The difference being that the cap (instituted in 2006) didn't wreck the Oilers but it's giving a slow death to teams (and the league?) like the Hawks, LA, NYR, STL, TB.
- Mr Ricochet

I don't know if its a slow death, where would you guys have been this year if bread man had a Radulov head on his shoulders.
Good teams will always be good if they use the proper resources.

Actually it has never been this way...

With all due respect you lost the the core of one of the best teams ever because Gretzky wanted to leave, others got old and those that didn't were beyond your budget.

Teams that could afford to pay players kept them...As in the case of Detroit.
But they knew what they were doing more so than anyone...It takes more than throwing money around.

Look at the history of NY Rangers and my point will be understood because they had a huge budget but made incorrect decisions over and over again.

It has never been like this in the NHL....It's the wrong design and wrong plan for lasting success.

Parity doesn't sell.....Dynasties and stars sell, the NHL hard cap model works against marketing both.
- Al

I go back and forth on this perspective. I remember the days when the western conference was basically a march to a Detroit/Colorado slugfest - and I still enjoyed the spectacle of it. But on the other hand - going into the playoffs with a wider group of teams all having a legitimate shot does make the match-ups more compelling. Dynasties and stars are great - but emerging underdogs and dark horses can also be just as exciting - sometimes even more so.

How about a 1 yr flyer on Vrbata. He can most definitely score. Doesn't play much defense, and not sure if he is a possession type guy. And not sure he can play left wing.
- hockey nut 28

No way, Vrbata is done. He had a poor season in Vancouver.

I like the idea of McGinn, but I wonder if he'll be too expensive.

2,190, 000, 000.00

Why is this figure important?

It is the 2016-17 Salary Cap for the entire league.

Why should a fan of one particular team care about that?

Because eventually, more and more teams will succumb to the cap casualty operating system that the Blackhawks (and several other recent successful teams) have gone through, and once it claims all 30 teams, the league will be forced to reconfigure the Cap concept in order to maintain economic balance between the owners, the NHLPA, and the ability to allow for competitive equality.

It will never “claim” all 30 teams.

Ecomomics and basic math say otherwise. If player salary inflation and Cap ceiling do not increase at equal levels percentage wise, it is a mathematical certainty that eventually the gap between available cap space league wide and current salary commitment will close, shrinking to the point of equilibrium between the two numbers, or in economic terms, monetary Armageddon.

The reason it is not a premium concern currently is that there are enough teams with space available where UFA’s and RFA’s can relocate and collect on a salary increase. However, over time (as stated above) the available funds will diminish year after year, due in large part to a Salary Cap that does not increase enough to absorb all of the increases given out. In the short term, it can work because as long as there are teams with space, there will be player movement to those areas. And it may even look good on paper to the eyes of Gary Bettman, because parity will become almost to perfection level. But once that is attained, it has no where to go but off the cliff, as the players union will never agree to a wage structure that has no room for growth. And herein lies the importance of the relationship between the Salary Cap percentage increase in relation to annual salary inflation.

Aren’t there are enough new players entering the NHL every year on ELC’s, combined with older vets retiring, to keep the numbers proportionate to each other?

Possibly. But not necessarily. Those 2 factors definitely influence the danger zone in which the teams are operating from an accounting standpoint. However, a quick evaluation from 2010 – 2015, comparing the relationship of the league operating Salary Cap (current year team Cap x 30) and the committed funds to all players for same year, shows a decrease of the available player funds in each of the last 5 seasons. This number represents not only the conclusion that there is simply not enough league wide cap space to support contract increases, but that without a reconfigured Cap system the league would be at risk of strikes / lawsuits from the NHLPA on grounds of collusion. Again, this is the extreme result and seems unlikely in the short term, but 5 years from now is not only a possibility, but likely reality.

To illustrate this, take the Blackhawks current roster and salary structure. After the forthcoming raise to Panarin, they will have roughly 58 million tied up into 9 players. The remaining roster slots will be taken up by 14 players making 1 to 1.5 mil per.

Now envision all 30 teams being comprised likewise. It will happen eventually under the current salary inflation vs. Cap limit structure. And once it does happen, the levy will break in the form of a corporation crash. Unless a change to the system happens. Fair warning.
- Katana777

Sir or madam my multiply concussed pickled mind may not have the ability to comprehend what you just posted but my intuition tells me I just read the best and most important piece about the sport I have ever read.

To say well done is insulting you and your piece. A must read.

According to Scott Powers, Leighton will not be re-signed. Not a surprised given the log jam that appears in Rockford.

I don't know if its a slow death, where would you guys have been this year if bread man had a Radulov head on his shoulders.
Good teams will always be good if they use the proper resources.
- puckhead17

Very good point. But Panarin playing as he did is like finding a winning lottery ticket on the ground, that can't be a business model. Now add that to keep him you lose finding a Crawford or Keith.

Back to the get as "less worse" as you can year after year after year after year model the NHL rules demand.

According to Scott Powers, Leighton will not be re-signed. Not a surprised given the log jam that appears in Rockford.
- DarthKane

That's too bad for Leighton - but I understand the decision for the organization. I recall an article about Leighton detailing his family and making it work while playing in the AHL - and still holding out hope for an NHL gig. Offers an interesting perspective on the common player pursuing his dreams and the trade-offs made in balancing a wife and kids. I hope he lands on his feet.

2,190, 000, 000.00

Why is this figure important?

It is the 2016-17 Salary Cap for the entire league.

Why should a fan of one particular team care about that?

Because eventually, more and more teams will succumb to the cap casualty operating system that the Blackhawks (and several other recent successful teams) have gone through, and once it claims all 30 teams, the league will be forced to reconfigure the Cap concept in order to maintain economic balance between the owners, the NHLPA, and the ability to allow for competitive equality.

It will never “claim” all 30 teams.

Ecomomics and basic math say otherwise. If player salary inflation and Cap ceiling do not increase at equal levels percentage wise, it is a mathematical certainty that eventually the gap between available cap space league wide and current salary commitment will close, shrinking to the point of equilibrium between the two numbers, or in economic terms, monetary Armageddon.

The reason it is not a premium concern currently is that there are enough teams with space available where UFA’s and RFA’s can relocate and collect on a salary increase. However, over time (as stated above) the available funds will diminish year after year, due in large part to a Salary Cap that does not increase enough to absorb all of the increases given out. In the short term, it can work because as long as there are teams with space, there will be player movement to those areas. And it may even look good on paper to the eyes of Gary Bettman, because parity will become almost to perfection level. But once that is attained, it has no where to go but off the cliff, as the players union will never agree to a wage structure that has no room for growth. And herein lies the importance of the relationship between the Salary Cap percentage increase in relation to annual salary inflation.

Aren’t there are enough new players entering the NHL every year on ELC’s, combined with older vets retiring, to keep the numbers proportionate to each other?

Possibly. But not necessarily. Those 2 factors definitely influence the danger zone in which the teams are operating from an accounting standpoint. However, a quick evaluation from 2010 – 2015, comparing the relationship of the league operating Salary Cap (current year team Cap x 30) and the committed funds to all players for same year, shows a decrease of the available player funds in each of the last 5 seasons. This number represents not only the conclusion that there is simply not enough league wide cap space to support contract increases, but that without a reconfigured Cap system the league would be at risk of strikes / lawsuits from the NHLPA on grounds of collusion. Again, this is the extreme result and seems unlikely in the short term, but 5 years from now is not only a possibility, but likely reality.

To illustrate this, take the Blackhawks current roster and salary structure. After the forthcoming raise to Panarin, they will have roughly 58 million tied up into 9 players. The remaining roster slots will be taken up by 14 players making 1 to 1.5 mil per.

Now envision all 30 teams being comprised likewise. It will happen eventually under the current salary inflation vs. Cap limit structure. And once it does happen, the levy will break in the form of a corporation crash. Unless a change to the system happens. Fair warning.
- Katana777

Great post. But the salary cap is still the best innovation in regards to salaries. I think some concessions can be made tho:
1) All teams can tag 1 player with a franchise tag, pay the whatever they want and it doesn't count against the cap.
2) implement a cap on 2nd contracts. Max salary of 5 million, max term 3 years. arbitration rights, but no RFA rights outside of that or eligibility to sign offer sheets.

Sound good?

That's too bad for Leighton - but I understand the decision for the organization. I recall an article about Leighton detailing his family and making it work while playing in the AHL - and still holding out hope for an NHL gig. Offers an interesting perspective on the common player pursuing his dreams and the trade-offs made in balancing a wife and kids. I hope he lands on his feet.
- Chief4Feathers

I'm sure Leighton land a job as a #3 elsewhere.

According to a couple Hockey writers on Twitter the trade chatter for Yakupov should pick up this week, in addition to a few others in Edmonton.

I'm still holding out hope for Maroon to be acquired.

Very good point. But Panarin playing as he did is like finding a winning lottery ticket on the ground, that can't be a business model. Now add that to keep him you lose finding a Crawford or Keith.

Back to the get as "less worse" as you can year after year after year after year model the NHL rules demand.
- Mr Ricochet

All 29 other teams, (mine included), had just as much of a chance finding that winning lottery ticket, we just didn't want to look in that area.
I think that's more in the line of scouting resources, than finding a winning ticket.
That's where Chicago did extremely well, and can do it again.

Great post. But the salary cap is still the best innovation in regards to salaries. I think some concessions can be made tho:
1) All teams can tag 1 player with a franchise tag, pay the whatever they want and it doesn't count against the cap.
2) implement a cap on 2nd contracts. Max salary of 5 million, max term 3 years. arbitration rights, but no RFA rights outside of that or eligibility to sign offer sheets.

Sound good?
- Jeropotato

2 players, most large market teams market a duo

Kane/Toews
Crosby/Malkin
Kopitar/Doughty (Quick?)
Benn/Seguin
Getzlaf/Perry
Thornton/Marleau
Henrik/Daniel Sedin
Subban/Price
Parise/Suter
Giroux/Voracek*
etc etc...

2 players, most large market teams market a duo

Kane/Toews
Crosby/Malkin
Kopitar/Doughty (Quick?)
Benn/Seguin
Getzlaf/Perry
Thornton/Marleau
Henrik/Daniel Sedin
Subban/Price
Parise/Suter
etc
- Slofire94

Where's the love man? (Giroux, and Voracek).

https://youtu.be/SfP9j8neRNQ

We were all excited when teets fell to us in the draft. I think this kid will blow him away.

GO HOCKS

Actually it has never been this way...

With all due respect you lost the the core of one of the best teams ever because Gretzky wanted to leave, others got old and those that didn't were beyond your budget.

Teams that could afford to pay players kept them...As in the case of Detroit.
But they knew what they were doing more so than anyone...It takes more than throwing money around.

Look at the history of NY Rangers and my point will be understood because they had a huge budget but made incorrect decisions over and over again.

It has never been like this in the NHL....It's the wrong design and wrong plan for lasting success.

Parity doesn't sell.....Dynasties and stars sell, the NHL hard cap model works against marketing both.
- Al

Spot on Al...cry me a river about the Oilers...who had a team of all stars every season and could pay them whatever they wanted. It got blown up because of ownership not because of a hard cap...Imagine the Oilers having to deal with a hard cap then...they'd lose two or three guys every offseason. Messier, Gretz, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Smith, Fuhr, Coffey, Gregg, Huddy, Tikanen...

Meanwhile the Hawks continued to get screwed by a cap brought to us courtesy of Dollar Bill Wirtz...who even from the great beyond is finding a way to frank up his own team. There needs to be some luxury tax or Bird exemption type of deal put in place.

And no question its not just throwing money at it you have to be smart...see Detroit.

I go back and forth on this perspective. I remember the days when the western conference was basically a march to a Detroit/Colorado slugfest - and I still enjoyed the spectacle of it. But on the other hand - going into the playoffs with a wider group of teams all having a legitimate shot does make the match-ups more compelling. Dynasties and stars are great - but emerging underdogs and dark horses can also be just as exciting - sometimes even more so.
- Chief4Feathers

The very nature of this sport allows for a dark horse-Which is usually the team that is playing the best at the time-To emerge the Champion.

The NBA on the other hand for the most part is anti climatic...94% of the teams that win the first two games of the Final win the series.... But people still watch which is exactly the opposite in the NHL.

The NBA Draft lottery show...not the selection show outdraws the NHL Final games on TV.

If the design is to get a fat TV contract and to grow merchandising the NHL is on the wrong course...Parity doesn't sell and really to think that it can be fixed that way is a joke.

If you look at the same period of time before the lockout as after the amount of repeat winners is almost the same. What creates parity is the phony made for TV point system-Most don't know if you look at the standings the Friday morning after US Thanksgiving usually all the same clubs will be in the playoffs except for maybe
2-4. That's a long way from April but that tid bit is true.

The NHL is on a scattered course and from a business standpoint 4 teams should removed today...But there needs to be a plan to grow the game and that all franchises follow, and the main goal shouldn't be to create parity.

I'm sure Leighton land a job as a #3 elsewhere.

According to a couple Hockey writers on Twitter the trade chatter for Yakupov should pick up this week, in addition to a few others in Edmonton.

I'm still holding out hope for Maroon to be acquired.
- DarthKane

Both players are intriguing - especially Yak - as I think he'd flourish as a 2LW with the Hawks - especially with Anisimov as his linemate. It also allows you to comfortably slot 72 at 1LW and Panik at 3LW. A lot falls into place with that.

But, what would Edmonton want in return? It appears they want defense. Is this the deal where you shed Seabrook for more cap space and greater balance to your forward lines? Then you have an even greater concerns with you D - because after 2&5 it drops off considerably.

I go back and forth on this perspective. I remember the days when the western conference was basically a march to a Detroit/Colorado slugfest - and I still enjoyed the spectacle of it. But on the other hand - going into the playoffs with a wider group of teams all having a legitimate shot does make the match-ups more compelling. Dynasties and stars are great - but emerging underdogs and dark horses can also be just as exciting - sometimes even more so.
- Chief4Feathers

Fan of the sport more than fan of any one team would yield that sentiment, makes sense. For me it's 'Hawks above all else.

I have a little more faith in this core to at least make the playoffs even if the supporting cast isn't as good/young. Realistically though, we have to prepare for the fact that there will be rebuilding seasons coming up unless we get a cap spike/change the rules. Being bad one year, getting a lottery pick that plays well on a ELC contract probably helps this team out a lot.

I'm not sure when the next CBA comes up, but there has to be some medium between unregulated spending like the old days, and the hard cap like today. Maybe they could switch to the NBA style soft cap, which at least gives you the option of going over the cap (but paying a huge price).
- hawkfan79

Me too. The Hawks are flawed but so is everyone else, the NHL system demands that. ANA got worse, DAL got worse, LA got worse, NYR got worse, PITT will get worse once they lose MAF, STL got worse, TB got worse. .....Just a matter of who got "less worse".

2 players, most large market teams market a duo

Kane/Toews
Crosby/Malkin
Kopitar/Doughty (Quick?)
Benn/Seguin
Getzlaf/Perry
Thornton/Marleau
Henrik/Daniel Sedin
Subban/Price
Parise/Suter
Giroux/Voracek*
etc etc...
- Slofire94

No, that's getting rediculous . We could be talking a difference of 25 + million between the best and worst teams.

