CBA Related "Tagging Room and Cap Space" or "How $8.6M is really $4.25M"

[radoran]

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU SEE ANYTHING AMISS!!

There has been talk about how "tagging room" works, so I thought I'd explain *how I understand it* after talking with Noodl/aziz and Gazoo and us all working through the CBA. These numbers are *slightly* updated from some earlier posts.

Basic idea of tagging room is that when you "tag" an RFA to retain their rights or sign one of your own UFAs before they become a UFA you are committing part of your cap space to them in order to keep their rights

To keep their RFA rights, the Flyers have "tagged" their RFAs with a minimum amount (based on previous salary) which currently counts against the CURRENT cap and will also count against the NEW cap during the off-season

According to capgeek.com, Flyers have about $5.2M (EDIT) in RFAs (Voracek, Z, Sestito, Bourdon, Testwuide, Holmstrom, Rowe) and, as far as I have read, they have qualified them all (EDIT - Not Testwuide and Rowe) to retain rights. Please correct as needed. This number is *slightly* low as I have not calculated required incremental raises for players other than Voracek.

You can sign your current UFAs (or pending UFAs you trade for) to an extension before the UFA period starts and before the new cap level IF you have enough room to sign them under the CURRENT cap OR your have enough expiring contracts to fill the difference

The 11-12 cap was $64.3M. Flyers ended the season with zero room under the cap.

According to gapgeek, they have $11.2M in "expring contracts."

That gives the Flyers, rightnow (6/30) roughly $6M in cap space ($11.2M - $5.2M) to sign a potential UFA (Carle, Doan, etc.) before July 1. Probably closer to $4M. Gives you an idea why they haven't pulled the trigger on Carle? (EDIT - maybe not??)

On July 1, the cap goes UP to $70.3M.

According to capgeek the Flyers have $11.38M in cap space against the new cap. This *includes* Pronger and has no number for Voracek included.

PLUS the $7M 10% off-season exemption - $18.4M cap space. This INCLUDES Pronger - as there is no off-season LTIR.

BUT they have to include all one-way contracts at full-price which means Matt Walker's $1.7M - $16.7M cap space.

AND all RFA tags (about $5.2M* with Voracek at $2.25M) - $11.5M cap space*

AND all two-way contracts on their NHL salary pro-rated based upon number of games played in the NHL last season. About $1.5M (Gus/Marshall/Manning/Wellwood/Rinaldo) - $10M cap space*.

Say Matt Carle gets $5M. $5M in cap space.

Boost Voracek to $3M for a one-year, avoid arbitration and feelgood contract - $4.25M in off-season cap space. EDIT: And I haven't even signed a backup goalie yet.

Flyers have $2.7M tied up in potential bonuses which is likely to be freed up once the new CBA is resolved - which is unlikely to be done before the July 1 UFA period begins and thus cannot be used to sign a top FA right out of the gate.

I would personally free up another $2.8M by waiving Shelley and Walker.

REGULAR SEASON

$70.3M in-season cap

Forwards - 9 ($26.3M): Briere, Giroux, Couturier, Talbot, Hartnell, Schenn, Simmonds, Read, "Voracek" ($3M)

Defense - 7 ($27.7M): Timonen, Coburn, Meszaros, Grossmann, Lilja, Schenn, "Carle" ($5M)

Goalie - 2 ($6.6M): Bryzgalov, "Veteran Backup" ($900K)

LTIR - $4.9M (Pronger)

$9.7M "available space" for three forwards including Pronger's LTIR. Note I have also conveniently waived Shelley (WAIVE SHELLEY NOW^TM) so it's "really" $8.6M and *could add* up to $2.7M if the bonus question is resolved.

BUT they don't HAVE $11.3M or even "$8.6M" to spend against the cap during the offseason. They have $4.25M rightnow* (assuming Carle and Voracek are signed)...

This is where having a $1.7M NHL defenseman stuck in the AHL and a $4.9M cap hit hurts which, along with the CBA/Bonus question makes this a bit of a "perfect storm" cap-wise for the Flyers. The offseason exemption ($7M) is (IMO) meant to allow you to keep your RFAs (as the Flyers' RFAs are coincidentally *exactly* $7M) and have room to maneuver. Eat up $6.6M in useless contracts and you have yourself a cap problem.

