Next years salary cap expected to exceed 70 mil

[Jmdodgesrt4]

Well. No need to worry about resigning schenn and coots. Even if its only raised to 70 mil that gives them about 16 mil to resign both of them. Maybe five mil for that. 11 mil for dman and goalies.

[OccamsRazor]

Well. No need to worry about resigning schenn and coots. Even if its only raised to 70 mil that gives them about 16 mil to resign both of them. Maybe five mil for that. 11 mil for dman and goalies.

Well Schenn shouldn't cost no more than what he is really making now (especially if he stays on the wing).

They will both will get nice bridge contracts like Giroux did i believe.

[Howie58]

JM:

Thanks for passing this along. I gather the owners got the one year downdraft under the CBA to shock the system and add to profit margins.

I hope the salary cap increases. This franchise can find the wherewithal to spend.

Howie

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Well. No need to worry about resigning schenn and coots. Even if its only raised to 70 mil that gives them about 16 mil to resign both of them. Maybe five mil for that. 11 mil for dman and goalies.

Link? Where are you getting this from?

[Jmdodgesrt4]

Just google it. I'm on my iPhone and can't copy and paste. Gm of Boston had said it in the June 28th addition of snyranger. I have read also many other articles placing the cap 10 mil from where its at now with 6 outdoor games this season.

[Jmdodgesrt4]

Some reports are coming out suggesting 75 for next season could be possible with a projected 3.4 billion in revenues.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

Just google it. I'm on my iPhone and can't copy and paste. Gm of Boston had said it in the June 28th addition of snyranger. I have read also many other articles placing the cap 10 mil from where its at now with 6 outdoor games this season.

Alright, I'll play. I googled it and didn't find anything that said the cap would exceed $70m next year. I only found one article that had projected cap figures but even that one doesn't project $70m until 2017 (that article was written before last season).

Please post a link when you get to a computer.

EDIT: I found the SNYRangers article you are talking about. That projection is for AFTER next season...2014-15. Next season's cap will be set based on the last season's revenue of $2.4 billion.

Edited July 15, 2013 by AlaskaFlyerFan

[Vincent05]

Ok so let's predict which old guy Homer will give a 5 year contract with NMC to with the available cap space.

[radoran]

I'm glad we lost half a season of hockey to allow owners to buy themselves out from ridiculously stupid contracts they offered and signed put the league back on solid financial footing and allow it to operate in a profitable manner which was clearly not possible with a salary cap above $70M.

[murraycraven]

I tried looking it up but really cant find anything citing that it will increase or exceed the 70M mark... or is this your "friend that knows Homer and he heard" type thing? Joking...

[radoran]

I tried looking it up but really cant find anything citing that it will increase or exceed the 70M mark... or is this your "friend that knows Homer and he heard" type thing? Joking...

A lot of it is speculation - as the entire cap is:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/how-the-nhls-salary-cap-could-hit-90-million/article7029575/

If the League specualtes they will hit $3.9B in revenue in 2014-15, the cap could easily hit the $70M range.

This article was from January, and all the revenue targets for the shortened season - that I've seen - far surpassed estimates.

[murraycraven]

So rad... what your saying s that it is plausible the Flyers could trade for Ryan and Weber next year?

It would be a nice situation for the cap to hit the 70M mark and it would certainly make Homer's job a bit easier. Was this year's cap a one time anomaly in terms of seeing the cap drop so low?

[radoran]

It would be a nice situation for the cap to hit the 70M mark and it would certainly make Homer's job a bit easier. Was this year's cap a one time anomaly in terms of seeing the cap drop so low?

Yes, it was deliberately set so low so owners would be forced to spend huge sums of money to have players not play for them anymore as a show of fiscal responsibility in an effort to make the game's finances more rational.

For a year.

[murraycraven]

thanks for the clarification Rad!!

[jammer2]

@radoran You know Gary would put some kind of outrageous spin this whole mess. He would justify his actions somehow...the public relations master...that everyone can read like an open book....brilliant!

Edited July 15, 2013 by jammer2

[doom88]

@radoran You know Gary would put some kind of outrageous spin this whole mess. He would justify his actions somehow...the public relations master...that everyone can read like an open book....brilliant!