Both players are intriguing - especially Yak - as I think he'd flourish as a 2LW with the Hawks - especially with Anisimov as his linemate. It also allows you to comfortably slot 72 at 1LW and Panik at 3LW. A lot falls into place with that.

But, what would Edmonton want in return? It appears they want defense. Is this the deal where you shed Seabrook for more cap space and greater balance to your forward lines? Then you have an even greater concerns with you D - because after 2&5 it drops off considerably.
- Chief4Feathers

I would pursue Maroon before Yakupov.

Maroon folks some of the void left behind in Shaw's departure. Plus, Maroon's cap hit is only $1.5 million for 2 more seasons.

Edit: When the Oilers aquired Maroon it cost them a low prospect and a 4th. Maybe McNeill, Ross and a 5th would be enough?

All 29 other teams, (mine included), had just as much of a chance finding that winning lottery ticket, we just didn't want to look in that area.
I think that's more in the line of scouting resources, than finding a winning ticket.
That's where Chicago did extremely well, and can do it again.
- puckhead17

Yes all teams had the same chance to find Panarin and IMO it's like finding a winning lottery ticket on the ground...... They can do it again? It is rare at best that a Panarin is found my proof being how many Panarins have been found?

It's just not a business model and add retaining a Panarin means you ship off another core piece.

Spot on Al...cry me a river about the Oilers...who had a team of all stars every season and could pay them whatever they wanted. It got blown up because of ownership not because of a hard cap...Imagine the Oilers having to deal with a hard cap then...they'd lose two or three guys every offseason. Messier, Gretz, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Smith, Fuhr, Coffey, Gregg, Huddy, Tikanen...

Meanwhile the Hawks continued to get screwed by a cap brought to us courtesy of Dollar Bill Wirtz...who even from the great beyond is finding a way to frank up his own team. There needs to be some luxury tax or Bird exemption type of deal put in place.

And no question its not just throwing money at it you have to be smart...see Detroit.
- DK002

This is a misconception and doesn't show just how bad Hawk fans had it under Dollar Bill's rule. Dollar Bill was one of 2-3 owners who voted AGAINST the cap!! Dollar Bill did so cuz he didn't want a cap FLOOR. He didn't want anyone telling him he had to spend a minimum to operate.

I would pursue Maroon before Yakupov.

Maroon folks some of the void left behind in Shaw's departure. Plus, Maroon's cap hit is only $1.5 million for 2 more seasons.

Edit: When the Oilers aquired Maroon it cost them a low prospect and a 4th. Maybe McNeill, Ross and a 5th would be enough?
- DarthKane

Good point on Maroon - especially given his $1.5M cap hit. He strikes me as the kind of player we wanted Bickell to be during the regular season. Nothing flashy - just good "all terrain" play. Might be hard to pry him away from Edmonton as he compliments their more skilled players.

Actually it has never been this way...

With all due respect you lost the the core of one of the best teams ever because Gretzky wanted to leave, others got old and those that didn't were beyond your budget.

Teams that could afford to pay players kept them...As in the case of Detroit.
But they knew what they were doing more so than anyone...It takes more than throwing money around.

Look at the history of NY Rangers and my point will be understood because they had a huge budget but made incorrect decisions over and over again.

It has never been like this in the NHL....It's the wrong design and wrong plan for lasting success.

Parity doesn't sell.....Dynasties and stars sell, the NHL hard cap model works against marketing both.
- Al

Preach brother!!

Both players are intriguing - especially Yak - as I think he'd flourish as a 2LW with the Hawks - especially with Anisimov as his linemate. It also allows you to comfortably slot 72 at 1LW and Panik at 3LW. A lot falls into place with that.

But, what would Edmonton want in return? It appears they want defense. Is this the deal where you shed Seabrook for more cap space and greater balance to your forward lines? Then you have an even greater concerns with you D - because after 2&5 it drops off considerably.
- Chief4Feathers

Keith and Rundblad?!?!?!?!?!?!? That is a steep drop-off ....