5 Best Things About This Season

[Tigger]

For arguments sake, if the cap goes up to 72 mil ( and yes, despite any warnings ) that's more than a 1-4 mil drop given the forecast.

I still think something has to give there, probably not in the same ballpark as what happened during the lockout but something. Instead of a 24% rollback ( IIRC ) and free buyouts maybe a corresponding rollback ( 7%) and one free buyout or some such. I might be asking for too much there and being hopeful for the Leafs financial clout.

 

[cw]

For arguments sake, if the cap goes up to 72 mil ( and yes, despite any warnings ) that's more than a 1-4 mil drop given the forecast.

I still think something has to give there, probably not in the same ballpark as what happened during the lockout but something. Instead of a 24% rollback ( IIRC ) and free buyouts maybe a corresponding rollback ( 7%) and one free buyout or some such. I might be asking for too much there and being hopeful for the Leafs financial clout.

I'm not sure I understand your point. If the cap goes up to $72 mil, that's $8 mil more than the current cap now. There's lots of money for all teams to spend and stay under the cap:
http://www.capgeek.com/charts_index.php?charts_year=2012&salary_cap=%2472%2C000%2C000

Now if the cap falls to $60.5 from $64.3:
http://www.capgeek.com/charts_index.php?charts_year=2012&salary_cap=%2460%2C500%2C000
A few teams at the top have some cap issues but nowhere close to the trouble in the summer of 2005.

 

[Tigger]

Well what I'm saying is probably stretching things anyways, if the landscape is suggesting that the GM's are being warned heavily about this, but, the correction you were talking about before where the cap 'drops' 1-4 mil ( approx 1.5% to 6% of the current ceiling ) in comparison to almost 50% of the top 2005 payrolls, the point I was trying to get across was that a GM could be looking at a 12 mil drop if he spent to the actual projected offseason cap ( 72 mil ) and be looking at an almost 17% drop in a worst case scenario.

 

[brothert]

1) Lupul's Career Year
2) Emergence of Gardiner (What a great trade!)
4) David Steckel
3) Signing of GRABBO!
5) Coaching Change

Disappointments
1) Kulemin's hands turning to stone
2) Mishandling/Poor play of the goalies
3) Glut of high priced passengers Komi, Connelly, and Lombardi.
4) Schenn's second sophomore slump
5) It took so long to make a coaching change

 

[cw]

Well what I'm saying is probably stretching things anyways, if the landscape is suggesting that the GM's are being warned heavily about this, but, the correction you were talking about before where the cap 'drops' 1-4 mil ( approx 1.5% to 6% of the current ceiling ) in comparison to almost 50% of the top 2005 payrolls, the point I was trying to get across was that a GM could be looking at a 12 mil drop if he spent to the actual projected offseason cap ( 72 mil ) and be looking at an almost 17% drop in a worst case scenario.

Ah, that makes sense.

However, if the league's reported position at the league GM meetings is accurate, and in terms of bottom line dollars, it makes plenty of sense, it would be a heck of a gamble. Because if the GM who spent to the temporary $72 mil cap doesn't get relief, he'd have a bunch of buyouts to fit under his cap for years to come. His team could be cap restricted/compromised for several seasons.

It's going to be a very confusing or interesting July 1 this summer. It might be somewhat quiet until the deal gets done.

 

[Tigger]

if the league's reported position at the league GM meetings is accurate, and in terms of bottom line dollars, it makes plenty of sense, it would be a heck of a gamble.

Ok, agreed, that's a consideration for the issue.

It's going to be a very confusing or interesting July 1 this summer. It might be somewhat quiet until the deal gets done.

I agree with this too, signings on that day will be a pretty big tell, one way or the other.

 

[cw]

if the league's reported position at the league GM meetings is accurate, and in terms of bottom line dollars, it makes plenty of sense, it would be a heck of a gamble.

Ok, agreed, that's a consideration for the issue.

I should add that there are not many teams in the league like the Leafs who can afford to eat a bunch of bad contracts via buyout without the owner being gravely annoyed with facing serious financial consequences. So a lot of GM's would be risking more than their clubs competitiveness. There's only a small handful that could do it to a large degree: Leafs, Flyers, Rangers & Wings & maybe one or two others.

As it currently sits, Burke already has a few of those contracts now.

