are inherently tied to the draft, but that's who I have on my punch card as of 4 p.m. today.

That's only six teams! Lazy! Fire Gorton!

 

[CommaSynapse]

If the Rangers remain silent over the next 5 days, it won't be because they didn't explore a ton of options.

I've heard multiple conversations with Buffalo, Colorado, Edmonton, Arizona, Vegas, and Dallas.

Obviously, not all of these are inherently tied to the draft, but that's who I have on my punch card as of 4 p.m. today.

Nothing with Winnipeg? Interesting...

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Nothing with Winnipeg? Interesting...

Maybe they’re already done talking

 

[Edge]

Nothing with Winnipeg? Interesting...

That's only six teams! Lazy! Fire Gorton!

Haha, only sharing what I can reasonably confirm. I try to avoid any thing where I can't verify with two people, or situations where someone heard from someone who heard from someone.

 

[Mikos87]

The other thread got locked. But I would beg to differ on the $4.8BN number for NHL revenue, same with the +/-15% of the mid-point for the upper and lower limit.

 

[Off Sides]

Since the other thread is closing and this is a good discussion, I figured I'd move this post over here.



But this is what I'm saying about how many teams spend above the midpoint. Last year's cap was $79.5m and floor of $58.8m, which implies a midpoint of just over $69m. Just rough numbers, and there's going to be some variance in actual dollars spent from this, but only 3 teams had a final cap hit under $69m, and even the lowest of those was stil $5m over the floor ( Past Salary Cap Payrolls - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps). The average final cap hit was more than $6m over the midpoint, meaning teams spent nearly $200m more in salary than the midpoint would be suggesting. Nearing a 9% overspend on the part of the teams just from that alone, provided the revenue is in line with what the midpoint was anticipating. Again, these numbers are incredibly rough, because cap hit and salary aren't the same thing. Some contracts have higher cap hit than real salary, some contracts lower... plus other factors, but you get the idea. Also, escrow is calculated quarterly, so depending on how things are going revenue-wise, the escrow withholding percentage fluctuates.

When teams overspend on player salaries, it's the players who end up having to make the 50/50 split right. Of course, if the league grows by more than expected, sometimes it's the players that get the money back... it's happened, but not in a while (and I don't think since the 2012-13 lockout). There's no way around it... but can it be mitigated? That's the question.

I now see what you are getting at more clearly, the 15% on each side could be adjusted to more accurately reflect what the revenue/salary is bearing out, thus adjusting escrow to a more accurate level.

 

[wafflepadsave]

If the Rangers remain silent over the next 5 days, it won't be because they didn't explore a ton of options.

I've heard multiple conversations with Buffalo, Colorado, Edmonton, Arizona, Vegas, and Dallas.

Obviously, not all of these are inherently tied to the draft, but that's who I have on my punch card as of 4 p.m. today.

You work for the nsa?

 

[Edge]

You work for the nsa?

ICE.

I'm just waiting for @darko to land on U.S. soil, and then my devious plan will unfurl.

 

[Fitzy]

Late to the party on this but super thrilled that EK is off the market.

That's a deal all about SJS winning it all one of the next 3 seasons. They'll swallow the bad part during their rebuild. Not ideal, but makes much more sense for them than for us.

Now if only they had a real goaltender.

 

[Tawnos]

I now see what you are getting at more clearly, the 15% on each side could be adjusted to more accurately reflect what the revenue/salary is bearing out, thus adjusting escrow to a more accurate level.

Yes, exactly. The cap ends up acting as a magnet, so if you reduce the room between the midpoint and the cap, you're inevitably going to end up pushing salaries closer to the midpoint to begin with, which in turn will reduce the amount that needs to be withheld and eventually transferred back from the players to the owners.

You couldn't pull this off in a sudden move. You'd have to set it up where the cap is frozen for a couple of years while the salaries get in line with the new numbers.

Importantly for a lot of teams, that would result in allowing a compliance buyout... which I don't see happening unless something happens to change cap calculations.

 

[Ghost of jas]

If the Rangers remain silent over the next 5 days, it won't be because they didn't explore a ton of options.

I've heard multiple conversations with Buffalo, Colorado, Edmonton, Arizona, Vegas, and Dallas.

Obviously, not all of these are inherently tied to the draft, but that's who I have on my punch card as of 4 p.m. today.

Some of those teams look like obvious landing spots for Mr. Kreider.

 

[Kovalev27]

Buffalo Colorado’s 4th overall pick Edmonton Arizona all spots Cozens could potentially be avail at. Would def have to involve CK

 

[bl02]

Crickets on Zuccarello?!

 

[Ghost of jas]

Crickets on Zuccarello?!

Friedman had Zuccarello and Dallas working on a deal in his 31 thoughts column.

 

[bl02]

Friedman had Zuccarello and Dallas working on a deal in his 31 thoughts column.

Any idea when this was? I heard they were talking a week back or so.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Any idea when this was? I heard they were talking a week back or so.

Either yesterday or Saturday. It was on the last roster building thread.

 

[Machinehead]

The Rangers might trade some guys

Or they might not

They'll definitely draft some guys. Confirmed with link.

 

[Trxjw]

Some of those teams look like obvious landing spots for Mr. Kreider.

Yep and @bobbop has been mentioning Vegas for a while now. Likely to help them shed some cap. Dallas is the one that's a little off the radar. Maybe some talks to see if the Rangers could adjust the picks if they re-up Zucc.