Friedman: Salary cap could rise as high as $95-97 million next season

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,159
13,537
My original post mentioned the covid years where it was deemed the “flat” cap..

21-22 to 23-24 is post pandemic, the upper cap limit started to rise 22-23. You’re being obtuse for no reason here.

No
If it weren’t for covid we would’ve been at $100 million or surpassed it.

The flat cap at $81.5 million lasted for 3 seasons.
You never said Covid years, you said if weren’t for Covid, it would be a 100 million.

The flat cap and the 1 million increases are all due to the Covid MOU, all you have to do is read the MOU and the flat cap and increases were exactly as expected for the revenues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michel Beauchamp

I am Canadian

AM34|WN88|MM16
May 22, 2008
6,681
2,830
Toronto
In 2019-2020 at 81.5M cap, a 12% total contract would be valued at 10M
With a 95M cap, a 12% total contract would be at about 11.7M

I wonder if it will impact the top level contracts more, or the middling guys.
 

strattonius

Registered User
Jul 4, 2011
4,664
5,403
Surrey, BC
Both???

2019-20: $81.5M
2020-21: $81.5M
2021-22: $81.5M

That’s literally 3 seasons it stayed flat. Where do you even see a rise of $1M increase??

Does the 19-20 season really count as part of the flat CAP though? It rose from the 18-19 season the year prior.

In my mind the flat CAP is the 20-21 and then the 21-22 seasons since it didn't rise from the previous years.

It's technically two straight seasons of flat CAP since there was a rise to 81.5M in 19-20. It's mostly pedantic but you were giving someone a hard time about specifics.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
26,710
22,305
Waterloo Ontario
Escrow always seems to be a big deal for the PA. It was held at 6% last season and from what I could find, the PA got back about half of that for a net of 3% lost to escrow.

They seem to prefer lowering escrow to as close to 0% as possible vs risk it going up on a higher cap ceiling.

I do think they would approve a higher cap, but would aim to keep that reasonable. Like $93-94 mill vs the $95-97 mill these reporters. Most of the PA have contracts, so an extra couple of million of cap room doesn't help most of the players.
If total revenue was $6.2M last year as reported and it goes up by even a modest 3% that would put it at $6.4M. Let's assume that after all the ancillaries the players share is based on say $5.9B. That would put the players share at $92M or so per team. Bump it up another 3% this year and you are at $95M or so. With a ceiling at even $97M there would be little or no escrow hit and these numbers should be conservative.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,159
13,537
If total revenue was $6.2M last year as reported and it goes up by even a modest 3% that would put it at $6.4M. Let's assume that after all the ancillaries the players share is based on say $5.9B. That would put the players share at $92M or so per team. Bump it up another 3% this year and you are at $95M or so. With a ceiling at even $97M there would be little or no escrow hit and these numbers should be conservative.
Ya but I thought the cap was based on the midpoint. I think your ancillary number is a good guesstimate, there are so many things, with benefits, pensions, insurance per diems etc but it must be more, as your number is more based on the max cap.

The minimum cap is 85% of the midpoint
The maximum cap (say $92 million) is 115% of the midpoint
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
26,710
22,305
Waterloo Ontario
Ya but I thought the cap was based on the midpoint. I think your ancillary number is a good guesstimate, there are so many things, with benefits, pensions, insurance per diems etc but it must be more, as your number is more based on the max cap.

The minimum cap is 85% of the midpoint
The maximum cap (say $92 million) is 115% of the midpoint
The ceiling by the old formula is 15% above the midpoint. The issue I was referencing was escrow. The point was that even in the $97M range the players share should cover all or very very close to all of the commitments meaning no or very little escrow would be required.
 

Team_Spirit

95% Elliotte
Jul 3, 2002
39,699
21,900
Liked by

Mitch Marner
Igor Shesterkin
Mikko Rantanen
Brock Boeser
Brad Marchand
Aaron Ekblad
John Tavares
Nikolaj Ehlers
Matt Duchene
Jakob Chychrun
Claude Giroux
Patrick Kane
Brock Nelson
Mikael Granlund
Jamie Benn
Sam Bennett
 

SEALBound

Fancy Gina Carano
Sponsor
Jun 13, 2010
42,732
21,589
I would rather GMs spend more money filling out their depth with quality players than paying a guy like Marner $17mil for instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viper0220

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
29,072
11,259
Re-checked, Puckpedia from June, PA was close to getting all of their 6% withheld escrow back, possibly even getting a top up from the NHL.
So, if the numbers indicate that they can/should go with a higher cap and still end up at close to a 1% or lower net escrow, they would increase the cap. But, they have acheived what they wanted which was to have basically no escrow withheld after the final numbers came in.

Figure, they go with the more conservative, vs aggressive number.

Might open up for more trade options in the off-season.
 

qc14

Registered User
Jul 1, 2024
249
408
The NHL has the 5% max increase (unless agreed upon otherwise) rule to prevent things like what happened in the NBA in 2016, where the cap increased 24M and a team like Golden State was able to just add Kevin Durant without losing anyone important. If the cap goes up by the above amount it will be similar to the NBA's increase in 22/23 and 23/24 where it increased 11M and 12.5M after their escrow was paid off.

I wonder if scaling contracts is something that gets negotiated in the next CBA
I think that's the reason they might negotiate a higher increase this year. With the new CBA the cap will get reset next year anyways, better to spread that jump out a bit more evenly. Owners don't care because they still get there 50/50 no matter what and it can be seen as a good-faith negotiation with the PA, GMs and league people like it because it eases the transition and minimizes exactly what you're describing, PA likes it because it helps a bigger group of players than just the FAs next year.
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
74,195
30,408
I think that's the reason they might negotiate a higher increase this year. With the new CBA the cap will get reset next year anyways, better to spread that jump out a bit more evenly. Owners don't care because they still get there 50/50 no matter what and it can be seen as a good-faith negotiation with the PA, GMs and league people like it because it eases the transition and minimizes exactly what you're describing, PA likes it because it helps a bigger group of players than just the FAs next year.

Exactly. Let it go up to 95 at least, the owners all know the cap should be north of 100, the revenue numbers passed 6.4 billion in 22-23 already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qc14

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad