I have asked, and there has been a post on the NHL/CBA board about it but we have to figure out some stuff in regards to the Cap and contracts.
1. With the long term NHL deals, locking up players for 10 years etc....how exactly are we going to work with that?
2. What about increasing or decreasing dollar amounts? In the NHL, I can offer a guy 5,4,3,2,1 million for five years...so that in year 3, my player's cap it is only $2 million.
3. Are we going to decrease the cap as the NHL probably is? If that is the case, will the league discuss possible new buyout rules so teams don't go bankrupt?
1. We will stick with the longheld sim hockey approach that 5 year deals are the max.
2. No decreasing levels, as the input and tracking of everything makes it a problem. and in the example you gave, the cap hit does NOT change throughout in the NHL, if he signed that deal it would be a 3 million cap hit throughout.
3. If the NHL decreases, we will as well in the corresponding season. Because we run 1 year behind, there should be ample time to plan ahead, and no buyout change is planned. Between teams losing players to UFA, the ability to expose a player to waivers etc, and the ability to trade, there should be no need to alter the buyout rules. The real test will be in UFA this upcoming season, seeing how many GMs lose their minds with the drop iun cap presumably around the corner.
BryceBruins wrote: The real test will be in UFA this upcoming season, seeing how many GMs lose their minds with the drop iun cap presumably around the corner.
Anaheim is well prepared to cheaply take on the contracts of some star players...
__________________
2007-08 - missed playoffs (29th overall) 2008-09 - missed playoffs (26th overall) 2009-10 - 7th place in Western Conference (99 pts), Conference Semi-Finals 2010-11 - missed playoffs (19th overall) 2011-12
Gotta stick with my guns. I'm pretty sure I am right on this one. nhlscap.com does a good job of tracking the cap hits, and the cap hit does not change over the duration of a contract, regardless of whether it is a 5-3-1 deal. The cap hit is 3 million per seaon through the duration of the deal.
I have to agree with Bryce the contract is averaged out over the term, the only reason clubs make the later years cheaper is so it is easier to buy out the contracts!
__________________
Season 5 BRHL 1 Champion Season 1 BRHL Euro Champion Season 1 BRHL Juniors Champion
You are wrong Bryce. In the NHL, the cap hit is determined by the years remaining on the contract.
If a guy signs a contract of 3 years of $5 million, $3 million, $1 million. After the first year is over, the cap hit is $2 million.
Are you sure about this? I may be wrong (and I think Bryce is right about this) but the cap hit stays the same throughout the term of the contract. So, in the example you gave, the cap hit would be $3 million each year. Again, you may know more about this than I do but that was my understanding anyways.
If i understand what you are talking about cap hit is determined by the players average salary, which is the reason in the nhl detroit added 2 more years to Zetts deal at 1 million each to lower the cap hit over the entire deal, the loop hole theat detroit also found in the system is that they can front load the contract so zetts gets his money and when he chooses to retire his cap hit is removed from the books freeing up cap room, this works better than a buyout because for the remaining length of the deal a majority of the average salary still counts on the cap, plus a smaller % for double the remaining length (ie 3 years left will get near average salary cap hit for 3 years then 3 more years after deal was to end a % of what was left on the contract)
with this loop hole it was said the COL shoudl of signed sakic to a 44yr deal worth 8 and 6 in years one and 2 then dragged out over the other 42 years to give them a cap hit of 1.5M, this loop hole will for sure be closed in the next CBA and there is talk of it going to what the player makes in that year as apposed to average salary
we have had lots of nhl cap discussions at work, i have read into the cba quite a bit.
Just wanted to bring up another question. I know George pushed for Entry Level contacts to be more than 850K against the cap in echoing the NHL; I think this is a fair tradeoff if we are committing to conform to the NHL as much as possible. My question stems from the ability for NON-SIGNED prospects to play a maximum of somewhere between 8-10 NHL teams without having to choose to sign them or not.
For example. Mikael Backlund has played 1 NHL game this season but not yet signed a pro contract. Under our system for playing this 1 NHL game he will get a rating and one full year of his cheap contract will be eaten up. In the NHL, Backlund may not even start his entry level contract NEXT year. This means potentially by the time Backlund reaches the NHL to actually play a full season, he could have only 1 decent rating year. Because the nature of rookie ratings being so low, this system is hardly fair for teams rebuilding.
That's just my take, I know Alex (caps) agrees with me but what are your thoughts.
__________________
"With Sid on your team, anything is possible" - Mario lemieux
If i understand what you are talking about cap hit is determined by the players average salary, which is the reason in the nhl detroit added 2 more years to Zetts deal at 1 million each to lower the cap hit over the entire deal, the loop hole theat detroit also found in the system is that they can front load the contract so zetts gets his money and when he chooses to retire his cap hit is removed from the books freeing up cap room, this works better than a buyout because for the remaining length of the deal a majority of the average salary still counts on the cap, plus a smaller % for double the remaining length (ie 3 years left will get near average salary cap hit for 3 years then 3 more years after deal was to end a % of what was left on the contract)
with this loop hole it was said the COL shoudl of signed sakic to a 44yr deal worth 8 and 6 in years one and 2 then dragged out over the other 42 years to give them a cap hit of 1.5M, this loop hole will for sure be closed in the next CBA and there is talk of it going to what the player makes in that year as apposed to average salary
we have had lots of nhl cap discussions at work, i have read into the cba quite a bit.
cool info...
thanks
__________________
Get ahold of me soon, or my players will already be dealt!
Just wanted to bring up another question. I know George pushed for Entry Level contacts to be more than 850K against the cap in echoing the NHL; I think this is a fair tradeoff if we are committing to conform to the NHL as much as possible. My question stems from the ability for NON-SIGNED prospects to play a maximum of somewhere between 8-10 NHL teams without having to choose to sign them or not.
For example. Mikael Backlund has played 1 NHL game this season but not yet signed a pro contract. Under our system for playing this 1 NHL game he will get a rating and one full year of his cheap contract will be eaten up. In the NHL, Backlund may not even start his entry level contract NEXT year. This means potentially by the time Backlund reaches the NHL to actually play a full season, he could have only 1 decent rating year. Because the nature of rookie ratings being so low, this system is hardly fair for teams rebuilding.
That's just my take, I know Alex (caps) agrees with me but what are your thoughts.
I agree with Luke totally that a player should have to play XX amount of games like 11 or be requested by the gm to be created. The only guy wasting a year on his ELC would be Sbisa from last years draft and guys like Pietrangelo aren't handicapped for playing in 6 NHL games.
