[News] NHL/PA talk raising escrow, cap, 84 game sked, AZ issues

[transplant99]

Per Foster Brooks

The NHLPA and NHL will meet this week to open discussions on a variety of issues that include the possibility of increasing the salary cap beyond the prescribed $1 million, Slap Shots has learned.

The Players’ Association is on record that the union will not be willing to raise the escrow ceiling of six percent for each of the next three seasons as a trade-off for elevating the cap above $83.5 million.

We have learned that the PA is willing to discuss increasing the schedule to 84 games.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/20/nhl-nh...izona-coyotes/

[btimbit]

Jesus, we need less games in a season, not more

[Paulie Walnuts]

Increase to 84 to cover the shortfalls?

[TheIronMaiden]

More like a 64 game season.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Oilers eliminated, up against the cap, so need to find ways to help them next season.

[flamingred89]

Yo NHL how about you learn how to market yourself and put out a better product rather than relying on stop gap measures like this.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Jesus, we need less games in a season, not more

I think the plan (at least what has been speculated) is that the preseason would see a reduction and regular season increased.

Makes sense to me. Preseason is unnecessary long.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I think the plan (at least what has been speculated) is that the preseason would see a reduction and regular season increased.

Makes sense to me. Preseason is unnecessary long.

Just look at the NFL as to why decreasing preseason and expanding the regular season is dumb.

The product suffers and teams use the first few games like a preseason game but the issue that they count. Imagine missing the playoffs by 3 points and you used the first 2 games of a 84 game season to experiment and lost.

[stang]

Am I the only one who feels that it’s stupid that GM’s have no clue what the cap will be the next season? You’re supposed to make choices and sign players for up to 8 years and spend 100’s of millions but they can’t even tell you what you’re allowed to spend until the previous season is done?

I get it’s based on revenues but I’m sure they can do better then this.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by stang

Am I the only one who feels that it’s stupid that GM’s have no clue what the cap will be the next season? You’re supposed to make choices and sign players for up to 8 years and spend 100’s of millions but they can’t even tell you what you’re allowed to spend until the previous season is done?

I get it’s based on revenues but I’m sure they can do better then this.

I agree - next season should always be an established number. If there is room for change, it can change the following year. Each year's cap should be announced a year in advance, before July 1st.

[Jiggy_12]

Lol more pointless regular season games. Yes that’s what everyone needs

[FlamingHomer]

More regular season games=more McPoints.

[Sylvanfan]

Well with 32 teams, going to 84 games does balance the schedule. 4 times 7 vs Division teams, 3 times 8 vs. Non Division and 2 times 16 for out of Conference.

So I'm okay with this at the expense of useless preseason games. The NFL going to 17 made for an unbalanced schedule. 2 out of 82 is not that significant and balances things out.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Apparently Arizona had complaints filed against them for flying coach and putting players in 3 star motels lmao

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Just look at the NFL as to why decreasing preseason and expanding the regular season is dumb.

The product suffers and teams use the first few games like a preseason game but the issue that they count. Imagine missing the playoffs by 3 points and you used the first 2 games of a 84 game season to experiment and lost.

The impact of adding one game to a 16 game season is much more than adding 2 games to an 82 game season.

Also, everyone hates how many preseason games there are in the NHL, and most teams treat their first few preseason games as throwaways anyway. Teams routinely dress players who have no chance to make the NHL roster and often bring in PTOs just to fill the "veteran" requirements.

Having 2 fewer preseason games isn't going to change anything.

Originally Posted by stang

Am I the only one who feels that it’s stupid that GM’s have no clue what the cap will be the next season? You’re supposed to make choices and sign players for up to 8 years and spend 100’s of millions but they can’t even tell you what you’re allowed to spend until the previous season is done?

I get it’s based on revenues but I’m sure they can do better then this.

Once the players' escrow deficit is paid back, they will be changing the system to use a 2 year lag on calculating the cap. This means they will know what the following season's cap will be a year in advance.