 

[cw]

Back to the topic at hand:

1. Gardiner
2. Lupul
3. Frattin
4. Marlies
5. Coaching change before the end of this season to help prepare them for next year

Honorable mention: as crazy as it sounds, I thought this was Wilson's best season of coaching the Leafs. I thought he tried a lot of good, reasonable stuff. And that's coming from someone who would have fired him last spring. Having said that, I'm glad they made the switch to Carlyle as it will be good for the development of the young guys.

 

[hockeyfan1]

5 Best Things About This Season

1.  It will eventually end
2.  I've rekindled my passion for waffles
3.  The opening of Wendel Clark's (because I deserve to Wendel size my fries)
4.  The thought of Burke and Cherry punching each other in the face in a barn somewhere
5.  Mats Sundin Ceremony. First time in years the Leafs had a real centermen at center ice

You make me want to cry!!!  (*sniff* *sniff*)  :'( 

 

[rdowdall]

All this talk of the cap coming down, sure, but if people think it's coming down without a significant rollback/buyout amnesty or other such "mistake correction" measure, then they are completely kidding themselves.

Just prior to the lockout, Detroit and the Rangers had $78 mil payrolls. A number of teams back then were in the $65 mil +/- range. They had to come down to $39 mil - nearly 50% for the top payroll teams. The cap was obviously a brand new thing. So the transition at that time was pretty major for the bigger payrolls in the league and help was easily justified because without it, it could not be done with the contracts they had.

If the cap drops $1mil-$4mil (which is a fair guess for the worst case), given the league has warned the GMs, I don't see the teams getting much cap relief/buyout amnesty. As part of the current CBA, they're supposed to allow for a revenue dip of that sort of cap magnitude (which didn't happen but).

There's a big difference between where they were during the lockout and where they are today in terms of team payrolls relative to the cap. A 1.5%-6% adjustment is expected - not cutting a payroll by 50% as some teams had to in '05-06.

Wasn't there a rollback on salaries as well?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

What incentive do that larger teams have for allowing a reduction in salary and an increase in revenue sharing?

I fail to see how probably ten of the biggest teams in the league sign off on moving the goal posts, albeit only a little, without having some kind of compensatory cap relief.

It just won't happen and as reasoned and well thought out as your posts are cw, they seem to disregard the 'self-interest' aspect of the larger teams.  The smaller teams are going to want aspects included in this CBA that benefit them, probably higher revenue sharing, a more forgiving cap floor etc, they won't get these things without giving the big teams a break or two also.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

All this talk of the cap coming down, sure, but if people think it's coming down without a significant rollback/buyout amnesty or other such "mistake correction" measure, then they are completely kidding themselves.

Just prior to the lockout, Detroit and the Rangers had $78 mil payrolls. A number of teams back then were in the $65 mil +/- range. They had to come down to $39 mil - nearly 50% for the top payroll teams. The cap was obviously a brand new thing. So the transition at that time was pretty major for the bigger payrolls in the league and help was easily justified because without it, it could not be done with the contracts they had.

If the cap drops $1mil-$4mil (which is a fair guess for the worst case), given the league has warned the GMs, I don't see the teams getting much cap relief/buyout amnesty. As part of the current CBA, they're supposed to allow for a revenue dip of that sort of cap magnitude (which didn't happen but).

There's a big difference between where they were during the lockout and where they are today in terms of team payrolls relative to the cap. A 1.5%-6% adjustment is expected - not cutting a payroll by 50% as some teams had to in '05-06.

Wasn't there a rollback on salaries as well?

Yes, 24% I believe.

Before the lockout, Detroit was at $77.8, NY at $77, but after that there was a big drop to Dallas at $67.6, then Philly at $65.1. There were only four teams above $65 million in payroll. Bad, but not quite as dire as cw was implying. There were three more around $61 (Toronto, St Louis, Colorado), and two more above $48 (Anaheim - 54 , Washington - 51).

Even for a team in the $60-65 million range as the Leafs were, after factoring in the rollback those teams only had to cut about 15% of payroll, which is what the buyouts were designed to do.

When factoring in the 24% rollback, any team at or under about $51 million would already be under the cap without any buyouts. That means only 8 teams (those listed above minus Washington) required buyouts to get under the cap.

Granted 15% is still a much higher number than 1.5%, but if the cap falls to $61 million next year then there are currently 14 teams this season above that mark. Sure it's easy to say they could just let players go in the summer, but what is going to happen to those players? The small market teams aren't going to be adding salary. Arguably they'll be dumping even more money than the top spenders if they have the option to spend to a lower cap floor instead of the unsustainable higher one right now.

It might be in the NHLPA's best interest as a whole to include a rollback or buyout of some sort.