Cap issues

On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, Mad Ape <chief... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> j.ba... RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote:
> >For that matter, there's
> > nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
> > million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
> > not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>
> I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
> year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!

It would be pretty funny.

I don't think that kind of signing is very likely, but only because
there are probably enough overpaid but still productive players that
teams below the floor can get from teams in cap trouble. It's a
natural win-win deal. But the fact that you could do a signing like
that one means that other GMs can't really use the "you need this guy
to meet the payroll floor" argument as effective leverage.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

j.bauch.TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote in
news:67fc3c99-5e88-4a2e-b891-aa2e23e71597@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 14, 11:15 am, "Preacher" <sdean53N0S....TakeThisOut@N0SPAMcogeco.ca> wrote:
>> This should be a fun month.  Calgary, Anaheim, Philly and Chicago all
>> a
> bove
>> the cap, LA and Atlanta wayyy below the floor, with all the expensive
>> guy
> s
>> already signed (with one notable exception, of course).  Gonna be fun
>> t
> o
>> watch these GMs take it up the arse in trades in order to get their
>> financial house in order.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Not sure if you meant to imply that the GMs below the floor will have
> to make bad trades. It's really not much of a problem. There's not
> likely to be a shortage of overpaid players who GMs will dump to them
> for nothing; for example, I'm sure Chicago would happily give
> Khabibulin away for very little in return. For that matter, there's
> nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
> million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
> not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>
> Jim
>

Personally, I thik the "floor" thing is a little stupid. Maybe a team
should be allowed to be below it but not for more than two years in a row
or something, but a re-building team is a re-building team. The player's
are assured a fixed precentage of reveunes, so it's no benefit to them
either. The floor is a mere 30% below the cap. Heck, I bet a team with a
few good young players could be below the current "floor" and still make
the play-offs, while a poorly run team at the max could finish last.

The worst part is that the cap came at a time that, thanks to our soaring
dollar, Montreal COULD have been one of the league's biggest spenders if
they choose. Now it looks like we have maybe one good shot at the Cup if
we can squeeze one more star onto our team, but then the cap striaght-
jacket will apply to us as well.
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

On Jul 14, 5:42 pm, Marty <martytest2... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> j.ba... RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote in news:9bc2b9e9-fb1f-4d33-add7-d56ca50a98f1
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, Mad Ape <chief... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> j.ba... RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote:
> >> >For that matter, there's
> >> > nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
> >> > million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
> >> > not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>
> >> I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
> >> year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!
>
> > It would be pretty funny.
>
> > I don't think that kind of signing is very likely, but only because
> > there are probably enough overpaid but still productive players that
> > teams below the floor can get from teams in cap trouble.  It's a
> > natural win-win deal.  But the fact that you could do a signing like
> > that one means that other GMs can't really use the "you need this guy
> > to meet the payroll floor" argument as effective leverage.
>
> > Jim
>
> How gauling must it be for a team that is clearly in a re-build mode to
> have to consider trading for some terrible overpaid bum, just to make their
> lousy team marginally better and reach the cap floor, which might acheive
> little more than hurting their draft position a little?

My heart bleeds. Yes, God forbid a team should be forced to spend
some money to put at least a passable product on-ice.

I don't think the league has any obligation to make it easy for teams
to tank to improve their draft position.

The owners claimed that a salary cap was needed to improve competitive
balance. The floor is simply a way of calling that bluff -- there's
no point in having a cap if some teams can go with a cheap lineup and
let the richer teams subsidize them.

And really, it's a pretty hypothetical situation you're talking
about. So far, I don't think we've seen a single team have to take on
a "terrible overpaid bum" to meet the floor. Very few teams have had
trouble with the floor, and there are plenty of other fixes
available. Like Khabibulin, for example. Sure, he's overpaid, but
he's better than the revolving cast of characters that L.A. put in net
last year, so if the Kings were to acquire him from the Blackhawks
it'd be a win-win deal.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

On Jul 14, 8:42 pm, Marty <martytest2....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> j.ba....TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote in news:9bc2b9e9-fb1f-4d33-add7-d56ca50a98f1
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, Mad Ape <chief....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> j.ba....TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >For that matter, there's
> >> > nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
> >> > million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
> >> > not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>
> >> I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
> >> year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!
>
> > It would be pretty funny.
>
> > I don't think that kind of signing is very likely, but only because
> > there are probably enough overpaid but still productive players that
> > teams below the floor can get from teams in cap trouble.  It's a
> > natural win-win deal.  But the fact that you could do a signing like
> > that one means that other GMs can't really use the "you need this guy
> > to meet the payroll floor" argument as effective leverage.
>
> > Jim
>
> How gauling must it be for a team that is clearly in a re-build mode to
> have to consider trading for some terrible overpaid bum, just to make their
> lousy team marginally better and reach the cap floor, which might acheive
> little more than hurting their draft position a little?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So there is still hope that some team out there wants Dandeneault
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

j.bauch RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote in news:9bc2b9e9-fb1f-4d33-add7-d56ca50a98f1
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, Mad Ape <chief... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> j.ba... RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote:
>> >For that matter, there's
>> > nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
>> > million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
>> > not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>>
>> I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
>> year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!
>
> It would be pretty funny.
>
> I don't think that kind of signing is very likely, but only because
> there are probably enough overpaid but still productive players that
> teams below the floor can get from teams in cap trouble. It's a
> natural win-win deal. But the fact that you could do a signing like
> that one means that other GMs can't really use the "you need this guy
> to meet the payroll floor" argument as effective leverage.
>
> Jim
>
>

How gauling must it be for a team that is clearly in a re-build mode to
have to consider trading for some terrible overpaid bum, just to make their
lousy team marginally better and reach the cap floor, which might acheive
little more than hurting their draft position a little?
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

j.bauch DeleteThis @comcast.net wrote:
>For that matter, there's
> nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
> million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
> not like other GMs have you over a barrel.

I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!

The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

"Marty" <martytest2004.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADBDCC394B25martytest2004hotmail@127.0.0.1...
> j.bauch.TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote in news:9bc2b9e9-fb1f-4d33-add7-d56ca50a98f1
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, Mad Ape <chief....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> j.ba....TakeThisOut@comcast.net wrote:
>>> >For that matter, there's
>>> > nothing that stops a team from signing some journeyman to a multi-
>>> > million dollar one-year deal to meet the floor if necessary, so it's
>>> > not like other GMs have you over a barrel.
>>>
>>> I can see it now. Bryan Smolinski signed by LA for $10 million for 1
>>> year. Bryan Burke will have a stroke!
>>
>> It would be pretty funny.
>>
>> I don't think that kind of signing is very likely, but only because
>> there are probably enough overpaid but still productive players that
>> teams below the floor can get from teams in cap trouble. It's a
>> natural win-win deal. But the fact that you could do a signing like
>> that one means that other GMs can't really use the "you need this guy
>> to meet the payroll floor" argument as effective leverage.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
> How gauling must it be for a team that is clearly in a re-build mode to
> have to consider trading for some terrible overpaid bum, just to make
> their
> lousy team marginally better and reach the cap floor, which might acheive
> little more than hurting their draft position a little?
>

The main issue I would have with this is that, for example, if a team below
the floor takes on salary to meet the floor via trade, they'd have to give
up little to no salary in return, ie a prospect. So ifa team (current
example: LA Kings) stinks, but has some good kids, they have to go trade
for a good player, improve their position, and give up one of their kids in
return? Sounds kinda daft. Also, what happens when every player runs
screaming from Long Island? If the Islanders are unable to make the salary
cap floor because nobody wants to go there, what then?

I think the CBA could be amended to state that you can't go more than 10%
below the floor, and never more than once every three years or so, that way
a rebuilding team doesn't have to do anything stupid every year just to ice
a squad that meets the league's approval.

