Cap situation

[Newfoundlandleaf]

Hi again,

Like to start a cap discussion thread...I'm "glass half full" in terms of cap space and issues going forward.

1. Marleau's and Horton's hits run out together....

2. We lose the Gleason, Lupul and Cowan hits next year...

3. Whether we keep Komorov, Bozak, Van Reimsdyk, we have flexibility there....

4. Moore and Fehr obligations end after this year...

Seems like there would be lots of money for the big three....and Gardiner...if we use the "Chicago" model of topping up with good young talent...which we seem to have in abundance.

Thoughts?

 

[Kin]

If the big three sign for a combined 25 million between them then between them, Kadri, Rielly, Zaitsev and Andersen the team will be at 45.2 million on those 7 and the Kessel obligation. That would leave 30 million ish at the current cap for 8 forwards, 5 defensemen and a goalie. Assuming you want to keep Gardiner and he'll cost, say, 5.5 or 6 million on an extension then you're down to less than 25 million for 13 players.

So any real flexibility will have to come from A) cap growth or B) Losing some of the guys mentioned above. The idea that you can re-sign JVR, to me, is nuts.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Given the cap could have been inflated to $79 million this season had both parties activated the optional increase and the fact that the Canadian dollar is much stronger than it has been right now, I think it's fair to say that the cap should be at least $80million next year and that's probably being conservative.

The year after when you feel the full brunt of all three triplets new contracts, the cap could conceivably be anywhere between 80-85 million, that changes the discussion fairly significantly.

30- 35 million for 13 players, at least a few of whom will be on ELC's or smaller post ELC deals for guys like Kapanen who have yet to produce at the NHL level.

The team would still have room to make a few bigger ticket moves.

 

[Kin]

Given the cap could have been inflated to $79 million this season had both parties activated the optional increase and the fact that the Canadian dollar is much stronger than it has been right now, I think it's fair to say that the cap should be at least $80million next year and that's probably being conservative.

I feel like the obvious point there is that the fact that the cap didn't get inflated wasn't an accident. It was because players know that it's a meaningless gesture that helps team but ultimately just results in bigger escrow payments for them. I wouldn't be investing heavily in that decision just reversing.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yeah, 80 million is the figure assuming the players refuse to increase fully again.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, 80 million is the figure assuming the players refuse to increase fully again.

That assumes pretty healthy revenue growth, doesn't it?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yeah, 80 million is the figure assuming the players refuse to increase fully again.

That assumes pretty healthy revenue growth, doesn't it?

Off the back of 5 Canadian teams that are in playoff contention and a strong Canadian dollar largely, add to that the owners opting to inflate the cap on their end, even if the players don't want the full 5% increase.

Also, the Board of Governors has already been talking about an $80 million cap next year.

 

[Kin]

Off the back of 5 Canadian teams that are in playoff contention and a strong Canadian dollar largely, add to that the owners opting to inflate the cap on their end, even if the players don't want the full 5% increase.

Also, the Board of Governors has already been talking about an $80 million cap next year.

Sure. That's also in a year where you've added a 31st team that probably figures to be in the lower half of the league revenue-wise and a year where you could see a sharp drop off for some of the league's bigger American markets(NY, Boston, Detroit, LA).

I just wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch on this one. And definitely not next year's chickens.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That's fair, at the same time painting a picture of doom and gloom financially based on the current cap, isn't telling the whole story either.

 

[Kin]

That's fair, at the same time painting a picture of doom and gloom financially based on the current cap, isn't telling the whole story either.

I like to think I was painting a picture of restraint and prudent behaviour. Sort of a CapGeek by way of John William Waterhouse thing.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That's fair, at the same time painting a picture of doom and gloom financially based on the current cap, isn't telling the whole story either.

I like to think I was painting a picture of restraint and prudent behaviour. Sort of a CapGeek by way of John William Waterhouse thing.

More Grindhouse, less Waterhouse is your general vibe. 

 

[Highlander]

One would wonder what effect the mass shooting in Vegas will do with visitor percentages. I have found one thing about Americans, is that they will avoid danger zones for the most part.  I have always  believed Vegas was a prime target for Radical Islam and now it's a home grown freak that does this. 
A new franchise could really struggle if the numbers in Vegas are terrible. And this could have an effect on the cap. No?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Vegas reached their season ticket sales cap long ago, however many thousand seats are kept for individual sale and resort promotions are all that will be left to be sold.

Even with a reduction in tourism, I'd be stunned if they don't sell-out at least half their games, attendances might not reflect that though.

I have a hard time believing a pro sports team in that spot won't be profitable.

 

[Highlander]

I agree, on any given night there are a million visitors to Vegas, many are not gamblers so they either have a great meal somewhere, take in a show, or stand mesmerized watching the Bellagio fountain (one of my favourite pastimes), so it figures that Vegas will be a good draw for hockey. And the Arena is unbelievable.

 

[Kin]

It's also not the 70's anymore. The difference between a big revenue generating team and a not-big revenue generating team is not whether or not you can get people out to the arena.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

It's also not the 70's anymore. The difference between a big revenue generating team and a not-big revenue generating team is not whether or not you can get people out to the arena.

Yeah, you're right, selling merch in Vegas is going to be a nightmare.  :-X

 

[Kin]

Yeah, you're right, selling merch in Vegas is going to be a nightmare.  :-X

I'm pretty sure merch sales go to the league which are then split evenly among teams. I'm more referring to regional TV money/ancillary revenue streams.

And I don't know what you think my larger point is outside of "I don't think the deadliest mass shooting will affect the NHL's salary cap too much" but, well, that's it.

 

[bustaheims]

It's also not the 70's anymore. The difference between a big revenue generating team and a not-big revenue generating team is not whether or not you can get people out to the arena.

Exactly. I don't think Vegas will have a ton of issue with ticket sales. I can definitely see them struggling with everything a team needs to be profitable - especially if they're relying on out of town visitors. Less local fans means less eyeballs watching the games on TV, which means less advertising revenue/less value in the local broadcast rights. Also, likely lower sales on the more valuable paraphernalia, etc. Visiting fans don't drop $200 on a jersey as often as locals do. They'll be fine on tickets and concessions. They could very easily struggle with everything else.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm pretty sure merch sales go to the league which are then split evenly among teams. I'm more referring to regional TV money/ancillary revenue streams.

I think in-arena merchandise goes mostly to the team. Online and other merchandise is through the league, yeah.