"You know what guys, we have the best fans in all of sports. When we worked with the players to make our game more financially sustainable and a better overall product, you stood by us and showed the world just how passionate you really are. Our league is now stronger than ever thanks to the dedication of our league staff, the players, and of course the most loyal fans there are. Thank you!"

Something like that I bet. Ugh. I made that up, but I could see that at a press conference word for word. Dick.

[King Knut]

The game's finance woes almost completely hinge on stupid mistakes made by Gary Bettman over 20 years ago when the league started expanding and moving existing teams into markets that were too small and had no built in hockey fan base.

All of this, all of the turmoil, the salary caps, the lock outs, the ridiculous contracts, it's all a highly engineered effort to pretend like the expansion of the 90's wasn't completely moronically handled.

Essentially the emperor has no clothes and both sides just keep arguing about the fabric of the clothes he ain't wearing.

an effort to make the game's finances more rational.

[aziz]

The game's finance woes almost completely hinge on stupid mistakes made by Gary Bettman over 20 years ago when the league started expanding and moving existing teams into markets that were too small and had no built in hockey fan base.

that, though, supposes there are, in fact, financial woes. there are those who say even that is a lie.

[King Knut]

Indeed, I suppose I should have put the word "woes" in "quotes".

that, though, supposes there are, in fact, financial woes.

[ruxpin]

I can't find anything on google, but the exceeding the $70M thing has kind of been the common thought on all kinds of blogs, articles, etc. I don't know where THEY got their information, but it's been said so much I simply assumed it would be the case.

[radoran]

that, though, supposes there are, in fact, financial woes. there are those who say even that is a lie.

I don't think anyone can deny the obvious: the Coyotes are in receivership, the Devils are missing payments, many teams (including the Flyers) claim they can't "make a profit" unless the make the (second round) of the playoffs.

I also believe that any professional sports franchise - especially the NHL - that is expecting to "make money" on "hockey related operations" and be a competitive, winning franchise is simply fooling themselves.

Comcast isn't losing any sleep over the $1.4M for 14 years to Bryz. Comcast isn't going to be in trouble if the Flyers "lose money." Likewise, Terry Pegula can throw away $4.5M a year on Ville Leino, the Bolts can pay Vinny $32 million not to play there, the Preds can come up with $26M (plus salary) for one player in one calendar year, the Wild - the very definition of a "small market" team with an owner who was a real hawk about the lockout - can put up two cap-evading, $100 million contracts in one offseason.

King Knut's point about the league overexpanding into places they "shouldn't" be (or overexpanding, say, the New York Metro market) and then claiming "hardship" as a result is very valid.

The NHL put a team in Phoenix. Many people said "you're nuts, no one's watching hockey in the desert." The league took a team from WINNIPEG and put it in the desert, watched it fall apart in financial disarray and then said "we need to lose another half a season of hockey in order to make the finances of the league work."

And two years later will be in exactly the place they found so "unsustainable" in the first place.

There are financial problems that exist in the league. And the league has been foremost in creating and fostering them.

[ruxpin]

@radoran

I agree with just about every word.

What is incomprehensible to me is why the league finds this so difficult to understand.

[aziz]

The NHL put a team in Phoenix. Many people said "you're nuts, no one's watching hockey in the desert." The league took a team from WINNIPEG and put it in the desert, watched it fall apart in financial disarray and then said "we need to lose another half a season of hockey in order to make the finances of the league work."

and in doing so, added 46 NHL jobs paying an average of just over $2.5mil/yr, and provided the backing for AHL teams and their accompanying player jobs. up to 100 NHL-affiliated contracts in total.

whatever the reason, i do believe that teams are/were in trouble. the expansion from 21 to 30 teams was weak, and almost all of them are teetering on the edge, along with several more established teams. if the league wanted to save them, something had to change. what blew my mind was the players getting indignant over the thing. i mean, hey, if the players would rather allow those 9 teams to fold, great, that's 207 NHL jobs that will go away, too. there goes your nose in a greedy effort to spite your face.

