[News] 18-19 Cap Projected at $78M-$82M

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a cap guy, but I don't get how the cap is going up like it is. I mean fine Vegas is there, but that's just adding a larger pool of money to a larger pool, it shouldn't be bumping everyone's cap from 3 to 5 million bucks.

I mean frankly isn't a 3 million dollar increase equivalent to about $500 million in increased revenue?

I'm watching quite a few games and seeing a lot of empty seats in a lot of rinks including Vancouver and Ottawa, so I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Yes, Vegas is unlikely to bump the cap up much. They would have to have revenues $60m higher than average (not happening) in order to bump the cap $1m. $300m to bump it $5m.

Must be Jagr jersey sales!

[IgiTang]

Owners gonna end up locking out the players again in 3 years to bring that cap down...

What was the cap when it was first introduced?

And does this not scream of bailing out the oilers so they can afford some Dmen as to not ruin the golden child/golden goose of McDavid?

[The Yen Man]

The Oilers right now are making money hand over fist because of their new arena and the McDavid endorsements, so they're contributing a lot to HRR jump. It's too bad the Flames are a have not team now, so I guess in perspective, they're probably contributing a lot less to the gain.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

because teams can't manage a budget that matches their revenue.

A bunch of businesses with mostly absentee owners, where the COO position is both rife with nepotism hires and significantly populated by guys whose education maxed out at High School aren't being run well? You don't say.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Why would he do that?

I dunno... If I was 23 years old and had less then a full season of NHL experience and just had a 25P season (his current pace) and a team put $15,000,000.00 in front of me I'd have to give that serious consideration.

I mean Arvidsson got 4.25 per on a long term deal coming off a 60P campaign. I don't see 2.5 per for Jankowski being really unreasonable.

[DJones]

Go long on Jankowski, go short on Backlund.

I wouldn't mind overpaying Backlund slightly if the length is ~3 years.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a cap guy, but I don't get how the cap is going up like it is. I mean fine Vegas is there, but that's just adding a larger pool of money to a larger pool, it shouldn't be bumping everyone's cap from 3 to 5 million bucks.

I mean frankly isn't a 3 million dollar increase equivalent to about $500 million in increased revenue?

I'm watching quite a few games and seeing a lot of empty seats in a lot of rinks including Vancouver and Ottawa, so I'm not sure how that makes sense.

A $3 million increase in the cap would mean a $6 million per team increase in revenue (since the players get 50%), or $186 million overall.

Vegas so far appears to be doing above-average in attendance. As a new team, their merchandise sales are likely strong as well. On the flipside, now that there are 31 teams, any league-wide contracts will have their money split 31 ways instead of 30. All-in-all Vegas isn't likely affecting the cap much one way or the other.

The Canadian dollar is stronger now than it was last season, but it's not that much stronger. In the past, I've heard that about 1/3 of league revenue is in Canadian dollars. If that's accurate, a 2% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar would increase league revenue by less than 1%.


Not only does attendance overall tend to be down this year, but they don't have as many outdoor games to boost things this year either. There are only 3 outdoor games this season (compared to 4 last year), and none are in the huge NFL stadiums we've seen in the past.


I'm also confused as to where all this extra money is coming from.

[Ragnar]

Is this a response to the crazy contract inflations we saw over the summer?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by DJones

I wouldn't mind overpaying Backlund slightly if the length is ~3 years.

Terrible idea...

1: This is Backs last shot at a long term deal... you'd have to really overpay him annually to get him to accept that

2: Overpaying him short reduces his transactional value.

3: We're not projected to have any cap pressure in 3 years.

... Backs is a very valuable member of this team on the ice and a valuable member of the community off-ice. Folk should stop trying to undercut him and accept that we need to sign him long term and moreso that he deserves to be signed long term.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Why would he do that?

Same as what others have said. 15m is alot of money and security for a guy with 50-60 games played. Over pays him for the first couple years and we hopefully save on the following ones.

[bubbsy]

Sure, but outside of an ea nhl game in gm mode, when's the last time we have seen this?

Zaietsev I suppose

[Kipper_3434]

Yeah so last off season.....lol

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Way more teams will spend to it then should. That's why teams need taxpayer funder arenas and why we might get another lockout, because teams can't manage a budget that matches their revenue.

The owners sure love to talk about sensible business models when asking for public funding, but then seem unable to operate their day to day business in a manner that makes sense or projects to be sustainable for more than a few seasons at a time.

Perhaps if the league economics were adjusted so the cap was significantly lower it would make paying for an arena more palatable for these fat cats.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Terrible idea...

1: This is Backs last shot at a long term deal... you'd have to really overpay him annually to get him to accept that

2: Overpaying him short reduces his transactional value.

3: We're not projected to have any cap pressure in 3 years.

... Backs is a very valuable member of this team on the ice and a valuable member of the community off-ice. Folk should stop trying to undercut him and accept that we need to sign him long term and moreso that he deserves to be signed long term.

Tired of this 'valuable in the community rhetoric'. If he was gone another player would take his place. Most are required by their contracts to be visible in the community these days so it doesn't deserve accolades.

I don't see Backlund even being a problem to re-sign. He's making 3.575 per. You can't convince me anyone, even on the open market, is going to dish out more than 5.5 per at 5 years for a guy like him. The team can certainly make this work even at 6M per with Stajan, Versteeg and other buyouts coming off the books. If they were willing to commit to Troy Brouwer for 4 seasons they won't have an issue going 5-6 with Backlund.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Yeah so last off season.....lol

Care to come up with other examples rather than hanging onto what appears to be the exception?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Perhaps if the league economics were adjusted so the cap was significantly lower

That's not something they can just decide by fiat. Let's be honest... lockouts have always been the fault of management. It's always Bettman saving management from themselves because they all want to (and more do) spend to the ceiling when economics would dictate that it'd be more advisable to spend to the midpoint.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a cap guy, but I don't get how the cap is going up like it is. I mean fine Vegas is there, but that's just adding a larger pool of money to a larger pool, it shouldn't be bumping everyone's cap from 3 to 5 million bucks.

I mean frankly isn't a 3 million dollar increase equivalent to about $500 million in increased revenue?

I'm watching quite a few games and seeing a lot of empty seats in a lot of rinks including Vancouver and Ottawa, so I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Seeing that Florida crowd was something else last night.

[CaptainCrunch]

Seeing that Vancouver crowd was worse. Against the Jets, the Canucks had a attendance of 15,800.



The game against the Flyers showed a lot of empty lower bowl seats like this picture as well.

[Ashasx]

It doesn't even make sense. The Canucks actually have young exciting players now, are fighting for a playoff spot, and the fans don't show up?

[slybomb]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not a cap guy, but I don't get how the cap is going up like it is. I mean fine Vegas is there, but that's just adding a larger pool of money to a larger pool, it shouldn't be bumping everyone's cap from 3 to 5 million bucks.

I mean frankly isn't a 3 million dollar increase equivalent to about $500 million in increased revenue?

I'm watching quite a few games and seeing a lot of empty seats in a lot of rinks including Vancouver and Ottawa, so I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Did the entry fee that Vegas paid go to HRR?
If so, then it might be possible that the cap retracts back after next season...I don't know how that works but it was a significant fee.