And may mean a deal of some sort is "necessary".

* (in previous numbers it appears I counted Harry Z as a current contract and previous FA, this is about a $300K plus)

Edited June 30, 2012 by radoran
Flyers declined to tender Teswuide and Rowe

[aziz]

To keep their RFA rights, the Flyers have "tagged" their RFAs with a minimum amount (based on previous salary) which currently counts against the CURRENT cap and will also count against the NEW cap during the off-season

this is the one part i'm not sure of. my understanding is that "tagging room" is the total value of expiring contracts a team has. that tagging room can be used when signing players to multi-year SPC's after jan 1 of a given season (including resigning RFAs). you only have $4mil in cap space but want to give a guy a 2 year $12mil contact extenion, you can do it, so long as you have at least $2mil in expiring contracts, i.e., "tagging space". the extra $2mil that your current cap number can't cover gets "tagged", and your available tagging space is decreased by that amount. all of this means that if you start using tagging space, you by definition can not resign all your people, because you have effectively dedicated the loss of their cap hit to a different signing. the only way that changes is to drop your real cap number by the amount tagged ($2mil, in this case) via trade, at which point the tagging space is essentially refunded.

i think we are saying the same thing there, overall.

the part i'm not sure about is it having any application after july 1. given that the use of tagging space refers specifically to multi-year deals signed after jan 1 of a given season, and specifically references contracts expiring on july 1...and after july 1 we are contract-wise into the next season...jan 1 is 6 months away and tagging space no longer applies. of course, all the expiring contracts whose cap hits you used as tagging space are now UFA, so damage is already done.

and you're right, i believe this is why they are waiting on carle. his expiring cap hit is being used as tagging space for the current batch of qualifiers/extensions.

honestly, i have no idea if we just said the same thing. this stuff is intentionally confusing.

[DaGreatGazoo]

honestly, i have no idea if we just said the same thing

That is freaking hilarious!

One other point to consider, is that Bourdon is now waiver exempt(is it exempt or eligible??) SO...what to do with him..if he starts in the A..he's there all year, more than likely. Someone would claim him if they call him up. If he starts with the Flyers, they need to add his $$ into the cap, and assume for all year...again, because I don't see him clearing going down to the A, or clearing re-entry coming up thru, without someone claiming him.

[radoran]

That is freaking hilarious!

One other point to consider, is that Bourdon is now waiver exempt(is it exempt or eligible??) SO...what to do with him..if he starts in the A..he's there all year, more than likely. Someone would claim him if they call him up. If he starts with the Flyers, they need to add his $$ into the cap, and assume for all year...again, because I don't see him clearing going down to the A, or clearing re-entry coming up thru, without someone claiming him.

Well, they will have room for MAB in the regular season... I think the question is whether or not they will run with 8 defensemen for the season since they're basically stuck with Lilja on the cap whether he's in the A or not...

@ - yes, "tagging room" is before the new cap comes into effect. But, after the new cap, you still need to apply qualifiers extended to RFAs against the cap until they sign. This is what you are "paying" to keep the rights to those players.

[Hexy27]

So you basically need to study law before you can even begin to misunderstand the CBA? I wish they could go to a much simpler model. It doesn't seem like the NFL's system is this convoluted.

[radoran]

So you basically need to study law before you can even begin to misunderstand the CBA? I wish they could go to a much simpler model. It doesn't seem like the NFL's system is this convoluted.

Well, all the NFL teams have a "capologist" and there are wacky things in the NFLs cap, but the main difference is that the NHL's is a much "harder" cap in terms of the "upper limit." There is no allowance to go over the cap.

The off-season stuff starts to make sense once you think about it too much, which scares me...

IMO, the thing was deliberately designed to be confusing and allow creative agents and GMs to game the system. But, as with Pronger, there are points at which the system bites back.