Steve
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

head buried in sand, Preacher <sdean53N0SPAM RemoveThis @n0spamcogeco.ca> spat:

: The main issue I would have with this is that, for example, if a team below
: the floor takes on salary to meet the floor via trade, they'd have to give
: up little to no salary in return, ie a prospect. So ifa team (current
: example: LA Kings) stinks, but has some good kids, they have to go trade
: for a good player, improve their position, and give up one of their kids in
: return?

You can always trade future considerations, i.e. a low draft pick, if
that.

--
* http://www.iki.fi/santeri/ 127.0.0.1 *
* university of helsinki, department of computer science OTTERS RULE *
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

True, but if the other GM knows you're desperately trying to add salary,
he's got you over a barrel, and will ask for greater returns than normal.

Only way I see a fair trade is if a team over the cap trades with a team
under the floor - they're both in a position of weakness.

Steve

"Santeri Pienimaki" <iretnas DeleteThis @iki.fi.invalid> wrote in message
news:g5hgn3$7kk$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> head buried in sand, Preacher <sdean53N0SPAM DeleteThis @n0spamcogeco.ca> spat:
>
> : The main issue I would have with this is that, for example, if a team
below
> : the floor takes on salary to meet the floor via trade, they'd have to
give
> : up little to no salary in return, ie a prospect. So ifa team (current
> : example: LA Kings) stinks, but has some good kids, they have to go
trade
> : for a good player, improve their position, and give up one of their kids
in
> : return?
>
> You can always trade future considerations, i.e. a low draft pick, if
> that.
>
> --
> * http://www.iki.fi/santeri/
127.0.0.1 *
> * university of helsinki, department of computer science OTTERS
RULE *
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

On Jul 15, 4:25 am, "Preacher" <sdean53NOS....RemoveThis@NOSPAMcogeco.ca> wrote:
> True, but if the other GM knows you're desperately trying to add salary,
> he's got you over a barrel, and will ask for greater returns than normal.
>
> Only way I see a fair trade is if a team over the cap trades with a team
> under the floor - they're both in a position of weakness.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but: it's trivial to add salary.
How can a GM be "over a barrel" if all he has to do is sign some free
agent to an inflated contract?

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

j.bauch RemoveThis @comcast.net wrote:
> On Jul 15, 4:25 am, "Preacher" <sdean53NOS... RemoveThis @NOSPAMcogeco.ca> wrote:
>> True, but if the other GM knows you're desperately trying to add salary,
>> he's got you over a barrel, and will ask for greater returns than normal.
>>
>> Only way I see a fair trade is if a team over the cap trades with a team
>> under the floor - they're both in a position of weakness.
>
> I hate to keep repeating myself, but: it's trivial to add salary.
> How can a GM be "over a barrel" if all he has to do is sign some free
> agent to an inflated contract?
>
> Jim

Other than looking like a complete idiot...nothing.

The Mad Ape
www.tatumba.com
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

On Jul 15, 8:05 pm, "Dave St.Onge" <*.*> wrote:
> > I think the CBA could be amended to state that you can't go more than 10%
> > below the floor, and never more than once every three years or so, that
> > way a rebuilding team doesn't have to do anything stupid every year just
> > to ice a squad that meets the league's approval.
>
> IIRC, it's never been an issue before...granted, the cap's higher, but it
> won't be an issue for these teams...
>
> Dave

Incidentally, here's a post by Globe writer James Mirtle on why the
Kings aren't likely worried about the cap:

http://mirtle.blogspot.com/2008/07/kings-dont-fear-floor.html

Short version: after signing their RFAs, they'll only be about $3
million under, and can just pick up a veteran defenseman with that
kind of cap hit. For example, acquiring Matt Schneider from the cap-
challenged Ducks would take care of it.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues 

> I think the CBA could be amended to state that you can't go more than 10%
> below the floor, and never more than once every three years or so, that
> way a rebuilding team doesn't have to do anything stupid every year just
> to ice a squad that meets the league's approval.

IIRC, it's never been an issue before...granted, the cap's higher, but it
won't be an issue for these teams...

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Cap issues