Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Cap room to spare

How is a player's salary charged against a team's salary cap when a trade is made at the deadline?

The salary that is charged against a team's cap is the pro rated amount remaining of the player's average yearly salary. For example, if a player has an average yearly salary of $2 million, the amount charged against the acquiring team's cap is the pro-rated amount remaining of $2 million.

This is calculated by dividing $2 million by the number of days in the season (187). The amount ($10,695) is then multiplied by the number of days remaining in the season from the day the trade is made (41 days if trade is on deadline day) to ascertain the amount charged against the team's cap ($438,502).
>> league release
In other words, if you're a team like the Senators with about $3-million cap space, you can actually take on close to $14-million in additional contracts.

What can teams spend?
$1-million space x 187/41 = $4.56-million
$2-million space x 187/41 = $9.12-million
$3-million space x 187/41 = $13.68-million
$4-million space x 187/41 = $18.24-million
$5-million space x 187/41 = $22.8-million

And so on.

So the Capitals, who have about $14-million cap space to work with according to nhlnumbers.com, would be able to add the equivalent of $64-million in contracts on Feb. 26.

Just in case Peter Forsberg's looking for a lot of cake, I mean.

I guess the point is that there aren't all that many teams that are going to be seriously limited by a lack of cap room at the deadline. The Flyers and Maple Leafs are tight up against it, but other than that, it's fairly wide open.
.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 5:27 PM, February 13, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

Does it make sense that you can load up at the end like that? It seems kind of dumb that a salary cap means it's advantageous to play an ahl team for the first half the year and pull an anaheim before the trade deadline.

...It just doesn't seem good for the sport.

Opinions?

 
At 5:50 PM, February 13, 2008, Blogger Paul Nicholson said...

I agree Nick.

I wonder if it won't be too long before you start to see restrictions on when a player has to be signed to an NHL team to play (to stop this Forsberg/Selanne/Neids mess) and adjust the cap.

It makes sense to do some element of pro-rating, but it seems like it should make it so that: if you had the team you finish with for the whole season you would have been under the cap. That makes it...ya know...a cap.

Of course the current system means that my Predators can take on $74.mil in contracts...which would essentially mean we could sign the Western Conference All-Star squad if i have my numbers right :-)

 
At 5:53 PM, February 13, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

Nick: teams are still limited by their salary commitments to next year, AFAIK. They can't take on contracts that would commit them to pay next year an amount higher than this year's cap - so players with expiring contracts are much easier to move.

Is it dumb? Well, the intent of the cap was to limit total spending, and that isn't changed. Rich teams can't pay huge salaries all year long. Does it encourage "pulling an Anaheim"? I don't know. Still, I'd rather have the first seed, like Detroit, than be battling for home ice advantage like Anaheim (6th place in the most recent Playoff Push, and third in the Pacific).

What it may mean is that the trade deadline is way too late in the season.

 
At 5:58 PM, February 13, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6:02 PM, February 13, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

What it may mean is that the trade deadline is way too late in the season.

Shortening the trade deadline just adds to the suck. Trades are fun, trades are exciting, and it's unfortunate there have been so few of them this year.

Is it dumb? Well, the intent of the cap was to limit total spending

As a fan, I supported the idea of the cap because I believed it would make the game better. I may be naive, but in my mind, that was the ultimate intent. I see loading up on the back end bad for the sport, bad for the fans, and ultimately makes the game worse.

 
At 12:55 AM, February 14, 2008, Blogger J. Michael Neal said...

As a fan, I supported the idea of the cap because I believed it would make the game better. I may be naive, but in my mind, that was the ultimate intent. I see loading up on the back end bad for the sport, bad for the fans, and ultimately makes the game worse.

No offense Nick, but you were naive. The owners weren't thinking about it the same way you were.

 
At 12:00 PM, February 14, 2008, Blogger Dennis Prouse said...

The quality of play has never been better, and parity has never been greater. I think that the cap, plus the more vigorous enforcement of the rulebook, has been a boon to the sport. I simply can't see how anyone can say it has made the game worse.

What the cap was designed to do was level the playing field as much as possible. In essence, it means that high end teams can't overpay for mid-level players. The top end guys are still getting their jack -- they always did, and always will. No one has a problem with Scott Niedermayer making big money. What I had a problem with, and what a lot of lower revenue clubs had a problem with, was the fact that the big spending clubs could pay Sylvain Lefebvre $2 million a year to be a sixth defenceman, Marty Lapointe $5 million to be a grinding winger, or Bobby Holik $9 million to be a checking centre. That is the kind of salary inflation that was killing teams.

Now, teams can make their own decisions, knowing that it is all a zero sum game. Want to be make a huge offer to a boffo UFA? That's cool, but you had better be able to stock your fourth line and third defence pairing with minimum salary guys in order to compensate.

In fact, that is where the trend is going, near as I can tell. Last year, the Ducks won the Cup by barely playing their fourth line or their third defence pairing. In essence, they won the Cup with 13 skaters. If those guys aren't going to see the ice much in games that matter, why would you pay any more than minimum salary for them?

I just can't get all exercised over the fact that backup goalies, fourth liners and sixth defencemen are no longer getting million dollar plus salaries due to the cap.

 
At 1:10 PM, February 14, 2008, Blogger Ronald Servant said...

What happens to the team that trades the player away?

Are the same calculations used to determine extra cap space they now have?

For example in the recent Senators-Hurricanes trade it was said that Ottawa got $500K in cap room. But wasn't that the difference for the entire season?

 
At 2:15 PM, February 14, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

I simply can't see how anyone can say it has made the game worse.

What I think is a valid concern is having to watch crappy hockey for the first half of the year because teams are saving up to use their cash at the end of the year.

 
At 4:22 PM, February 14, 2008, Blogger poploser said...

Dennis said:

was the fact that the big spending clubs could pay Sylvain Lefebvre $2 million a year to be a sixth defenceman, Marty Lapointe $5 million to be a grinding winger, or Bobby Holik $9 million to be a checking centre. That is the kind of salary inflation that was killing teams.


I remember a whole bunch of teams who signed guys to ridiculous contracts not being successful on the ice. The argument that "money translates to success" was proven false long before the lockout.

The quality of play has never been better, and parity has never been greater. I think that the cap, plus the more vigorous enforcement of the rulebook, has been a boon to the sport. I simply can't see how anyone can say it has made the game worse.

There are a number of people who think that the "parity" you like is bad for the sport, and leads to a lesser product on the ice. Example - I'm a coach on a team that has limited cap room. I know that its going to be very hard to make any changes (either by trade, or waiver) during the course of the season. So I better be sure that I get the most out of the team I have, because if changes do need to be made, the coach is the only real option. So what do I do? I coach conservatively. I focus on defense and hanging in games that are close, in hopes of gaining the tie, and then the extra point that comes along with a shootout. Add me to the other 3 0 coaches in the same position, and you have an exacerbation of the pre-lockout problem - offense is risky, defense is safe.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker