each team pays 275 million dollars to join the NHL and that goes to the owner's pockets.

The owners get no money if teams relocate.
- jimbro83

That all it takes? Lemme get my check book....

Actually, if you take your list, and pull out a calculator, the total comes to 64.76m

With the Asham and Powe adds up to 64.915.
- synthetic150

Regardless...someone needs to go if Stepan gets that $$$ in his deal. If Sather can deal Pyatt or Boyle, then there should be no problems. Both are on their last year of their contracts, if I am not mistaken; should make it easy to find them a new home for a mid-level draft pick.

Regardless...someone needs to go if Stepan gets that $$$ in his deal. If Sather can deal Pyatt or Boyle, then there should be no problems. Both are on their last year of their contracts, if I am not mistaken; should make it easy to find them a new home for a mid-level draft pick.
- mames11

Yeah, I actually emailed Capgeek about the confusing way they describe how bonuses compute, then how they add the bonus in, then how they remove it, its a complete mess. They sent me back simply links to what I already read, which doesn't clear anything up. Here is how they said they display the cap for teams:

"Under the collective bargaining agreement struck in 2013, a performance bonus cushion is in place for all years of the deal, including the last one in 2021-22.

The performance bonus cushion allows teams to exceed the upper limit with performance bonuses to a maximum of 7.5 percent of the upper limit.

For example, if the upper limit is $64,300,000, teams can exceed it by $4,822,500 in performance bonuses. Any performances bonuses in excess of that total do not fall into the cushion and are counted as part of the team's cap payroll.

Any performance bonuses actually earned at season's end (ie. for games played, awards, all-star teams, etc.) are then added to the team's final cap payroll. The catch with the cushion is that if the bonuses earned at year's end push the team past the upper limit, the overage is carried over as a penalty the following season.

The 2009-10 Chicago Blackhawks are the most famous example of a bonus overage. Bonuses earned by the likes of Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews following their Stanley Cup win pushed the Blackhawks' final cap payroll $4,157,753 past the upper limit. As a result, the $4,157,753 overage reduced their 2010-11 upper limit from $59,400,000 to $55,242,247 million. That, in part, resulted in the trading of Kris Versteeg, Andrew Ladd, Dustin Byfuglien, Brian Campbell, and others.

During the off-season, CapGeek.com includes all performance bonuses in its cap payroll estimates. However, it then accounts for the 7.5 percent bonus cushion in its cap space figures. During the season, CapGeek.com zeroes all performance bonuses, meaning if a team is in excess of 7.5 percent cushion, our cap space figure may be higher than the league has calculated. CapGeek.com zeroes bonuses during the season because it is not possible to determine which performance bonuses (most prominently, games played) have been ruled unattainable by the league."

Is there anyway they can be more confusing? So what I am led to understand is, during the summer, they are showing the entire cap hit plus bonuses. Then, when the season starts, they will remove the bonus figures from the cap hit. The problem is, this is how CAPGEEK does it, how does the LEAGUE view it? Thats what matters. Does the teams ACTUAL cap hit when the season starts drop down because the bonuses are removed?

Yeah, I actually emailed Capgeek about the confusing way they describe how bonuses compute, then how they add the bonus in, then how they remove it, its a complete mess. They sent me back simply links to what I already read, which doesn't clear anything up. Here is how they said they display the cap for teams:

"Under the collective bargaining agreement struck in 2013, a performance bonus cushion is in place for all years of the deal, including the last one in 2021-22.

The performance bonus cushion allows teams to exceed the upper limit with performance bonuses to a maximum of 7.5 percent of the upper limit.

For example, if the upper limit is $64,300,000, teams can exceed it by $4,822,500 in performance bonuses. Any performances bonuses in excess of that total do not fall into the cushion and are counted as part of the team's cap payroll.

Any performance bonuses actually earned at season's end (ie. for games played, awards, all-star teams, etc.) are then added to the team's final cap payroll. The catch with the cushion is that if the bonuses earned at year's end push the team past the upper limit, the overage is carried over as a penalty the following season.

The 2009-10 Chicago Blackhawks are the most famous example of a bonus overage. Bonuses earned by the likes of Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews following their Stanley Cup win pushed the Blackhawks' final cap payroll $4,157,753 past the upper limit. As a result, the $4,157,753 overage reduced their 2010-11 upper limit from $59,400,000 to $55,242,247 million. That, in part, resulted in the trading of Kris Versteeg, Andrew Ladd, Dustin Byfuglien, Brian Campbell, and others.

During the off-season, CapGeek.com includes all performance bonuses in its cap payroll estimates. However, it then accounts for the 7.5 percent bonus cushion in its cap space figures. During the season, CapGeek.com zeroes all performance bonuses, meaning if a team is in excess of 7.5 percent cushion, our cap space figure may be higher than the league has calculated. CapGeek.com zeroes bonuses during the season because it is not possible to determine which performance bonuses (most prominently, games played) have been ruled unattainable by the league."