the NHL GMs are financial idiots, no question. always lured by the idea of short term success leading to long term higher income, so insane expenditures right now are justified by an illusion of eventual solvency. a la minnesota. still, the end result were a bunch of teams in trouble, and imo it was in everyone's best interest to figure a way to fix them. Owners' incomes and players' jobs were at stake, not just the former.

the flyers don't care, comcast has their back. boston doesn't care. NYR. detroit, montreal, none of them care. motivation from their GMs was nothing more than greed. florida, tampa, phoenix, columbus, NYI, NJ, then-atlanta, they did care. their existence itself was/is in jeopardy. and, sure, screw the owners, let'em fold, but there are those 23 NHL salaries per team -plus up to 27 non-NHL salaries- on the block, too. that's where i stopped understanding the players' position. crosby was always going to have a job, but there are a lot of 9-10 forwards out there who stood a very realistic chance of not. if 16 NHL teams were really in bad positions, that's more than half of the voting members of the union who were putting the own jobs at risk.

[King Knut]

When Gretzky moved to LA, the league thought it revolutionized hockey. The guy was hosting SNL for god's sake. They sold 8 million black Kings jerseys.

They thought they couldn't be stopped. The introduction of Iron Curtain players was also to have expanded the player pool, so why not expand the league to dilute the new extra talent and capitalize on the new interest nation wide? So the league sold franchises to a bunch of new investors who thought they'd just roll in and make cash hand over fist without really knowing much about hockey.

The problem is that the new interest was a fad. It flashed out in a few years and we were stuck with owners who didn't give a rat's ass about the game and whose fans barely cared either trying to stay competitive against teams with tons of dedicated fans and owners.

The Iron Curtain player pool didn't quite even out in the North American game either. It's a classic case of an economic bubble, but through profit sharing and the salary cap the league (Bettman) has ensured that there was never a correction to that bubble.

It started as early as the '95 lockout. Just a few years into the experiment in expansion and the league was already screwing with the players and the fans.

Who did that benefit? Loyal hockey fans in loyal hockey cities don't benefit from this crap, we only get hurt. Ticket prices never go down. The game just got worse for a decade and a half (I do feel it's getting better in recent years). and now every three or four years we get half a season or miss it entirely.

The league and the owners who bought franchises or moved them to stupid places that couldn't support them just need to admit it and get the hell out of the game.

The Devils as a franchise have played in a few cities, now despite 3 cups, they're still a 3rd team in a metro market that can barely support 2 teams . Atlanta has had and lost a few franchises now.

I feel bad for the loyal fans that there may be in Miami and Phoenix, but it's just not enough to merit screwing up the rest of the league this way.

Of course the terrible thing is that the league intervened to save the Penguins and through 5 top draft picks in a row and various other collusion and questionable actions over the years, the Penguins are at last seeming sustainable which I'm sure just fuels Bettman's hubris to think that he can manipulate circumstances enough to save every pitifully failing franchise.

For the penguins, it was a lucky timing of manipulated success with the team combined with a social and economic resurgence of the city itself that helped enable the penguins to become more economically viable long term.

Not sure that can happen in every smaller market city at once.

And the league has been foremost in creating and fostering them.

[radoran]

whatever the reason, i do believe that teams are/were in trouble. the expansion from 21 to 30 teams was weak, and almost all of them are teetering on the edge, along with several more established teams. if the league wanted to save them, something had to change.

I pointed out a couple teams in serious financial distress.

We went and lost half a season of hockey (again).

What, however, has "changed?"

The only thing that seems to have happened is that owners were given a chance to buy themselves out of the ridiculously stupid contracts they offered; they were somewhat constrained in how ridiculously stupid the contracts they offer could be; and the league will pretty much be back to exactly the same position it was the year before the lockout within two years of the lockout.

I really don't see the "change" that has made the Phoenixes of the league into viable hockey markets or that indicates that there are two MORE North American markets just BEGGING for NHL product.

Unless there is an owner/ship group that - like the successful teams in the league - is willing to subsidize the "hockey realted operations" those teams have no chance to be long term competitive with those who do.