[Hexy27]

I'd like to see some things eradicated like the over 35 rule. I don't believe any other sport treats contracts so differently. I know the intent is to try and keep teams with deeper pockets from signing someone to a 10 year deal only to have the player retire and salary come off the cap but why is that a bad thing? That kind of deal usually goes to talented players who wouldn't want to sign with one of the smaller franchises anyways. Why penalize the more successful organizations? The NFL doesn't do this and there is a high level of competition there. Also players are playing longer now that the game has removed almost all clutching and grabbing. It may become a bigger issue over time.

I'd also like to see the waiver system revamped. Currently it is far too complicated for what it is there to provide.

[radoran]

The NFL has a full-on revenue shairng agreement amongst all the franchises.

The NHL doesn't.

You can't compare apples to pomegranites.

[aziz]

But, after the new cap, you still need to apply qualifiers extended to RFAs against the cap until they sign. This is what you are "paying" to keep the rights to those players.

good point. does that extend beyond a rejection of the qualifying offer? can a guy even reject an qualifying offer, or does he just not accept it, so it sits out there floating?

[doom88]

All an RFA can do iirc is not sign and go to arbitration.

[jammer2]

@Hexy27 Just a fans perspective, but I believe the call-ups you can have for a player need to be quadrupled at least. How many vet's get stuck down there when their parent teams need them...or a young player denied NHL apperances because of this or that rule. They need to tone that stuff down and make it easier on GM's to fill in their roster as they see fit.

[aziz]

I'd like to see some things eradicated like the over 35 rule. I don't believe any other sport treats contracts so differently. I know the intent is to try and keep teams with deeper pockets from signing someone to a 10 year deal only to have the player retire and salary come off the cap but why is that a bad thing?

there are a few things that worked differently than intended, and i think they will be dealt with. my understanding with the 35+ rule was to keep the oldtimers in the league and not put out to pasture in the A prematurely. the NHLPA thought it was helping its people, but it ended up making everyone afraid to give those guys more than a 1 year deal. re-entry waivers is another, it was supposed to keep NHL teams from sending established guys to the AHL in the first place, instead it just made the AHL a permanent banishment.

i expect both of those will either be revamped or removed completely in the next CBA. as i recall, there was no comparable in the previous CBA, they were created for the current agreement...given that i think they failed to do what they were supposed to, they will probably not be in the next. imo.

[radoran]

@Hexy27 Just a fans perspective, but I believe the call-ups you can have for a player need to be quadrupled at least. How many vet's get stuck down there when their parent teams need them...or a young player denied NHL apperances because of this or that rule. They need to tone that stuff down and make it easier on GM's to fill in their roster as they see fit.

It's from the *player's* perspective and not wanting to be Matt Walker, despite the $1.7M.

You could wind up with teams stockpiling players in their A and denying them the chance at the NHL.

Not saying it's "right" but that's one of the perspectives on it.

[jammer2]

@radoran Can see the point you're making, it's valid. Always was a company guy, LOL!

[Jam1986]

So no cap room right? Wavie Shelley and Walker asap!!!!!!! Also need another faceoff guy and offensive one Whitney. Leader Ott better than Zac. Back up Montoyoa? Also just good depth on blueline Colaiacovo,Sauer,Rome,Carkner,Eaton or Sourray one or 2 of them will help depth! I know toughness too Ott or Konopka! Alot but a few would help and hope kids keep going up to be stars

Edited June 29, 2012 by Jam1986

[Hexy27]

The NFL has a full-on revenue shairng agreement amongst all the franchises.

The NHL doesn't.

You can't compare apples to pomegranites.

I realize they are very different (in more ways than just revenue sharing). Of the two CBAs which do you prefer? Personally I think the NFL's CBA makes more sense and I don't see why something like that can't work for the NHL.

@

I agree that those policies were put in place to help older players out. It obviously hasn't worked. The thing is when you have a policy that treats a contract differently (based on any factor) from other players it is a double edged sword. I think they are better off just getting rid of the 35+ rule as it serves no purpose other than it makes things more difficult for both the player and organization.

I don't know what to do about re-entry waivers. I agree that they are a barrier and keep NHL level players trapped in the AHL. Maybe get rid of waivers all together? That may lead to trouble when a team is trying to shed salary. I don't know what would be the best policy in this regard.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Hexy27

[aziz]

@Hexy27

nah, waivers themselves have been around forever, i'm good with them. you risk something when you send NHL capable players down, and it keeps a slow but steady churning of lesser user players through different organizations. hopefully to organizations that will use them more. keep waivers. just don't think the re-entry portion serves any purpose. they dropped the waiver draft, they can drop re-entry waivers.