Is there anyway they can be more confusing? So what I am led to understand is, during the summer, they are showing the entire cap hit plus bonuses. Then, when the season starts, they will remove the bonus figures from the cap hit. The problem is, this is how CAPGEEK does it, how does the LEAGUE view it? Thats what matters. Does the teams ACTUAL cap hit when the season starts drop down because the bonuses are removed?
- xcheckmajor

I just don't get how you give a guy making millions of dollars a "bonus". Like he needs it

each team pays 275 million dollars to join the NHL and that goes to the owner's pockets.

The owners get no money if teams relocate.
- jimbro83

- TheJerseyDevil1

this is how the owners make up for the money they lost due to the lockout

roughly 20 million per team in expansion money

this is how the owners make up for the money they lost due to the lockout

roughly 20 million per team in expansion money
- jimbro83

I think it can also be viewed as compensation for losing players to the expansion drafts that take place. If you can put a mathematical value on how much revenue individual players bring to a franchise (I know its not possible), that can at least account for some of the cost of the franchise fee.

But, you have to see that its a franchise and there is a cost to "buy in" to any successful business formula. I know profits are arguable in the NHL, but the owners that have created this "monster" need to be paid if they allow someone else to jump on to the train. I have no problems with the franchise fee, if I were to buy a McDonalds today, I would be paying franchise fees every single month. The NHL just requires it one time.

Actually, I would argue that its all proportionate. Owning an NHL franchise is first and foremost a business decision, then secondary its "glamour". But as a business, it needs to be proportionately sensible. If an owner is gonna pony up $250M, the rate of return has to be something similar, otherwise, he may as well open up 100 7 eleven's or 100 Dunkin Donuts, etc...

I think it can also be viewed as compensation for losing players to the expansion drafts that take place. If you can put a mathematical value on how much revenue individual players bring to a franchise (I know its not possible), that can at least account for some of the cost of the franchise fee.
- xcheckmajor

there are a lot of questions that will need to be answered if there is an expansion draft.

like, are players with no movement clauses exempt?

there are a lot of questions that will need to be answered if there is an expansion draft.

like, are players with no movement clauses exempt?
- jimbro83

Thats something the NHL and NHLPA will need to decide upon. I'm leaning towards yes. I don't think a team needs to waste a protection slot for a nmc player simply because his SPC is still in effect under the CBA. Both sides would have to agree to amend that and I think thats an impossible battle for the league. Ultimately, no player would agree unless he wants to leave. So IMO, I think they will be unavailable in a draft. A compromise would probably lead to any team with nmc players will be forced to relinquish a protection spot for them seeing how they are basically considered "protected" anyway. I think based on how the last expansion draft worked, its the position that needs to be protected so nmc players would just be slotted into the position.

Thats something the NHL and NHLPA will need to decide upon. I'm leaning towards yes. I don't think a team needs to waste a protection slot for a nmc player simply because his SPC is still in effect under the CBA. Both sides would have to agree to amend that and I think thats an impossible battle for the league. Ultimately, no player would agree unless he wants to leave. So IMO, I think they will be unavailable in a draft.
- xcheckmajor

if that's the case, the simplest thing the Rangers can do is give NMC clauses to every player that needs a contract so they won't have to worry about protecting them

we are about to sign an undrafted 6-7 defenseman from Erie in OHL

http://www.goerieblogs.co...to-sign-with-n-y-rangers/

I just don't get how you give a guy making millions of dollars a "bonus". Like he needs it
- mames11

i wonder how much escrow is.

we are about to sign an undrafted 6-7 defenseman from Erie in OHL

http://www.goerieblogs.co...to-sign-with-n-y-rangers/
- jimbro83

hopefully he fills out that frame.

if that's the case, the simplest thing the Rangers can do is give NMC clauses to every player that needs a contract so they won't have to worry about protecting them
- jimbro83

Haha, I think that would have an adverse liability to it. You can't ever change your roster until contracts expire.

there are a lot of questions that will need to be answered if there is an expansion draft.

like, are players with no movement clauses exempt?
- jimbro83

Bored at work, from what I found rules are this:

Teams can protect either 1 goalie, 5 defencemen, and 9 forwards, or 2 goalies, 3 defencemen and 7 forwards.

and 1 or 2 year pros are protected. Thus I protect in summer 2014.

Hank... Staal, Mac, Girardi, Moore, DZ... Step, Nash, Cally, Hags, Brass, Boyle, Dorsett, Zucc, Kreider.

Richards was bought out already . And Stralsy would be taken immediately

Thats something the NHL and NHLPA will need to decide upon. I'm leaning towards yes. I don't think a team needs to waste a protection slot for a nmc player simply because his SPC is still in effect under the CBA. Both sides would have to agree to amend that and I think thats an impossible battle for the league. Ultimately, no player would agree unless he wants to leave. So IMO, I think they will be unavailable in a draft. A compromise would probably lead to any team with nmc players will be forced to relinquish a protection spot for them seeing how they are basically considered "protected" anyway. I think based on how the last expansion draft worked, its the position that needs to be protected so nmc players would just be slotted into the position.
- xcheckmajor

I'd be willing to bet that is already covered in some way in the current CBA. I've scanned the document a few times and they include sections on a lot of things that don't come up often but conceivably could.

