Probie 7 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 Hey I saw this on the hfboards here:CBC Hot Stove: Cap to go up to 69 mill or 72mill I never saw that cbc broadcast to verify that is what was said, but if thats true, I guess guys like parise and suter are going to get even more money then we all thought. Every team is going to have a chunk more space. Our team will have more then enough cap space...... cue the suter, parise and semin to detroit rumours... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Helps and hurts. Detroit is a prime free agent destination, and will now be able to spend more liberally, but so will a lot of the other Cup-contending teams that were otherwise feeling a cap crunch. For instance Parise might prefer to not move far, now that the Rangers can now throw big money at him. The new CBA very well could reduce the percentage of revenue the cap is, so a rollback is possible, like after the lockout. Edited March 11, 2012 by egroen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nevermind 363 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Nevermind I was going to post pictures of Suter, Parise and Lidstrom next to one another. Couldn't get it to work though. Hopefully Ken Holland doesn't give up so easily and can get it to work though... Edited March 11, 2012 by Nevermind Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dat's sick 1,002 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 I'm going to be so disappointed if we can't get our hands on atleast one of Parise and Suter. Nashville and NJ won't be happy to give them up, and a lot of other teams will be after them. But Detroit is a good place to go, and let's say Lidstrom stays another year.. you tell Suter he'll play with Lids, and Parise he'll play with Datsyuk. How many teams can offer something like that, as well as a lucrative contract? This will be one interesting off-season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 The cap really is going to be up in the air. The new CBA could reduce, grow, or make the cap irrelevant with a luxury tax system. Lets see how this summer plays out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jollymania 162 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 please dont' use the words semin to detroit again. 8 Get Rid of Mickey, DatsyukianDangles122, T-Ruff and 5 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) I just shake my head thinking about how the NHL lost an entire season to keep salaries in check. Now the Cap is going from 39 mil to 72 mil in a span of 7 years. Edited March 11, 2012 by Hatethedrake! 3 dobbles, Wings_Toledo and hooon reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Toledo 233 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 I just shake my head thinking about how the NHL lost an entire season to keep salaries in check. Now the Cap is going from 39 mil to 72 mil in a span of 7 years. Exactly. It's obvious that the hard cap is not working. Sure, there is more parity among the league, but these inflated contracts are getting out of hand. A soft cap with a luxury tax is by far the best alternative to just completely removing the cap altogether (of which I am in favor). 2 Barrie and Rick D reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 Exactly. It's obvious that the hard cap is not working. Sure, there is more parity among the league Um, that is the point of a salary cap system. 1 weGotTheCup89 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragonballgtz 273 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockeynightincanada/hotstove/video/#id=2208727715&tab=1 That is the link above. Hot Stove and Coast-to-Coast are pretty good segments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WorkingOvertime 536 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 The cap really is going to be up in the air. The new CBA could reduce, grow, or make the cap irrelevant with a luxury tax system. Lets see how this summer plays out. I wouldn't be surprised to see the players share of revenue decrease by a small amount. I don't believe the cap will go down significantly (if at all), but the owners may want an an extra percent or two of revenues. I just shake my head thinking about how the NHL lost an entire season to keep salaries in check. Now the Cap is going from 39 mil to 72 mil in a span of 7 years. The cap is directly related to NHL revenues. The cap has only increased because revenues have increased. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragonballgtz 273 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 With the cap going up so much doesn't the amount taken out of the players check increase as well? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingsownnhl43 14 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 This would definitely help us be aggressive this off-season. Holland would have to worry less about the following off-season where Howard, Filppula, B. Smith, Nyquist, D. Miller, and Ian White should all get nice raises. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 $69 or $72 million? Good thing we missed a year of hockey. 1 redwings1914 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 Bettman the Commissioner v. Bettman the Owner; an epic battle! Maybe he's going to take a run at the Cup. Is Milbury using a sunlamp? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 $69 or $72 million? Good thing we missed a year of hockey. As previously stated, the cap has gone up so fast because revenues have gone up so fast. I have a hard time believing the cap will go up. I think the owners will push for a higher percentage of revenues. Players currently get like 57%. The NBA has basically a 50/50 split. It's also looking like the cap may be outpacing spending. Half the league this year is $4M or more under the cap, and only 6 teams are spending at or over. Average cap spending is about $58.8M, around $5.5M under the cap. With long-term deals limiting the FA pool, teams are going to have a tough time finding anyone to give the money to. I think the players will give up a few points and the cap will stay flat or go down slightly to start the new CBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Toledo 233 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 Um, that is the point of a salary cap system. Not really. The point of the cap system is to make the traditionally lesser-spending teams more revenue. Those teams make more money by winning more games and therefore there is parity in the league. My point wasn't really about parity, but that a rapidly increasing salary cap creates an artificial over-inflation of player values and makes the league look silly by annually having to adjust the cap to compensate for spendthrift GMs. Granted, the cap has done some good overall, but needs to be re-worked in the next CBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshy207 156 Report post Posted March 11, 2012 Not really. The point of the cap system is to make the traditionally lesser-spending teams more revenue. Those teams make more money by winning more games and therefore there is parity in the league. My point wasn't really about parity, but that a rapidly increasing salary cap creates an artificial over-inflation of player values and makes the league look silly by annually having to adjust the cap to compensate for spendthrift GMs. Granted, the cap has done some good overall, but needs to be re-worked in the next CBA. The point of the salary cap is to create a level playing field, where big-market, big-revenue teams like DET and NYR can't simply open their vaults and outspend small market teams every time a marquee player enters the free agent market. While all teams are bound by their own financial constraints, the cap ensures there is a minimum and maximum amount each team is allowed to spend on players. I think what you are talking about is revenue sharing, where some money is pooled together from the richer teams and distributed to the poorer teams. That's what gives them more money to spend. The salary cap is tied directly to league revenues (how much money the league brings in through ticket sales, merchandise sales, television contracts, etc. It is adjusted up or down every year bases on these revenues. The players collectively earn 57% of all money the league brings in. The cap is DESIGNED to be adjusted every year! If the cap was still at $39M, the players would only be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% of revenues, not 57% like they are supposed to. I will go as far as saying that the salary cap saved the NHL. Without it, we'd probably be looking at a 16 team league. 1 Z and D for the C reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted March 12, 2012 I heard the opposite. I read that there was a possibility that they would roll the cap back 20-25% in the new CBA along with a 50-50 revenue split which would cause the cap to go up slightly slower and provide relief to stupid teams by rolling back salaries as well. I got excited when I read that earlier thinking it would make Zetter and Franzen stupidly sick steals. I didn't think anything was set in stone though, because there will be fighting over this CBA. Which I hope doesn't really get heated. I do think the last CBA was the best and most fair of any sport ever in history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted March 13, 2012 If the cap goes up to $69 or $72 Million, what would the Floor be? I know the Cap is linked to revenue, but I don't think the small markets will be to happy if the Floor is something like $60 Million. They have to restructure the CBA. The Floor should be optional. If you hit the Floor, you can get revenue sharing, if you want to stay under the Floor and pay out what you bring in, that's fine, but (in my best Soup Nazi voice) "No Revenue Sharing for You!!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragonballgtz 273 Report post Posted March 13, 2012 If the cap goes up to $69 or $72 Million, what would the Floor be? I know the Cap is linked to revenue, but I don't think the small markets will be to happy if the Floor is something like $60 Million. They have to restructure the CBA. The Floor should be optional. If you hit the Floor, you can get revenue sharing, if you want to stay under the Floor and pay out what you bring in, that's fine, but (in my best Soup Nazi voice) "No Revenue Sharing for You!!" The floor is $16M below the max. So if it's $69M then $53M, $72M then $56... I can see a few teams having an issue with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
13dangledangle 968 Report post Posted March 13, 2012 Ths has Crosby & Bettman ALL over it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 13, 2012 At the Board of Governors meetings it has now become a rule that Sidney Crosby is not allowed to be hit. Any player doing so will be suspended for life and fined up to $100 million and a possible extended prison sentence. If a player swears at Sid upon his return, it is an automatic 5 game suspension and a $300,000 fine. If a player looks at Sid the wrong way it is an automatic 2 game suspension and a $200,000 fine. If you take the puck away from Sid then it is an automatic ban for the remainder of the next season and you will be forced to watch 100 hours of HUSTLE and HARD WORK the Johan Franzen Story before 2008. All this should be approved by all 30 NHL GM's. 1 Majsheppard reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,755 Report post Posted March 13, 2012 Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of the salary cap if you constantly increase it enough that high profile and quality teams can spend as much as they want in the offseason? Giving 7 or 8 million dollars each to the NYR or the NYI does not put those teams on equal footing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted March 13, 2012 Be prepared to miss another season...And I'm not joking either. If there is a season starting sometime in October - that figure could go down quite a bit if the BOG/NHLPA agree on sharing the revenues 50/50 (what we're seeing with the NFL/NBA)...Right now that figure is just eye candy come July 1st. If we lose another season of hockey, or even half a season of hockey, I don't care what else he's done, Bettman needs to be shown the door. That would be three lockouts that he's responsible for in his tenure as commissioner. Bettman and the NHL have the dubious honor of being the first North American league to lose an entire season due to a labor dispute. In the last lockout he got the salary cap he's wanted since 94. He should be able to negotiate and get a CBA finished without locking players out. 1 Nev reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
