Salary Cap: Salary Cap increase to 71 million for next year

LynxBud

Registered User
Nov 27, 2013
997
0
Gloucester
What is the point in a salary cap when it has risen so high so fast? Unreal.

I'm with you.

I understand that league revenue as a whole has risen and what not, but I thought the salary cap was to give all teams a chance to build a solid team?
Now the salary cap is getting so high that you're going to have huge discrepancies between teams just like before.

On the other hand, if our owner wasn't so cheap I might actually like the fact that the cap is being risen every year.
 

John Holmes*

Guest
I don't really see Ottawa as a small market for hockey.

We're no Toronto or New York, but we're also in a lot better of a position than probably 20 of the teams in the league.

A city of 1 million where hockey is king has to be in better financial shape than a team that is a distant 4th in pro sports importance, even with a much greater population.

Melnyk crying poor is BS. Don't buy into the lie. This fanbase is easily conditioned due to the early years when they really were broke.

Think about it. We've never had a star walk in their prime. Hossa re-signed, Spezza, Heatley, Karlsson, Anderson, etc... have all been retained, some with gigantic deals.

Smolinski stuck around when he could have walked, as did Kuba, Neil, Phillips, etc...

We wasted a ton of money of Kovalev & Gonchar as well.

The Euge was also reportedly willing to take on Rick Nash's monster contract.

He still says now that "if it makes sense" he'll spend.

We're not a cash strapped team.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
you factoring in for no michalek and a cut in pay for phillips?

Also Melnyk says well be a mid cap team aparently.......so we might spend to around 60-63 mil

Replacement isn't spending more.

Melnyk should be able to spend more based on his share of the new TV contract and the new regional TV deal he will sign since the SportsNet deal expires at the end of the season.

What that number is anyone's guess but I doubt it means EM will be spending $10M over this season.
 

GOAT

Registered User
Dec 5, 2006
462
0
Ottawa
Roster parity. Think back to the early 2000's. A few big market teams could afford to load up on superstars and stack their roster. Now, every contract has huge strategic ramifications. GMs have to be very cerebral in the way they handle free agent signings.

Wealth redistribution. They don't just magically get drunk and throw a dart at a board. The cap is supposedly tied to league revenue. The value of the players is tied to where the cap is at. Theoretically it forces the owners to give players their fair share of the league's profits.

This is my point. With an elevated cap, we're right back to where we started. Sure, small market and "poor" teams are forced to spend to a minimum, but they can't compete with teams spending to the cap, so its the early 2000's again. They're being priced out of competition, which also greatly affects their ability to put fans in seats.

I've never really understood giving "players their fair share of the league's profits". The union has obviously done a fantastic job making this happen, but to tie their salaries to revenue is ridiculous. Sure, the players are the ones we watch, but they are supposed to be the employees, being paid only enough to keep them around and keep them working. They aren't shareholders or owners. Those are the only people who should be "profiting".
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
I don't really see Ottawa as a small market for hockey.

We're no Toronto or New York, but we're also in a lot better of a position than probably 20 of the teams in the league.

A city of 1 million where hockey is king has to be in better financial shape than a team that is a distant 4th in pro sports importance, even with a much greater population.

Melnyk crying poor is BS. Don't buy into the lie. This fanbase is easily conditioned due to the early years when they really were broke.

Think about it. We've never had a star walk in their prime. Hossa re-signed, Spezza, Heatley, Karlsson, Anderson, etc... have all been retained, some with gigantic deals.

Smolinski stuck around when he could have walked, as did Kuba, Neil, Phillips, etc...

We wasted a ton of money of Kovalev & Gonchar as well.

The Euge was also reportedly willing to take on Rick Nash's monster contract.

He still says now that "if it makes sense" he'll spend.

We're not a cash strapped team.

I think your history lesson is filled with your opinions and quite frankly void on facts.

While there is no substantiated proof Melnyk is or isn't losing money with the Sens, it is pretty clear he isn't spending as much as he was 3-4 years ago.

Your opinion of Ottawa, where hockey is king, is not supported by the current attendance. According to ESPN the Sens have dropped to 15th in attendance from 6th last season, down almost 2000 per game. At an average of $50 a ticket that is $4M less ticket revenue, not counting the effect on other revenues.

Regarding the stars not walking, Hossa was the Bryden era and he didn't walk because he got the deal he wanted, then of course he was traded for a cheaper Heatley. It was the plan though never shared with Hossa.

After Bryden went bankrupt, Melnyk took over with visions of SCs in his head and definitely spent, but during that time there were consistent reports the team was losing money and Melnyk always acknowledged without two rounds of playoff games the reports were true.

