06-16-2017, 02:06 PM
|
#21
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
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!
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2017, 02:19 PM
|
#22
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
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
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2017, 02:28 PM
|
#23
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44
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.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
06-16-2017, 02:32 PM
|
#24
|
Franchise Player
|
So if they vote against it what happens?
It stays at $73 million?
|
|
|
06-16-2017, 03:09 PM
|
#25
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Flames fan in Seattle
|
Moral of the story: getbak is never wrong.
__________________
|
|
|
06-16-2017, 03:27 PM
|
#26
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-16-2017, 07:19 PM
|
#27
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
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?
|
|
|
06-16-2017, 09:47 PM
|
#28
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by simonsays
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.
|
|
|
06-16-2017, 10:55 PM
|
#29
|
First Line Centre
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarkGio For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-18-2017, 10:56 AM
|
#30
|
Franchise Player
|
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).
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 11:31 AM
|
#31
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
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.
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 11:39 AM
|
#32
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
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.
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 11:42 AM
|
#33
|
Franchise Player
|
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.
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 11:55 AM
|
#34
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
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.
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 12:12 PM
|
#35
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
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.
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 12:32 PM
|
#36
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
So, the cap is 75 million?
Here's how I see next season shaping up:
https://capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/361261
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-18-2017, 02:06 PM
|
#37
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
|
No Janko?
|
|
|
06-18-2017, 02:07 PM
|
#38
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paradise Island, Bahamas
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
|
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.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:36 PM.
|
|