Salary cap increasing by $1 million to $82.5 million next season

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by DSIM420

I was just talking to a friend about that. What if Tkachuk and Johnny signed short term team friendly deals so they expire when the cap increases and sign bigger deals then.

Off years/injury risk. Hall missed out on his big payday betting on himself for a year and look what happened.

I remember Vanek turning down a 50 million contract extension from the Islanders as well and then he bounced around for much cheaper contracts.

I’d say you take the max term and money for the risk involved.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by DSIM420

I was just talking to a friend about that. What if Tkachuk and Johnny signed short term team friendly deals so they expire when the cap increases and sign bigger deals then.

I would assume they both take a look across the dressing room at their friend Sean Monahan and realize how quickly a career can come crashing down due to injuries and then sign for as much as they can for as long as they can.

[Mathgod]

--nm--

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I would assume they both take a look across the dressing room at their friend Sean Monahan and realize how quickly a career can come crashing down due to injuries and then sign for as much as they can for as long as they can.

Totally agree, but it’s still funny to think that a 27 year old whose career has fizzled will finish next year with $50 mln in career earnings. Wish I could fail like that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kipper_3434]

Pretty weak cap increase considering inflation has been absurd.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Pretty weak cap increase considering inflation has been absurd.

That's what happens when you lose billions in revenue to a pandemic.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Pretty weak cap increase considering inflation has been absurd.

I weep for their inability to survive on such meager rations.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by getbak

It also sound like three more years of modest increases, then a huge jump in 2025 once the books are balanced...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1508829598188019720


I wonder if they might renegotiate this to smooth out the big jump, maybe go up 2 or 3 million in 2023 and 4 or 5 in 2024, leading to a smaller big bump in 2025 and 2026?

I could see them considering this but probably not until well into next season. I feel like they'll want to at first see if another COVID surge next fall/winter causes Canadian teams to have to play to empty buildings again.

[Erick Estrada]

Just in time for Leon Draisaitl to cash in big in free agency.

[Macho0978]

Timing could be great for the Flames. Small increase also takes out a lot of teams chances of signing Gaudreau. A team like Philly only had $8 mil in space with 14 guys signed. Other non playoff teams like Montreal Chicago Vancouver Winnipeg all are missing the playoffs and have cap issues. Most teams in the playoffs also have cap issue and their own players to sign.

Teams that could throw huge money at Gaudreau?

Arizona
Ottawa
Buffalo
Seattle
Detroit

Can’t see Johnny picking these teams over Calgary

Anaheim
Nashville

These 2 teams could but Nashville has their own players to resign but if some leave Johnny could be a target

Anaheim is the biggest threat imo. But I still think Johnny picks Calgary over Anaheim

Lock Johnny up long term and hope the cap goes up faster starting next summer assuming Covid doesn’t change things again and the Flames could be set up nicely because the cap isn’t increasing that much now

Tkachuk could choose short term though to get his payday in 3 years but even if he does if Tkachuk and Johnny sign 3 plus years it still could be for less than expected strictly due to little options league wide

[McG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just in time for Leon Draisaitl to cash in big in free agency.

Leon: I got 100 points!
Negotiator: You were -125!

[djsFlames]

Put every cent into the Johnny-Matthew piggy bank.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Pretty weak cap increase considering inflation has been absurd.

Well...its linked to League Revenues not Global Inflation. As it is I'm astonished that:

A) The Cap is going up at all
B) The player's (PA's) Escrow Debt is going to be repaid so quickly

[nfotiu]

Bally sports nets will probably go bankrupt in 1-2 years. There is a good chance that could put a huge dent in revenue for a few years.

[Reggie28]

Perfect opportunity to fix the escrow issue and provide some cap stability and predictability. Once the Covid bill is paid, set the cap based on HRR and a +/- 5% escrow target. Set the cap increase, let’s say 4%, two or three years out and adjust future increases based on where the escrow number comes in.

If there is another Covid type situation, all bets are off, but one time revenue issues can be absorbed by the escrow payments and if necessary lowering cap increase two or three years out.

At the end of the day, they players get paid the same, 50% of HRR. Every year the cap should increase at a regular rate, so players don’t end up having to sign a contract on a bad cap year and teams are less likely to be in a unexpected cap crunch.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Bally sports nets will probably go bankrupt in 1-2 years. There is a good chance that could put a huge dent in revenue for a few years.

What makes you say that? If anything, I would think with sports gambling being legal now, it would renew interest in the regional networks. Bally didn't decide to put their name on all those regional networks for no reason (Sinclair actually owns the nets and Bally is just a naming sponsor).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by getbak

What makes you say that? If anything, I would think with sports gambling being legal now, it would renew interest in the regional networks.

Cable cutters aren't going to go back to cable TV just because Bally holds naming rights to one of the channels.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Cable cutters aren't going to go back to cable TV just because Bally holds naming rights to one of the channels.

No, but people who have bet money on games are more-likely to watch those games and if the only way to watch a game is on Bally Sports Net, people will continue subscribing.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by getbak

No, but people who have bet money on games are more-likely to watch those games and if the only way to watch a game is on Bally Sports Net, people will continue subscribing.

Local NHL games are watched by 10s of thousands of people per market, but have territories where millions pay $4-5/month for their sports channels. People watching to gamble aren't making up that $20 million per month in subscriber fees.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by getbak

What makes you say that? If anything, I would think with sports gambling being legal now, it would renew interest in the regional networks. Bally didn't decide to put their name on all those regional networks for no reason (Sinclair actually owns the nets and Bally is just a naming sponsor).

The owner of the Bally's sports nets is actually a Sinclair subsidiary, and they are objectively very likely to declare bankruptcy over the next year or two.

As evidence of this, I point you to a distressed debt exchange they recently completed.

https://frontofficesports.com/diamon...tressed-bonds/

The biggest cause is the huge amount of covenant-lite high yield debt they took on to buy the sports nets from Fox/Disney as part of Disney's purchase of most of Fox. Since Disney owns ESPN they couldn't take the regional networks as well. Cord cutters certainly haven't helped.

All that said, I think it's reasonably likely most sports contracts will be affirmed in chapter 11. This business would be fine with less debt, and if they don't have sports rights they have no reason to exist. Some that are particularly onerous/unprofitable may get cancelled, but I bet they keep most of them.