Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Ivrnet

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2017, 02:06 PM   #21
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
No it isnt.

The escalator is literally taking that mathematical formula and artificially altering it.

"We didnt generate enough revenue to warrant raising the salary cap."

PA: "Okay, but we're going to exercise our escalator clause and raise the cap anyways."
No. That is not how it works.

The escalator takes the actual HRR from the previous season and assumes that revenues will grow by 5% (because historically, they do) and sets the following season's cap based on that projected growth.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2017, 02:19 PM   #22
mrkajz44
First Line Centre
 
mrkajz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
No. That is not how it works.

The escalator takes the actual HRR from the previous season and assumes that revenues will grow by 5% (because historically, they do) and sets the following season's cap based on that projected growth.
Huh - I looked it up in the CBA (Section 50.5 (b)) and getback is right. There is a mathematical formula for which the escalator is applied. So the players applying the escalator is simply them saying they think HRR will grow by 5% over the prior year, which is actually pretty reasonable.

Today I learned...
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
mrkajz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2017, 02:28 PM   #23
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44 View Post
Huh - I looked it up in the CBA (Section 50.5 (b)) and getback is right. There is a mathematical formula for which the escalator is applied. So the players applying the escalator is simply them saying they think HRR will grow by 5% over the prior year, which is actually pretty reasonable.

Today I learned...
Me too. Fair enough.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 02:32 PM   #24
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

So if they vote against it what happens?

It stays at $73 million?
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 03:09 PM   #25
FBI
Franchise Player
 
FBI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Flames fan in Seattle
Exp:
Default

Moral of the story: getbak is never wrong.
__________________
(F)erland (B)ennett Jankowsk(I)
FBI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 03:27 PM   #26
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy View Post
So if they vote against it what happens?

It stays at $73 million?
Then the NHLPA will go back to internal discussions what the escalator (if any) should be.

They technically don't have to submit their vote until June 30, but the NHL is requesting they make their decision early for expansion draft purposes.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2017, 07:19 PM   #27
simonsays
Scoring Winger
 
simonsays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

I'm still a little agog that they decided to go with projected HRR with an escalator clause to begin with. Coming out of the 04/05 lockout the NHL basically handed the PA a number and said that if revenues are increased we'll return the difference. But that should have been it, every year hence should have been based on the previous years HRR. No escrow, no escalator, just 'this is what we made last year and you get x% of that next year'. The wages would be 12 months behind but the confusion would have been gone.

Makes you wonder though how league min guys are affected. Does everyone pay into escrow or is it only what you earn over the minimum salary?
simonsays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 09:47 PM   #28
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonsays View Post
I'm still a little agog that they decided to go with projected HRR with an escalator clause to begin with. Coming out of the 04/05 lockout the NHL basically handed the PA a number and said that if revenues are increased we'll return the difference. But that should have been it, every year hence should have been based on the previous years HRR. No escrow, no escalator, just 'this is what we made last year and you get x% of that next year'. The wages would be 12 months behind but the confusion would have been gone.

Makes you wonder though how league min guys are affected. Does everyone pay into escrow or is it only what you earn over the minimum salary?
The revenue is supposed to be split between players and owners for each season, so I'm guessing the issue the players would have with the increase being delayed for a season would be that a player who doesn't get contracts for the following season would lose that increase they helped the league earn, and for a player signing a long term deal that offseason an extra 5% in cap space can make a huge difference that they would not be able to make up for if it is added a year after they sign. That's my assumption of how the players would view this. Obviously an argument could be made(and likely has been by the league during bargaining) that since teams are not required to spend to the cap players who don't get new contracts weren't guaranteed that extra money to begin with.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 10:55 PM   #29
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

I really hope the escalator isn't exercised. I think the Flames could survive it, whereas many teams would feel the squeeze. That would benefit the Flames.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarkGio For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2017, 10:56 AM   #30
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

The escalator isn't the real problem, it just takes the blame.

The real problem is that the majority of teams spend to the cap. And the system assumes that teams will, on average, spend to the mid-point.