Bored at work, from what I found rules are this:

Teams can protect either 1 goalie, 5 defencemen, and 9 forwards, or 2 goalies, 3 defencemen and 7 forwards.

and 1 or 2 year pros are protected. Thus I protect in summer 2014.

Hank... Staal, Mac, Girardi, Moore, DZ... Step, Nash, Cally, Hags, Brass, Boyle, Dorsett, Zucc, Kreider.

Richards was bought out already . And Stralsy would be taken immediately
- mrhattrick27

nice, good stuff

we are about to sign an undrafted 6-7 defenseman from Erie in OHL

http://www.goerieblogs.co...to-sign-with-n-y-rangers/
- jimbro83

Donnay, 19, has 17 points, a minus-65 rating and 104 penalty minutes in 143 career OHL games. He has 13 points, a minus-70 rating and 76 penalty minutes in 95 games with the Otters since being acquired along with F Dane Fox in the January 2012 deal that sent C Greg McKegg, D Brett Cook and G Tyson Teichmann to the London Knights. - See more at: http://www.goerieblogs.co...ers/#sthash.pE5XRrPX.dpuf


umm.. why would we sign him?? -65?!?!

Bored at work as well. In regards to Stepan's negotiations now, I'm thinking about the implications to the rest of the team. The Rangers aren't in a situation where they just don't want to shell out the money, they are in a situation where they simply can't. So if Stepan's camp insists, that essentially means they are forcing the organization to move people, cut people, or demote people. Thats gotta have a negative impact in the locker room. He is deserving yes, but thats at the cost of others right now. I don't think Stepan is that kind of guy that doesn't care and wants his money no matter how it affects his team mates. If Stepan isn't willing to accept a bridge deal with a low 1st year cap hit (say 3-3.5M), then not only will the team have to move Pyatt or Boyle, they may have to do more than that with the need to bring up players for Cally and Hag's absence. So the question is this, does Stepan want to potentially bring some drama into the locker room being the reason why a few players are gone? Or will he be the ultimate team player, realize he is only 23 and the money will undoubtedly come to him later, and give the team something it can work with? I wonder if Sather has straight up approached his camp saying, "Look, based on the cap, this is really the max we can offer. If you want more, your forcing me to move some of your buddies."

Donnay, 19, has 17 points, a minus-65 rating and 104 penalty minutes in 143 career OHL games. He has 13 points, a minus-70 rating and 76 penalty minutes in 95 games with the Otters since being acquired along with F Dane Fox in the January 2012 deal that sent C Greg McKegg, D Brett Cook and G Tyson Teichmann to the London Knights. - See more at: http://www.goerieblogs.co...ers/#sthash.pE5XRrPX.dpuf


umm.. why would we sign him?? -65?!?!
- MeltingPlastic

Because he's 19. If the league never signed anyone that has some unfortunate stats at that young age, a lot of good players would never be developed. This signing is for organizational prospect depth, not for the Rangers Club.

Donnay, 19, has 17 points, a minus-65 rating and 104 penalty minutes in 143 career OHL games. He has 13 points, a minus-70 rating and 76 penalty minutes in 95 games with the Otters since being acquired along with F Dane Fox in the January 2012 deal that sent C Greg McKegg, D Brett Cook and G Tyson Teichmann to the London Knights. - See more at: http://www.goerieblogs.co...ers/#sthash.pE5XRrPX.dpuf


umm.. why would we sign him?? -65?!?!
- MeltingPlastic

probably see some sort of potential, a major project

Donnay, 19, has 17 points, a minus-65 rating and 104 penalty minutes in 143 career OHL games. He has 13 points, a minus-70 rating and 76 penalty minutes in 95 games with the Otters since being acquired along with F Dane Fox in the January 2012 deal that sent C Greg McKegg, D Brett Cook and G Tyson Teichmann to the London Knights. - See more at: http://www.goerieblogs.co...ers/#sthash.pE5XRrPX.dpuf


umm.. why would we sign him?? -65?!?!
- MeltingPlastic

6' 7" and only 185?! Jesus give the kid a cheeseburger....

6' 7" and only 185?! Jesus give the kid a cheeseburger....
- mrhattrick27

a whopper

6' 7" and only 185?! Jesus give the kid a cheeseburger....
- mrhattrick27

Haha, that could be the reason why they see potential in him. With some pro training, he could fill out to be Chara size and maybe get him up to 230. That should have a positive impact on his +/- if he becomes physically dominating. If you remember, Chara was similar when he was with the Isles. They gave up on him before he even came close to his dominating level of play. A kid this big could be taught to use his size and also develop one hell of a shot if he's using a 7' stick!

Haha, that could be the reason why they see potential in him. With some pro training, he could fill out to be Chara size and maybe get him up to 230. That should have a positive impact on his +/- if he becomes physically dominating. If you remember, Chara was similar when he was with the Isles. They gave up on him before he even came close to his dominating level of play. A kid this big could be taught to use his size and also develop one hell of a shot if he's using a 7' stick!
- xcheckmajor

if you look at the Erie Otters the past couple of years, everyone on the team had very bad plus/minus numbers.

That team has been really awful.

Even Connor McDavid was a -24