Salary Cap to Drop

Acrobat wrote:Player-wise, yes it will help. But they still have to eat the costs of those other salaries if they can't dump them.

Which brings up a question - is it possible that a team could be in a position where they can't sign, or at least, can't play their highly touted draft pick because it would put them over the cap? (because I thought that someone wrote that bonuses, etc still count - so early picks are expensive propositions).

As far as I know the bonus issue arose last season because we didn't know if the CBA would continue as is until the NHLPA approved it, meaning that they had to count bonuses on the assumption that we would need a new CBA.

I'm pretty sure now that the CBA will continue for a couple more years (?) that teams have the option to defer bonus money from one season to the next so, bonuses don't have to factor in.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

Acrobat wrote:Player-wise, yes it will help. But they still have to eat the costs of those other salaries if they can't dump them.

Which brings up a question - is it possible that a team could be in a position where they can't sign, or at least, can't play their highly touted draft pick because it would put them over the cap? (because I thought that someone wrote that bonuses, etc still count - so early picks are expensive propositions).

As far as I know the bonus issue arose last season because we didn't know if the CBA would continue as is until the NHLPA approved it, meaning that they had to count bonuses on the assumption that we would need a new CBA.

I'm pretty sure now that the CBA will continue for a couple more years (?) that teams have the option to defer bonus money from one season to the next so, bonuses don't have to factor in.

Oh.

In that case, I stand corrected. (Well, sit actually, as I'm at the computer, but you get the idea...)

But even then, with the cap dropping, and teams already tight up against the current cap, doesn't the possibility exist?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

Acrobat wrote:Player-wise, yes it will help. But they still have to eat the costs of those other salaries if they can't dump them.

Which brings up a question - is it possible that a team could be in a position where they can't sign, or at least, can't play their highly touted draft pick because it would put them over the cap? (because I thought that someone wrote that bonuses, etc still count - so early picks are expensive propositions).

As far as I know the bonus issue arose last season because we didn't know if the CBA would continue as is until the NHLPA approved it, meaning that they had to count bonuses on the assumption that we would need a new CBA.

I'm pretty sure now that the CBA will continue for a couple more years (?) that teams have the option to defer bonus money from one season to the next so, bonuses don't have to factor in.

I'm pretty sure that all non-performance-based bonuses (signing, etc.) factor into the cap, this year, last year, whatever.

All entry-level deals cap out at $850,000 in salary. The reason guys like Toews, Kane, and Stamkos are getting $3+ mil / yr on entry-level deals are those tricky signing bonuses. Those absolutely count against the cap, and their cap hit is calculated precisely in the same way you would do it for any player (i.e., the total salary amount of the contract divided by the years in the contract). There are no loopholes here.

I'm not sure about performance bonuses, however, which are a different beast. I'm pretty sure that this was the "x" factor this last year, before the extension of the current CBA. These usually apply to the Gary Roberts and Dominik Haseks of the world (i.e., older, injury-prone players).

Bottom line, great young players are not going to be cheap, even on their entry-level deals. I'm guessing Karlsson got a nice signing bonus -- unless he's smart, that is, and wants to get into the NHL now. I'd love to know his cap hit on his new deal so we can get a sense of whether or not he might actually be able to play for us this year.

Well said Rooney. I should have been more clear. I was talking about performance bonuses.

Acrobat wrote:Player-wise, yes it will help. But they still have to eat the costs of those other salaries if they can't dump them.

Which brings up a question - is it possible that a team could be in a position where they can't sign, or at least, can't play their highly touted draft pick because it would put them over the cap? (because I thought that someone wrote that bonuses, etc still count - so early picks are expensive propositions).

i think this was one of the reasons it took so long for bobby ryan to come up with the ducks. they were so close to the cap that they couldn't fit him in the structure without letting go of other players.

So, in the confines of the CBA, does the signing bonus only apply to cash? What if the team gifted you a house and a car as a welcome to the team?

Dash wrote:So, in the confines of the CBA, does the signing bonus only apply to cash? What if the team gifted you a house and a car as a welcome to the team?

I suspect things of that nature would be assigned a dollar value in order to count towards the Cap but I'm just speculating.

Would anyone even have to know though? It wouldn't even have to go in the contract.

Very interesting the way this article is written...

The cap could drop by as much as $2.5 million for the 2009-10 season from its current $56.7 million figure, according to NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly. Although Daly couldn't say, it is not inconceivable that the figure could fall to $50 million for the 2010-11 season.

"At this point, we don't really have a good estimate of where the cap will be," Daly wrote in an e-mail to The Star-Ledger. "If the NHLPA wants a 5 percent inflator, and we agree, the cap should be relatively 'flat.' If there is no inflator applied, the cap will be down $2-$2.5 million."

Though the NHL says very clearly that the cap number may or may not drop next season, and that they still don't have a baseline for the year after, the author of the article chooses to fuel the speculation with a Chicken Little scenario.

The comments of GMs are more enlightening. One could easily conclude from the tone of these quotes that teams will be reluctant to sign players to long term deals. By the same token, reputed media manipulators like The Burke may also be using scare tactics to send a warning shot over the bow of players and player agents.

You have to be aware of the media's need to be dramatic - I would expect the GMs to agree to some degree of inflator, as it is in their best interests too, since it gives them more flexibility. I would be surprised if the cap remains "flat", though.