Let's say (half of) last year's HRR is $2.85B and there are 30 teams. Mid-point would then be $95M. Then they apply the escalator of 5% and the mid-point becomes $100M. Then the cap and floor would be roughly $115M and $85M respectively.

Now, two things can happen:

1) League revenues don't grow by 5% to reach the $100M, but only grow by 3%, forcing escrow to withhold 2% of salaries. This is only a small problem, and revenues have tended to grow close to the escalator rate.

2) Teams spend more than the mid-point, on average. If, instead of averaging $100M in payroll, teams average $110M (because most teams spend to the cap, not to the mid-point, the players are, in aggregate, overpaid by 10%. In this case, escrow withholds 10% of everyone's salary. In fact, this has been what most of the holdback has been from.

(Note: the withholding of escrow actually happens when they are paid throughout the season, and then everything gets adjusted at the end of the year when all the numbers are known and the escrow is either permanently withheld, or is returned to the players, depending on where the numbers fall).
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:31 AM   #31
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Cap range will go from $55.4M to a ceiling of $75M for next season

which means once you factor in the bonus overage for this season, the Flames have less than 19 million in cap space.

of course if Vegas takes a roster player from the Flames that number will go up.

Last edited by sureLoss; 06-18-2017 at 11:33 AM.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:39 AM   #32
Oil Stain
Franchise Player
 
Oil Stain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss View Post
Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Cap range will go from $55.4M to a ceiling of $75M for next season

which means once you factor in the bonus overage for this season, the Flames have less than 19 million in cap space.

of course if Vegas takes a roster player from the Flames that number will go up.
19 Million is actually quite a lot of room. Flames are sitting pretty nicely in regards to the cap this year.

It's a poor free agent crop though. I wonder how hard Treliving will work trades to utilize that cap space.
__________________
I got laughed at when prior to the 2013 draft I stated the player the Flames picked at 6th is going to be better then any of the 3 previous guys the Oilers picked 1st overall.

I Stand by that remark.-MrMastodonFarm
Oil Stain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:42 AM   #33
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Flames cap situation is pretty darn good, even with the highly expensive 4th line of Bouma, Stajan and Brouwer to finish last season.

It gets even better if Vegas takes one of those three.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:55 AM   #34
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain View Post
19 Million is actually quite a lot of room. Flames are sitting pretty nicely in regards to the cap this year.

It's a poor free agent crop though. I wonder how hard Treliving will work trades to utilize that cap space.
Michael Stone or similar $4 million/yr
3rd pairing UFA D-man $2 miilion/yr
Andersson/Kulak/Wotherspoon 800k/yr

Lazar $1 million/yr
Bennett $2.5 million/yr
Ferland $2 million/yr
Jankowski $925k/yr

Backup Goalie $1.5-$2 million/yr

That will take about $15 million of the remaining cap space.
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 12:12 PM   #35
Strange Brew
First Line Centre
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Michael Stone or similar $4 million/yr
3rd pairing UFA D-man $2 miilion/yr
Andersson/Kulak/Wotherspoon 800k/yr

Lazar $1 million/yr
Bennett $2.5 million/yr
Ferland $2 million/yr
Jankowski $925k/yr

Backup Goalie $1.5-$2 million/yr

That will take about $15 million of the remaining cap space.
I believe that's pretty accurate. Maybe somebody gets a little more than you are suggesting.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 12:32 PM   #36
TheScorpion
First round-bust
 
TheScorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: South Calgary
Exp:
Default

So, the cap is 75 million?

Here's how I see next season shaping up:

https://capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/361261
__________________
Days until I can change my avatar: 101


TheScorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2017, 02:06 PM   #37
Rick M.
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion View Post
So, the cap is 75 million?

Here's how I see next season shaping up:

https://capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/361261
No Janko?
Rick M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 02:07 PM   #38
N26
Crash and Bang Winger
 
N26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paradise Island, Bahamas
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion View Post
So, the cap is 75 million?

Here's how I see next season shaping up:

https://capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/361261
I don't think you'll get Del Zotto that cheap. Shouldn't pay Stone that much and that Marleau contract is for 2010 Marleau.
N26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 AM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016