Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Flyers and 2012-13 Cap Ceiling; Friday Hockey Fix

Thanks, Bill. I hope that Snider (and other big market teams) can soften Bettman's resolve. The scenerio you paint is not a pretty one.

It seems to me that as much as people complain about Bryz, we can't afford (literally) for him not to succeed. Finding a legit replacement would have to cost a higher cap hit. Plus if year 2's cap stays at 60 I am afraid that Danny would be the victim of the 2nd buyout as you said. Although he is aging, he really is mr playoffs.

I think you have defined the potential cap stress on teams that have pushed the high end of their salary budget.

But, I had the impression earlier on that they were considering the Burke proposal that would allow trades with salary adjustments that could facilitate deals between higher and lower cap teams? I thought this was a pretty strong idea. Perhaps I misunderstood.

As I understood it, a high salaried team could trade a top salary and a substantial dollar amount to a low budget team. So, for example, the Flyers can offer Briere to Phoenix plus $3m cash in exchange for a top prospect. The Flyers carve $6m from their cap and get a legitimate player/prospect in return. Phoenix gets a needed $6m cap hit that only costs them $3m in hard dollars. (I am not suggesting the Flyers deal Briere, just using it as an example).

I think you have defined the potential cap stress on teams that have pushed the high end of their salary budget.

But, I had the impression earlier on that they were considering the Burke proposal that would allow trades with salary adjustments that could facilitate deals between higher and lower cap teams? I thought this was a pretty strong idea. Perhaps I misunderstood.

As I understood it, a high salaried team could trade a top salary and a substantial dollar amount to a low budget team. So, for example, the Flyers can offer Briere to Phoenix plus $3m cash in exchange for a top prospect. The Flyers carve $6m from their cap and get a legitimate player/prospect in return. Phoenix gets a needed $6m cap hit that only costs them $3m in hard dollars. (I am not suggesting the Flyers deal Briere, just using it as an example).
- spatso

I do recall that. But haven't heard anything further about idea of "buying cap space" in a couple months. Not sure if it was ever part of a formal proposal or if it's still a possibility.

Oh Bill, why even suggest buying out Bryz? You're just feeding the trolls.

Given the Flyers complete lack of depth at the position I just cant see that happening. Nor can I see them cutting ties with him over a 50 game season. He'd have to be terrible. And I mean terrible for that to happen.

I've called people out for suggesting Briere be bought out in the past, but if the cap were actually going to go down to 60 I think you have to consider it just based on the fact of were this team has depth and where it flat out doesn't.

indeed, the markets that are the engine that drives the league's success are being treated like tax cheats. an exercise in self flagellation if i've ever seen one...

Oh Bill, why even suggest buying out Bryz? You're just feeding the trolls.

Given the Flyers complete lack of depth at the position I just cant see that happening. Nor can I see them cutting ties with him over a 50 game season. He'd have to be terrible. And I mean terrible for that to happen.

I've called people out for suggesting Briere be bought out in the past, but if the cap were actually going to go down to 60 I think you have to consider it just based on the fact of were this team has depth and where it flat out doesn't.
- hereticpride

it is a bad contract and given the circumstances, it's hardly a stretch. let's see what happens this yr.

Nice read Bill...

Happy Friday everyone!!

buy out everyone and start over.

Oh Bill, why even suggest buying out Bryz? You're just feeding the trolls.

Given the Flyers complete lack of depth at the position I just cant see that happening. Nor can I see them cutting ties with him over a 50 game season. He'd have to be terrible. And I mean terrible for that to happen.

I've called people out for suggesting Briere be bought out in the past, but if the cap were actually going to go down to 60 I think you have to consider it just based on the fact of were this team has depth and where it flat out doesn't.
- hereticpride

I've been among the most staunch Bryzgalov defenders, but where the rubber meets the road, his deal may not be a sustainable one. I'm especially worried if there's language that keeps all contracts longer than 7 years on the cap, regardless of whether the player is playing or not. That's been rumored, but not set in stone.

If that comes to pass, I'd lean towards a buyout. I doubt Bryzgalov stays until he's 40, and $5.66mm of dead cap space is worrisome.

What's the over/under on the big market clubs forcing Bettman's hand in yielding to the 65 Cap next season. In all reality isn't it his best interest to keep the owners of financial juggernauts like the Flyers, Leafs, rangers etc happy and continuing to support his reign?

One thing to add is that the 60M that the NHL wants isn't a random number. It's using the formula that the Cap has been determined by. Using last years 3.3B revenue number minus benefits, and the 50/50 ratio, divided by 30 teams. Comes out to 52M as the mid point. Cap ceiling is 8M above that.

One thing to add is that the 60M that the NHL wants isn't a random number. It's using the formula that the Cap has been determined by. Using last years 3.3B revenue number minus benefits, and the 50/50 ratio, divided by 30 teams. Comes out to 52M as the mid point. Cap ceiling is 8M above that.
- MJL

Understood, but with no limit on escrow, it's really the same thing as a $60M cap in terms of team risk and what the players would be seeing in their checks next season. Really, $65M is just a mechanism to give the GMs of the NHL more flexibility and prevent the big market teams from having to pare down rosters solely to get cap compliant with little flexibility to sign capable replacements.