For example, last year's revenue was about $5.3 billion (according the statements made by Bettman). Using the cap calculation formula: Players' share is 50% of total HRR (minus some fixed amounts for insurance and stuff); the Players' share is divided by the total number of teams to get a per team average (midpoint); the midpoint is adjusted up and down by 15% each way to calculate the per team cap and floor.

With revenue of $5.3B in 2021-22, the cap for 2023-24 should be: ((5,300,000,000 x 0.5) / 32) x 1.15 = $95.23 million.

However, while the players still have outstanding escrow debt, the cap will only increase $1 million per season. Based on previous reporting, the outstanding escrow debt is almost paid off, so it doesn't really make sense to keep the cap from rising when there's already a more than $10 million difference between what the cap will be and what it "should" be.

Also, the revamped formula that was agreed to after COVID says the cap shall not rise more than 5% from one season to the next -- so, even though next year's cap should be over $95 million based on the formula, the maximum it could rise to is, $86.625 million.

[topfiverecords]

Did the PA mention anything about reducing Paulie’s posts. He’s at 3 on this one page alone already.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Did the PA mention anything about reducing Paulie’s posts. He’s at 3 on this one page alone already.

What is the point of this post besides trolling? Be better.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by stang

Am I the only one who feels that it’s stupid that GM’s have no clue what the cap will be the next season? You’re supposed to make choices and sign players for up to 8 years and spend 100’s of millions but they can’t even tell you what you’re allowed to spend until the previous season is done?

I get it’s based on revenues but I’m sure they can do better then this.

They don't have a definitive answer but the league gives them a range to work with plenty of months ago. The one million raise has been floating out there for a while.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What is the point of this post besides trolling? Be better.

What is the point of this post?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by getbak

The impact of adding one game to a 16 game season is much more than adding 2 games to an 82 game season.

Also, everyone hates how many preseason games there are in the NHL, and most teams treat their first few preseason games as throwaways anyway. Teams routinely dress players who have no chance to make the NHL roster and often bring in PTOs just to fill the "veteran" requirements.

Having 2 fewer preseason games isn't going to change anything.

Once the players' escrow deficit is paid back, they will be changing the system to use a 2 year lag on calculating the cap. This means they will know what the following season's cap will be a year in advance.

For example, last year's revenue was about $5.3 billion (according the statements made by Bettman). Using the cap calculation formula: Players' share is 50% of total HRR (minus some fixed amounts for insurance and stuff); the Players' share is divided by the total number of teams to get a per team average (midpoint); the midpoint is adjusted up and down by 15% each way to calculate the per team cap and floor.

With revenue of $5.3B in 2021-22, the cap for 2023-24 should be: ((5,300,000,000 x 0.5) / 32) x 1.15 = $95.23 million.

However, while the players still have outstanding escrow debt, the cap will only increase $1 million per season. Based on previous reporting, the outstanding escrow debt is almost paid off, so it doesn't really make sense to keep the cap from rising when there's already a more than $10 million difference between what the cap will be and what it "should" be.

Also, the revamped formula that was agreed to after COVID says the cap shall not rise more than 5% from one season to the next -- so, even though next year's cap should be over $95 million based on the formula, the maximum it could rise to is, $86.625 million.

That's really interesting because theres's some big contracts coming up in the next few seasons so imagine that the cap only increases by $1 million this season and next.

Now you're probably looking at close to $6 billion in revenue if not higher and a cap of $105-107 million so potentially close to $20 million increase prior to the 25-26 season. Who's a UFA the summer before? Potentially:

Tavares
Rantanen
Marner
Draisaitl
Crosby
Benn
Marchand
Hedman
Ekblad
Shesterkin
Saros
Ullmark
Oettinger (RFA)

There will either be a major crop or with teams anticipating a major cap increase, there could be some big off-season extensions the summer before.