[radoran]

It seems to me you two are looking at it solely from the perspective of the team, not necessarily from the players who might not feel they should be shuttled willy nilly back and forth from the A when they are capable of playing regularly in the NHL..

And also small market teams who might not appreciate big teams signing guys to 23-year contracts at 36 for a league minimum cap hit that will pay them $14M in each of the next two seasons before they retire... (I would support a maximum length of contract)

The CBA is NOT there to help teams win championships. You have to do that within the terms of the CBA. Seven teams have done it. three for the first time and two more for the first time in a Long Long Time.

Just because the Flyers have consistently made a mess of it doesn't mean it's the CBA's fault.

[doom88]

What about allowing retirement, and the full cap hit seats for half the remaining years not counting the league year they retire. The year a player retires could be a special case where if on LTIR, the hit stays on LTIR, else it counts. If retiring due to injury, and approved by independent docs, no cap hit / contract count / LTIR penalty.

[aziz]

@doom88

why would the players do that? pronger has a contract paying him millions of dollars for a long time to come. why would they allow that to end? he retires, the contract is now null and void and he loses a lot of cash.

[doom88]

@doom88

why would the players do that? pronger has a contract paying him millions of dollars for a long time to come. why would they allow that to end? he retires, the contract is now null and void and he loses a lot of cash.

I assumed contracts would remain guaranteed for the player's sake. They would be paid out as scheduled. If the NHL tried to get rid of guaranteed contracts, there would never be an NHL again. Total negotiation non-starter.

[jammer2]

@doom88 I dunno Doomster. I'm sure the NFLPA never ever thought they would be giving up guaranteed salaries. The thing is, the owners own the arenas....there is no starting up a secondary league....the players are dependant on the owners for their rather extravagant lives. Now, I'm sure it would do much more damage than good for the owners, the anamonisity built up with starving out the players long term would infuriate the average fan....and cause more damage than good for the owners.

[radoran]

@doom88 I dunno Doomster. I'm sure the NFLPA never ever thought they would be giving up guaranteed salaries. The thing is, the owners own the arenas....there is no starting up a secondary league....the players are dependant on the owners for their rather extravagant lives. Now, I'm sure it would do much more damage than good for the owners, the anamonisity built up with starving out the players long term would infuriate the average fan....and cause more damage than good for the owners.

The WHA *almost* came back with the last lockout.

Suppose - and I'm just spitballing here - the KHL opens a "North American Conference" or Division in Quebec, Hamilton and a half dozen cities in which ownership doesn't own the arena (not looking it up at the moment).

If there's a lengthy lockout, I could see Canadian and American divisions in a NA Conference or something.

The world's getting much smaller.

[jammer2]

@radoran How much would this new league pay? How much could they charge fans? Would the championship carry any real weight? I can see wanting to stay in shape, but how much insurance would these guys have to pay to take part in such a league? Would the tremendous insurance levy be worth it? What if a said player sustains a career ending injury...or is injured when the real NHL starts up....does it negate their contract with the NHL team....I would think so. So many varibles here....endless really. But I do get your point, there is a viable NHL market just sitting there in Hamilton....and the Copps Colliseum seating 17,000 just sitting there....it is tough to imagine, but feaseable arena wise.

[Spinorama]

@Hexy27

nah, waivers themselves have been around forever, i'm good with them. you risk something when you send NHL capable players down, and it keeps a slow but steady churning of lesser user players through different organizations. hopefully to organizations that will use them more. keep waivers. just don't think the re-entry portion serves any purpose. they dropped the waiver draft, they can drop re-entry waivers.

I agree. I like the waiver rule. It absolutely works as intended. And I also agree that the re-entry should be lifted. having to risk losing a player on the way down is enough. In a sense, the re-entry rule works against it. If a player clears waivers on the way to the A, they might get stuck there out of a team's fear of losing the player on re-entry.