Understood, but with no limit on escrow, it's really the same thing as a $60M cap in terms of team risk and what the players would be seeing in their checks next season. Really, $65M is just a mechanism to give the GMs of the NHL more flexibility and prevent the big market teams from having to pare down rosters solely to get cap compliant with little flexibility to sign capable replacements.
- bmeltzer

I thought I read yesterday that the NHLPA was OK with the $44mm floor so long as the cap was at $65mm....of course, I might be insane

I thought I read yesterday that the NHLPA was OK with the $44mm floor so long as the cap was at $65mm....of course, I might be insane
- Jsaquella

Now this is just throwing something out there, but if there was real worry about small market teams not being able to afford the floor, shouldnt they just have no floor, much like baseball and this way the small market teams can spend what they wish. Now I know that it throws a monkey wrench into the whole HRR but it is an idea to help teams who swear that any floor is crippling their franchise.

I'm confused a tad. I thought they were fighting about the cap for the 2nd year (13-14) of the new deal. It'd sort of make sense as this coming shortened season is not normal to calculate a proper salary cap for the next season. I thought the cap for the coming shortened season was already decided close to 65M or so?

Now this is just throwing something out there, but if there was real worry about small market teams not being able to afford the floor, shouldnt they just have no floor, much like baseball and this way the small market teams can spend what they wish. Now I know that it throws a monkey wrench into the whole HRR but it is an idea to help teams who swear that any floor is crippling their franchise.
- Pyzik

Well, if there are team struggling to reach the floor, doesn't that scream that the NHL needs better revenue sharing between member clubs? The actual dollar value of the cap will likely go up, which will again raise the floor.

This has been one of my big issues with the owners' side. Their "plan" doesn't provide a long term fix for the revenue disparity between the big markets(Philly, NY, Tor, Bos) and the have nots(Phoenix, Columbus). When the cap and floor rise, those teams will face the same issues they do now...and rather than blame themselves, owners will beg the players to save them from themselves.

This is why the expired CBA didn't work for owners. Baseball doesn't have a floor or a cap. They have a luxury tax that forces revenue sharing between the haves and have nots.

I do recall that. But haven't heard anything further about idea of "buying cap space" in a couple months. Not sure if it was ever part of a formal proposal or if it's still a possibility.
- bmeltzer

If they are going to allow cap space swapping, they might as well allow a luxury tax...

Heres an idea,

Why not let teams accumalate cap space? Have carry over space from year to year...Allow small market teams to cash in the extra space for players or straight up money.

I'm confused a tad. I thought they were fighting about the cap for the 2nd year (13-14) of the new deal. It'd sort of make sense as this coming shortened season is not normal to calculate a proper salary cap for the next season. I thought the cap for the coming shortened season was already decided close to 65M or so?
- eayost

The cap this year will likely be $70mm, as there's little time to get compliant with the short season. The issue is the cap for next year. The amnesty buyouts will take place in summer of 2013, not next week.

The cap this year will likely be $70mm, as there's little time to get compliant with the short season. The issue is the cap for next year. The amnesty buyouts will take place in summer of 2013, not next week.
- Jsaquella

Ok. I was confused as Bill's article specifies the 12-13 season cap as the one problematic for the Flyers

If they are going to allow cap space swapping, they might as well allow a luxury tax...

Heres an idea,

Why not let teams accumalate cap space? Have carry over space from year to year...Allow small market teams to cash in the extra space for players or straight up money.
- Philly1980

The best solution is, IMO, a strict luxury tax system. If the Flyers want to spend $75mm on payroll, great. Let them. But set the threshold at $50mm, and tax them dollar for dollar on every penny they go over it.

Ok. I was confused as Bill's article specifies the 12-13 season cap as the one problematic for the Flyers
- eayost

This year could be, if they can't bury guys like Matt Walker in the AHL.

Shocker....Team Canada to start Binnington instead of Malcolm Subban in Bronze medal game of WJC

Ok. I was confused as Bill's article specifies the 12-13 season cap as the one problematic for the Flyers
- eayost

Totally my bad. That was a 3 AM, gotta catch a plane in a couple hours, forgot its already 2013 typo that I didn't catch.

Understood, but with no limit on escrow, it's really the same thing as a $60M cap in terms of team risk and what the players would be seeing in their checks next season. Really, $65M is just a mechanism to give the GMs of the NHL more flexibility and prevent the big market teams from having to pare down rosters solely to get cap compliant with little flexibility to sign capable replacements.
- bmeltzer

I agree with your premise on that. The 65M Cap hit helps the transition. As long as the 50/50 split is maintained and escrow takes care of that. I don't see what the big deal is from the NHL's end.

Now this is just throwing something out there, but if there was real worry about small market teams not being able to afford the floor, shouldnt they just have no floor, much like baseball and this way the small market teams can spend what they wish. Now I know that it throws a monkey wrench into the whole HRR but it is an idea to help teams who swear that any floor is crippling their franchise.
- Pyzik

You'll never get the NHLPA to agree to a Cap ceiling without a Cap floor.