Even during the spending years of Melnyk, the team never had a cap higher than the mid $50M level.

I humbly suggest you think about this, the stars that didn't walk were before Melnyk decided he wasn't going to underwrite the team's financial losses out of his own pocket.

While there were rumours Murray was kicking the tires on Nash, Melnyk was never faced with the reality of a deal and therefore Murray wasn't faced with how he would fit Nash into the budget.

Of course that whole exercise was purely academic since Nash never even hinted he would be willing to take a trade to Ottawa.

I believe his recent actions speak louder than your assumptions. Faced with having both Alfie and Ryan at market value, he clearly told Murray he could have just one.

True Melnyk has said if it makes sense he will spend, but he usually qualifies it with when he would be willing to do that and that Brian has assured him this player would help them make a playoff run.

Eugene has continuously told the media, the Sens will continue to spend wisely, develop its players and will be a mid-cap spending team.

Of course if his revenues drop I am sure those statements will change.
 
Last edited:

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
This is my point. With an elevated cap, we're right back to where we started. Sure, small market and "poor" teams are forced to spend to a minimum, but they can't compete with teams spending to the cap, so its the early 2000's again. They're being priced out of competition, which also greatly affects their ability to put fans in seats.

I've never really understood giving "players their fair share of the league's profits". The union has obviously done a fantastic job making this happen, but to tie their salaries to revenue is ridiculous. Sure, the players are the ones we watch, but they are supposed to be the employees, being paid only enough to keep them around and keep them working. They aren't shareholders or owners. Those are the only people who should be "profiting".

The NHL does NOT share profits, it shares revenues as defined in the CBA, which aren't the total revenues the league takes in.

Compensation in any industry is decided on revenues and employee value.

If the owners thought they could have a $4B business and pay the players AHL salaries trust me they would.
 
Last edited:

koreaboy

Registered User
Oct 14, 2010
1,677
0
I don't think we'll be a floor team, but we're dreaming if we think the euge is gonna spend to the cap. he's said he tried that and it didn't work. he loves hockey and he's got as big an ego as the next billionaire out there (although I don't think he's a billionaire anymore, which is the problem), but he's not dumb and its hard to blame him if he doesn't want to keep cutting multimillion dollar cheques year in year out to float a max payroll to lose money and not win cups.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
it's risen so high because the game has become so popular

Not that the game hasn't grown, but I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do escalating TV rights fees for live sports.

Sports at the moment are considered to be DVR proof. Meaning, people almost exclusively only watch them live, and do not DVR them or download them from unaffiliated sites for later consumption.

This is completely different than anything else on TV. For anything non-sports, live TV is becoming irrelevant. Meaning, people with cable are very likely to DVR a show and skip commercials. People are also more likely to drop cable in favor of the slight inconvenience of downloading or streaming TV shows after the fact.

The big consequence of all this, is nobody watches the ads during non sporting events. Because sports are seen as DVR/download proof, people are expected to sit through commercials. Advertisers realize this, and are willing to pay higher amounts for advertising during sports. This results in networks competing with each other to nab sport properties. The competition drives up the rights fees, which makes relevant sport leagues rich as ****.
 

coladin

Registered User
Sep 18, 2009
11,824
4,519
Ottawa also gets money in the TV deal right?

Yes, which is why the cap is going up. Revenues of tickets sales, advertising, and the new huge TV contract spells higher revenues for the leagues, and every team, and rightfully so the cap must go up. The owners have the percentage they want so Ottawa can only be in better shape than what they were in October.

Christian Erhoff and contracts of his nature may be required to get to the cap for Ottawa moving forward.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
Yes, which is why the cap is going up. Revenues of tickets sales, advertising, and the new huge TV contract spells higher revenues for the leagues, and every team, and rightfully so the cap must go up. The owners have the percentage they want so Ottawa can only be in better shape than what they were in October.

Christian Erhoff and contracts of his nature may be required to get to the cap for Ottawa moving forward.

How do you figure?

I do believe the net effect is zero if the team stays in the same relative position on the salary cap scale.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
This is my point. With an elevated cap, we're right back to where we started. Sure, small market and "poor" teams are forced to spend to a minimum, but they can't compete with teams spending to the cap, so its the early 2000's again. They're being priced out of competition, which also greatly affects their ability to put fans in seats.

I've never really understood giving "players their fair share of the league's profits". The union has obviously done a fantastic job making this happen, but to tie their salaries to revenue is ridiculous. Sure, the players are the ones we watch, but they are supposed to be the employees, being paid only enough to keep them around and keep them working. They aren't shareholders or owners. Those are the only people who should be "profiting".

