Truth & Rumors > NHL

Report: Cap headed above $60M

Views
12286
Comments
84

08:24 AM ET 05.24 | Good news, hockey fans -- GMs will apparently have some extra money to sign that player you like (or lock you into an unwieldy contract about which you can complain for years). Bill Daly, the deputy commissioner of the National Hockey League, addressed the annual conference of the Sports Lawyers Association over the weekend and revealed that the NHL salary cap will go up as it has each year since the current collective agreement went into effect for the 2005-06 season. ... Since the CBA was reached after the 2004-05 lockout, league-wide revenues have increased by $750-800 million and the cap has increased by more than $20 million a team. The salary cap last season was $59.4 million and Daly said that it could jump to between $60.5 million and $63.5 million for next season.

Montreal Gazette

Gary Bettman, Getty Images Gary Bettman, Getty Images
May 24, 2011  09:16 AM ET

Good news for GMs indeed.

May 24, 2011  09:16 AM ET

when exactly does the new cap number come out? 63.5 million, how fun, all the teams that managed to play themselves right up against the cap now get an additional 4 million to throw around + salaries will go up yet again. GREAT! If you're going to do a cap, then do it. By having the number go up every season you just reward the teams that bump themselves up against it.

May 24, 2011  09:25 AM ET

And we criticize the Buttgoblin for what he is doing to the League.

May 24, 2011  09:42 AM ET

Kill the Cap.

Slit it's throat.

Drink it's blood....

May 24, 2011  09:58 AM ET

When is cap not a cap? Up is not necessarily always good.

May 24, 2011  10:00 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Good news for GMs indeed.

and Richards.

May 24, 2011  10:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

When is cap not a cap? Up is not necessarily always good.

Up is good until it goes down. Then the teams that spend to the cap will scramble.

May 24, 2011  10:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

and Richards.

Yup!!

May 24, 2011  10:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Up is not necessarily always good.

In my personal experience, I never felt it was a bad thing...;)

May 24, 2011  10:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

In my personal experience, I never felt it was a bad thing...;)

Don't always (well almost never really) agree with Puckhead but I concur on this one. :-)

May 24, 2011  10:18 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Up is good until it goes down. Then the teams that spend to the cap will scramble.

but if it keeps going up then there is no incentive to plan responsibly, because no matter how many bad contracts you hand out there will always be more cash. There's no responsibility. When teams have to start moving good players around because they mismanaged their funds (think Chicago after winning cup), then and only then would the cap actually be doing what it is supposed to. I don,t like the cap to begin with, I like it less now since it does nothing.

May 24, 2011  10:29 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

but if it keeps going up then there is no incentive to plan responsibly, because no matter how many bad contracts you hand out there will always be more cash. There's no responsibility. When teams have to start moving good players around because they mismanaged their funds (think Chicago after winning cup), then and only then would the cap actually be doing what it is supposed to. I don,t like the cap to begin with, I like it less now since it does nothing.

And so if the Hawks had waited another year to win their cup...they may not have had to tear up the team...Is that about right Foil?

May 24, 2011  10:40 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

And so if the Hawks had waited another year to win their cup...they may not have had to tear up the team...Is that about right Foil?

well, had Talon not missed the date he would have saved a few roster spots...so mismanagement cost them. If you're in a hard cap, it should be that way. The spoils should go to the teams that manage their rosters and contracts the best.

The other thing is that a bunch of players got artificially inflated contracts that came from winning. That's the breaks. That's what happens when half of your roster has contracts that come up the same year.

Look at every team that is right up against the cap, many of them (including my Habs) are loaded with bad contracts, but by having a cap that constantly increases it offers no contract stability (prices keep going up because available funds go up, so then when the next player's contract comes up he wants what the other guy got, etc. and you end up in the same vicious cycle they had before the cap), plus it doesn't punish the teams for taking on really bad contracts (i.e: Gomez, Spacek in the case of the Habs).

All i'm saying is that if there is going to be a cap, it should act to reward those that are fiscally responsible and those who make good personnel decisions.

May 24, 2011  10:41 AM ET

IMO Chicago having to rip apart their team is one of the few decent things the cap did. The team was managed horribly and they didn't plan their salary structure long-term, so they paid a price. Boo frickin hoo.

May 24, 2011  10:55 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

but if it keeps going up .....

Right. If.....

Does anything money related go down these days?

Kill the cap.

Eliminate the hypocrisy.

May 24, 2011  11:24 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

Right. If.....Does anything money related go down these days?

Yes. My purchasing power with regards to my salary.

May 24, 2011  11:24 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

In my personal experience, I never felt it was a bad thing...;)

As long as it doesn't go longer than 4 hours ;)

May 24, 2011  11:26 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

but if it keeps going up then there is no incentive to plan responsibly

The only thing that is going to happen is there is going to be another major CBA war. The cap has to be going up to much to quickly for many owners. Those owners will inform the rest it needs to be lowered, they will agree, and there will be another huge long fight, as the players are not going to want a cap to go down, considering they didn't even want the cap.

May 24, 2011  11:30 AM ET

I like the Cap. Just look at MLB, you get teams to buy a championchip every yr. This helps stop that and helps smaller clubs compete.

 
May 24, 2011  11:32 AM ET
QUOTE(#18):

The only thing that is going to happen is there is going to be another major CBA war. The cap has to be going up to much to quickly for many owners. Those owners will inform the rest it needs to be lowered, they will agree, and there will be another huge long fight, as the players are not going to want a cap to go down, considering they didn't even want the cap.

yah, if I was one of the cash strapped owners I would be peeved, teams like Boston, Philly, Montreal can play themselves up to the cap every season, then in the offseason they have cash to go run after free agents only because the cap went up. If the cap didn't budge there'd be fewer interested parties...

its a cop-out that gives every team purchasing power that they don't deserve.

I come back to my original point; making bad decisions and signing overrated players should hurt you...but in the current system it doesn't (and it never will), at this point just get rid of it. If the cap was subject to go down THEN we'd be looking at a system that fosters competition and fiscal restraint.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    22092
    Comments
    684
  2. 2
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    1267
    Comments
    555
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    1262
    Comments
    508
  4. 4
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    3398
    Comments
    504
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    1336
    Comments
    113

SI.com

SI Photos