The basement of what you have to spend will always be within an equivalent distance to the maximum cap. It'd be silly to say that a team like Toronto who can replace their arena's toilet paper with 20 dollar bills and still make a profit doesn't have an advantage over team's with a budget. But that advantage is minimized by the cap. If the cap raises 10 million, the minimum spending raises an equivalent amount.

Average team payrolls usually end up around 5 million give or take below what ever the cap is set at. Keep in mind that some teams have no need to spend to the cap for the sake of it, because due to player's ages, they are able to sign their core, and their additional UFA's without going to the ceiling.

When you take out the few rebuilding teams, and the teams who are anomalies that just happen to be filled with young players on EL deals or bridge deals, very few teams spend 60 million. The cap is set at 64something million.

Ottawa is a team hurt be either an unwillingness or an inability to spend. But they are mostly an anomaly. There are other teams on budgets (NYI?), but I'm not sure any time has been hurt as much as Ottawa, considering it's been rumored that Bryan Murray has been unable to make modest trades due to having to deal with a salary in, salary out dynamic. But make no mistake, that is the exception to the norm.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
impossible to even contend when ur going to be 16 mil below it,

Depends on how you look it.

The top players on every team aren't going anywhere, most are signed to long term deals at top dollar today.

So realistically the higher cap only means some GMs with wealthy owners will overpay for 2nd and third tier players guaranteeing nothing, other than another lockout down the road.
 

GOAT

Registered User
Dec 5, 2006
462
0
Ottawa
Ottawa is a team hurt be either an unwillingness or an inability to spend. But they are mostly an anomaly. There are other teams on budgets (NYI?), but I'm not sure any time has been hurt as much as Ottawa, considering it's been rumored that Bryan Murray has been unable to make modest trades due to having to deal with a salary in, salary out dynamic. But make no mistake, that is the exception to the norm.

It won't be the exception for long. Yes, the gap between minimum and maximun remains the same, but as the cap trends upwards, less and less teams will be able/willing to spend to the top, making a cap virtually irrelevant and returning to the type of league we saw a decade+ ago.

Depends on how you look it.

The top players on every team aren't going anywhere, most are signed to long term deals at top dollar today.

So realistically the higher cap only means some GMs with wealthy owners will overpay for 2nd and third tier players guaranteeing nothing, other than another lockout down the road.

This.
 

FolignoQuantumLeap

Don't Hold The Door
Mar 16, 2009
31,084
7,399
Ottawa
The cap will come down afterwords when the Canadian dollar goes down within about 2-3 years. Then you'll have a bunch of GMs trying to get under the cap again after handing massive long term deals to the likes of Matt Moulson, Girardi and Steve Downie.

Then we'll have another lock out. Rinse, spend, repeat. Fun times.
 

83DIZ65

Registered User
Sep 8, 2011
1,296
0
halifax
How do you figure?

I do believe the net effect is zero if the team stays in the same relative position on the salary cap scale.

for most teams youd be right but the sens already have several pieces on modest contracts for next year extras can be afforded for us without going crazy on spending as well have most of our present team signed and be under the new floor
 

starling

Registered User
Nov 7, 2010
10,868
2,779
Ottawa
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 2m
Some NHL teams could receive $45 mil when $20 mil in TV rights, $20 mil in rev share + $5 mil in escrow is factored. Floor is $52 mil.


Not looking that bad after all.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
for most teams youd be right but the sens already have several pieces on modest contracts for next year extras can be afforded for us without going crazy on spending as well have most of our present team signed and be under the new floor

The problem is how Murray acquires extras without paying what the new market value will be.

If the cap goes to $71M as recently reported, Murray will have to save all the money he can next year to enable him to pay Spezza, Ryan and Methot market value in 2015.

I left out Andy because I think he will be moved by then.
 

starling

Registered User
Nov 7, 2010
10,868
2,779
Ottawa
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 2m
Some NHL teams could receive $45 mil when $20 mil in TV rights, $20 mil in rev share + $5 mil in escrow is factored. Floor is $52 mil.


Not looking that bad after all.

Well, it looks like Sens don't get any Revenue sharing money because they already make around or more than average! :laugh:
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 2m
Some NHL teams could receive $45 mil when $20 mil in TV rights, $20 mil in rev share + $5 mil in escrow is factored. Floor is $52 mil.


Not looking that bad after all.

Not sure how Dreger got the $20M for TV rights considering next year the contract calls for only $450M ($150M upfront + $300M annually) and is paid in CDN$.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad