There are big talks about the New York Rangers being "screwed" after the CBA agreement.
My problem with that is that people use their uninformed mind and express their opinions on that. Saying that the Rangers will have such a hard time once a CBA agreement will take part for the 2004-2005 regular season. I want to challenge that, and I will obviously say that will not be the case.
First of all, it is utterly impossible to see a salary cap of $40-$45M inserted in the league. That will not happen.
That will only lead to chaos for teams that have payrolls over $45M. They will be forced to trade their key players. And why should they? After all, in my opinion, it is the NHL's fault to not forsee this in the first place. NHL Comissioner Gary Bettman should have known better, he should have expected something like this to happen, and just in a matter of a year that this issue has been broguht up, he wants to do something to do about it?
A fair salary cap should start at $50M, at the very least. That will not force NHL team owners to buy out contracts of players, or for GMs to try and trade players, paying half their contracts to teams that can then squeeze them in their payroll so it won't touch the salary cap.
In any case, let's cut to the chase and let's look at the facts, and at the numbers with the Rangers. WIll they have such a hard time with their payroll? For some crazy reason people are saying it is $80M, and I still cannot see how they get that number. I even went to the NHLPA and looked it up, it does not come up to that number. People keep making stuff up or maybe they are putting it in Canadian Dollars? I am not sure, but I guess they are just idealists that can only come up with ideas. When they do come up with ideas, and ideas about anything, I always tend to respond "ok, then you may start your own little world". Talk about psychos....
In any case, these are the players that have contracts running in the 2004-2005 season:
Pavel Bure may make $11M dollars in that season, however, it is a club, team, option. The Rangers can refuse to take that option and let Bure walk else where.
Mike Dunham will make $2.8M on his last year of his contract, in 04-05.
Bobby Holik, after this season, will always make $6.875M. Well, he wanted a $6.5M a year deal with the Devils months before July, yet the Devils declined. Why? I don't know, I guess they felt like offering him $8.2M a season in July?
Darius Kasparaitis will always make $4.1M.
Eric Lindros will make $2.1M base salary on his last year on his contract, which runs in the 04-05 season.
Petr Nedved will, and I find this ridiculous, $5M during the 04-05 season, the last year of his contract.
So, these guys will total up to either $31.8M, if Bure's option is included, and if it is not then the total is $20.8M.
However, what about the other guys? Well, I am goin gto make estimations here, or projections of other players' salaries that could run in that season:
I don't think Matt Barnaby will be re-signed after his contract expires next season since Garth Murray or Ryan Hollweg can easily replace the pesty annoyance on the ice. I will exclude him.
Dany Blackburn should make about $1.6M since in 2003-04 he will make $1.21M.
I have a feeling that Anson Carter will get $4.5M, but let's test it at the highest, let's give him $5M for the 04-05 season.
Alexei Kovalev will certainly make $8M.
Dan LaCouture, I like the guy, he is very energetic and he is making 500K, so my guess is that he might stay and if he does, then he will probably end up making 700K.
Will Brian Leetch stay? It depends if he will be loyal enough to take a pay cut. Teams will make nice offers for him, so I would not be surprised if the Rangers could not match another team's offer, since they will have to re-sign Carter and Kovalev. But, let's go high and make it $6M.
I am quite positive that Malakhov will not be a Ranger after his contract expires.
Same goes for Sandy McCarthy.
I would like Boris Mironov to stay. He has played solid as a Ranger and I could see him play well with Russian rookie Fedor Tjutin. Let's get him up to $3.6M
I doubt Ronald Petrovicky will stay, though he is still young and the most he will probably make is 650K. If he stays.
Ales Pisa does not make all that much at all, the most he'll get for the 04-05 season would be 800K.
Tom Poti has a tough agent, and I am not sure if he will get a multi year contract, but if so, then the most he could get is $2.8M.
And then there is Purinton, and I doubt he will stay a Rangers with outher youngsters coming up.
So, with these guys, the total is $29.2M.
Add that with the possible, and probably, $20.8M, then the whole total with those players would equal to right about $50M.
Now, that just meets up with the salary cap that I am projecting. However, that is not the point. The point is that the Rangers will not have such a "hard" time to deal with the CBA agreement, or they will not be "screwed". I am not coutning Bure, and I could also not count Leetch, and without Leetch it could go down to about $44M.
In the end, we will see how this all turns out. But, again, the main point of this article is to show you that the Rangers are not screwed. People exaggerate that. They make up numbers, and they come up with ideas. It's like Dr. Evil's father hwo accused chestnuts of being lazy. Why? No reason. Why would peopel accuse the Rangers for being too rich to handle the CBA agreement? I don't know, they are clueless.....weird?
So again....the Rangers will not have such a hard time dealing with the CBA. I am not saying they will be secure, nor am I saying that I am right. This is the way I see it....and it is my opinion.
PLAYER NEWS
Henrik Lundqvist, G
2010/09/01: Henrik Lundqvist is happy to have a capable veteran backup in Martin Biron for the 2010-11 season. "It's gonna be good to have a guy who's been playing more and is really established," said the Rangers' netminder. "The goal is definitely for me to play a little bit less and for that to help us in the long run." Lundqvist appeared in 73 games last year for the Blueshirts, which tied Calgary's Miikka Kiprusoff for the second most in the league. He is hoping the arrival of Biron will help lessen his workload and keep him fresher in the process. (Source: New York Post)
Tim Kennedy, C/W
2010/08/30: Tim Kennedy has agreed to terms on a one-year contract with the New York Rangers. The deal will earn him $550,000. He earned a $1-million arbitration award, but the Buffalo Sabres waived him and chose to buy out the remainder of his contract, making him an unrestricted free agent. He is not a lock to make the Rangers' roster out of training camp though and will have to compete for an energy role on their fourth line. (Source: New York Newsday)
Tim Kennedy, C/W
2010/08/24: Tim Kennedy is confident that he will find a team willing to give him a contract soon. "Everything I've been hearing has been good, so something will work out," he said. "I'm not worried about not playing next year. I know I'm going to end up somewhere. I'm just going to try to help that team." The 24-year-old said five teams are interested in his services, but he would not reveal their identities. Toronto, Columbus, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta could be in the mix. The free agent market has a logjam of players waiting for deals, but more activity is expected in the coming weeks with teams preparing for training camp. (Source: Buffalo News)
Tim Kennedy, C/W
2010/08/05: The Columbus Blue Jackets are not interested in free agent Tim Kennedy. Columbus still has plenty of cap space, but they're reportedly done signing players. Buffalo bought out Kennedy after he received a one-year/$1 million contract by an arbitrator. Kennedy had 10 goals and 26 points in 78 games last season and he should develop into a decent player. (Source: Columbus Dispatch)
Todd White, C/LW
2010/08/04: Todd White is still recovering from shoulder surgery, but he should be ready for training camp. White has been skating for three weeks, but he still hasn't been cleared for contact. "(The rehab) is going well," White said . "I saw the doctors three weeks ago and I was cleared to start skating. I've skated a couple of times, passing and shooting. I had the shoulder surgery as soon as the season was done, that's part of not being allowed to take contact. (The start of training camp), that's my goal, that was the plan all along in Atlanta, to be ready. I've been progressing really well. It's just a matter of getting my strength, my range of motion is back." The Rangers traded Donald Brashear and Patrick Rissmiller to Atlanta to get Todd White. (Source: The Bergen Record)
Tim Kennedy, C/W
2010/08/03: Tim Kennedy has cleared waivers and the Sabres intend to buy him out. Kennedy was awarded a one-year/$1 million contract by an arbitrator. The Sabres didn't have the option to walk away from the deal because all arbitrator awarded contracts under $1,611,180 are automatically accepted this summer. Buffalo's decision to buy out Kennedy's contract came as a bit of a surprise given that the Sabres are reportedly well under the salary cap, but GM Darcy Regier has apparently been given a budget that is lower than the cap. Regier said that the team is currently over his allotted budget, but the buyout of Kennedy did help them sign blueliner Shaone Morrisonn to a two-year/$4.15 million contract. (Source: Buffalo News)
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by saiklo on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
If you did your research, you would see that Bettman is pushing for a 32 million dollar salary cap. Why? because most teams will nto be profitable at higher salary levels.
The NHL is concerned with constructing financially stable teams. To think that a salary cap would "kill" teams with too high payrolls is foolish. THe NFL did it, and teams like the Dallas Cowboys still have not recovered.
In all reality, if it means damaging one or two teams to bring about sanity to a league which is in great need of a level playing field, the NHL will not hesitate to do it.
Ranger fans can only hope that they make the playoffs next year, because it might be their last chance for many years to come.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by SabresFanB on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
I'm pretty sure there will be a grandfather clause that lets all existing contracts play out becase it would be impossible for any team to pick up someone with a hefty contract. That's what I thnk should happen at least. Slowly but surely everything wil even out.
I hope the Rangers miss the playoffs. But if they make the playoffs, watch out. They "should" be trouble.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by aaron on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
Dude, a 50 million cap is a waste of time. The teams going bankrupt are doing so w/ a 30 million dollar payroll. A 50 million cap will affect like 7 teams, and most marginally.
The cap's going to be 40 million at the highest. And think that's tough? Too bad. 10 years ago, the highest payroll in the NHL was 16 million dollars. Saying Bettman should have anticipated it would multiply by 5 in a period of 10 years is ridiculous. No one could have predicted GMs would start dishing out money so freely.
What's going to happen is going to have to either be a grandfathering type system, or just elimination of all player salaries and start signing from scratch. You know, a "no guaranteed contracts" type thing.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by amazing_jesse on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
I am not sure about the math, but if we did every team the way you did it, I am sure the numbers would be different. maybe we are not factoring salaries to players with long term back end deals etc. I don't know.
But the information seems to indicate NYR is #1 with around $81m, then Dallas, Detroit, Filly and Toronto around $60 to $70 million. And Pittsburgh around $26 million.
Do the math anyway you want. The NHL is screwed up.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by oilersofthefuture on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
i like the rule it will een out the teams
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by burky on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
I pray that there is a cap at 40 mill, just to see the fans of all the big market teams ***** and moan about trading away their key players. You won't get any sympathy in Canada (except Toranna).
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by burky on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
The Vancouver Canucks, operating at a $32 million budget and with a sold out building every night, will barely break even this year. Is that fair? No.
It's unfortunate that the Avs will have to get rid of a Sakic or Blake to get below $32 million, but it is the ONLY HOPE for small market teams survival.
Either that or have the Flames, Oilers, Pens etc. fold.
Keep on like this and before long, the NHL would be a 6 team league once again.
I can't even fathom having to cheer for the only Canadian team left, those wanna be New Yorkers.
First of all, I t hink Bettman is pushing for a $30 million a year cap, since anything more would be a joke (much like baseball's luxury tax only affecting one team). However, I don;t think you could institute a hard cap right away, since there are quite a few teams above that cap. What would seem logical (to me at least) is a softer cap for a period of 5 years or so. What you do is have the teams who are over the cap pay a percentage of the amount they are over the cap, and the league divies this up among the team (this is probably similar to baseball's and the NBA's luxury tax's, but I'm not sure), so that the poorer teams still would make some money. After the 5 year transitional period you go to a hard cap, and anybody who hasn't worked out their salaries by then is screwed.
a TEAM salary cap is just wrong...if teams have the financial backing, why not use it?! i think that there should be a PLAYER salary cap, not a TEAM salary cap:
the maximum a player can make is 6-7 million US$, minimum 500,000 US$...teams can have as many big contracts as they like, as long as they can afford them
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by ThePocketRocket on Friday, March 14 (User Info | Send a Message)
Wait a minute!!!! All I am hearing from everybody is how big market teams will suffer. I can't see that, the whole idea of the salary cap is to get a control on "player's salaries" so guys like Holik who sign for $10 million would instead have to sign for less because teams would have to work within their cap and only offer 2-3 million. The realty of it is that economics has finally caught up with the NHL, teams are not selling seats, the league as expanded beyond its perimeters, and too boot, the quality of product on the ice has suffered. Not only are the Sabres in trouble, alot teams are, Oilers, Flames, Penguins,Huricanes, Predators, Coyotes, Ducks, Capitals, and the Senators. This evident by todays deadline trades. There was a time when a blockbuster trade meant stars switching teams, i mean big star for big star, now its a star for drafts or youth, It's sad when a team like the Oilers who have to onload their leading scorer for youth and do it only to because of their operating costs and know that he will demand bigger bucks. The NHL has more problems than just calling for a salary cap, it has to deal with the product also, I can never understand why we have so many hockey teams in hot climates, like Florida, Califorina/Nevada , thats like trying to sell dog sledge racing to them, its great at 1st, then the novelity wears out quick, especially when there is not a winning product on the ice. Now I am not saying that these states should not have NHL teams, but wouldn't it make sense to have 1 team in Florida, maybe 2 in the southwest. I think if there is a salary cap, then there should be also a operating minumim, if you can't field a team and be fiscally sound at let's say a minimum operating expense of 25 million, then you should NOT have a NHL team PERIOD. I also believe that the number of games have to be cut down, I think 72 is plenty. And finally, if the players salaries come into order, then I believe that a ceiling should be made on profits and anything over this optimum should be shared with other teams. To the contary, the NFL is a very good league to model after, just look at their ratings, product and tv contracts. Good product means good business.
Regards
ThePocketRocket (home pc) aka PeterPuck (work pc)
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by JC21 on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
The NHL would definately need to gradually decrease the salary cap. The ideal cap would be between $30-35 million, formed over 3 or 4 years.
The Rangers won't have as hard a time as everyone says they will have, but it will still be difficult. $50 million is still high.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by Jonathane(stevermonde@hotmail.com) on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
There are many angles to a salary cap/luxury tax that are out there.
When listing all of the contracts and such and when people talk about getting below the cap and such, who is to say that these contracts are still guaranteed?
Currently the NHLPA has it great in that all contracts are guaranteed money. That is not the case in some of the other sports like say the NFL.
For a cap to be sucessful, teams will not be able to keep players until they turn 31. Rather the age may be closer to 24. Something like that may retard the growth of a lot of young players.
Additionally a salary cap will be probably based upon a percentage of league revenue. This will require teams to open up their books, which so far most teams have been hesitant to do.
Also since most fans of small market teams seem to think that a salary cap is the end all, for all of their problems, they are probably wrong.
Since everything is going to be based upon league revenue, do you think the NHL and the NHLPA is going to keep franchises in markets that are losing money? As long as the Canadian Dollar lags behind the US currency teams will be looking to move south.
The Provinces have been stingy in giving subsides and such to teams as compared to US Cities. I am not here to argue the merits of what an NHL teams means in terms of revenues to municipalities and such, but if teams can make more money in a US market versus a Canadian market, why stay and make less money?
The NHLPA will not want teams to stay in those markets since the pool of money will be less for them.
There are many angles to this and do not think that everything will be easily fixed with a salary cap.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by gr8haluschak on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
He I would like to know where you get your 50 million from but I totaled up the salieries for Bure, Leetch, Holik, Nedved, Kaspuraitis, Messeir, Lindros, Poti, Barnaby, Mcarthy, and some plugs and I get 52 million right now. This is not counting Kovelev, Carter, Dunham so don't give us the BS that the Rangers salary is only 50 million. As well by their own admission they even acknowledge that they have a 60 + mill payroll.
it don't look to good man (Score: 1) by JohnFlan22 on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Using your math you've shorted the rangers about 4 forwards and 1 or 2 defensmen so yes that is big chunk of team you have to come up with salarys for and I'm not seeing much of a youth movment here. Rangers are gonna have to let Bure walk and then maybe try and resighn him for less if he wants to stay and the Rangers wanna keep him. That would free up some nice cash. Nedved @ 5MIL!!! dang that sucks. Also Isn't Lindros' contract incentive based so doesn't he make alot more then 2 mil if he has an average year point wise and games played? I dunno I have to agree that it wont get easier for the rangers post CBA, it's gonna be alot harder for them to field a solid club.
BEHOLD!!! THE $50MILLION$ RANGER$ (Score: 1) by JohnFlan22 on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
W C W
CARTER LINDROS KOVALEV
PETROVICKY HOLIK LACOUTURE
LUNDMARK NEDVED ????????
?????? ??????? ???????
D D Goalie:
LEETCH POTI Dunham
KASPAR MIRONOV Blackburn
PISA ??????
You got Tjutin penciled in for the 6 spot on D and Murray and some guy named Hollweg to fill voids on O, That still leaves you with spots to fill. That is a pretty weak Ranger Club, But I guess it starts a youth infusion so thats a plus. I dont think you took those extra guys salaries into account though but they will probab;y make crap anyway. 50 mil is probably high for a cap as well, I'm thinking low 40's.
Let's all remember..... (Score: 1) by Sands on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
If the salary was to ever to drop that fast that much, the players would strike.
First of all if the Rangers, and all the other teams over 60 mill had to make trades to move high priced players for small priced players it would be impossible...... some teams would have to take on contracts..... no one would be able to fit it in...... So players would then start to have to take deals at 5 mill instead of 10 mill ... they will not be happy...... Lot's of players won;t be..... doesn't matter how much heart they have..... a player worth 5 would have to go to 3..... it's not going to happen..... if anything a high salary cap at about 60 mill might go into effect......
Let's all remember the players won't be happy, not only do they have a say but, without them ... we could be on a big Strike season ... or even 2.....The NHL is going to have a lot of problems..... We will see how it works out..... until the high priced players are out and the young players, play and never get those big contracts we will be fine.....
By the way Yashin's 10 year deal hurt the NHL not the rangers 5 year deals.... and 3 year deals.... No one say's anything bout that though right?
Not very well researched or reasoned. (Score: 1) by MantaRay on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Wow, your defense of the Rangers salary structure is first indefensible and just plain bad math as well as delusional....as mentioned several times by readers on this post.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by NaslundIzTheMan on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
i'm just wondering..how do the players feel about this salary cap? has there been and quotes said from players regarding this issue?
I think the highly paid players are gonna be losing lots of potential money if there is a salary cap. Teams won't be willing to dish out all that money and if the player is greedy he won't be signed by any team. if the salary cap is at 40 million the highest paid player should be at 5-6 million.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by TaroPhantom on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
All of this is very true but you assume the Rangers won't just overspend to get new players to replace the ones they let go. In addition, the bargaining chip the players want to get is a lowered free agency age. What if it gets the baseball rule of 6 years and you're a free agent? Suddenly, the pool of players grows dramatically and track record alone tells you MSG will overspend.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by nskerr on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
I find your argument lacking in a few areas. Like some others who wrote on this page, teams are losing money down in the 30 million dollar range. However big money teams won't allow their payroll to be cut in half, so I think 40-45 million is where it will fall. It will allow teams that break even to stay around 30 million and the higher paying teams to gain that 1 or 2 extra players and pay the extra 10-15 million. I also agree that there will be some sort of grandfathering of contracts so that as they expire, teams will be forced to comply. The Union will not have a ton of out of work players because there are a few with big tickets.
The Islanders payroll started out around 41 million and after making a couple of trades, got down to 38-39 million. In an old building they are running at a loss.
Now when you look at all of the guys you say may be let go once their contract is over, that might be true. However you forgot to add players back to the roster which will add salary. You have the Rangers losing 7 forwards, 3 defensemen with the hope Poti and Leetch take pay cuts and possibly a goalie. That is 11 out of 22, maybe 24 players. That is half of the team. So what you are saying is that Ranger fans can expect the Hartford Wolfpack to be playing broadway A LOT.
Here is what I would do if I were the Rangers. First of all, Lindros would be traded now. He is extremely overrated and although he is one of the Rangers that doesn't make a ton of money, he would save million and could bring back young players or picks. He is from Toronto. They have an idiot running their organizarion. Send him there.
I would keep Barnaby, McCarthy and Petrovicky. These guys play with heart unlike a lot of the overpaid bums the Rangers have. Plus teams will want cheap players. Why give those players away? I would let Kovalev go after this season. That is a huge savings. He does not backcheck and is more of a liability than a positive. If they decide to keep him, get rid of Bure. When healthy he is dangerous. But he has been injured 2 years in a row and with all the knee surgeries he has had, he might be a good choice to let go or trade.
The defense needs to be rebuilt. You can't get rid of Kasparitis. I would see if a trade could be made where the Rangers eat some salary but eliminate more of it. I agree Malakov should be let go. He has played well but is getting older. I think Poti should be traded. On a good defensive team, he would shine as the offensive guy. But on a team that doesn't have good d, he is only mediocre.
Dunham and Blackburn are a good pair. Dunham isn't good enough to ever command a top goalie salary but is good enough to be a #1. He is a keeper.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by MattNJD on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by MattNJD on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Sorry about that empty post above this one. Hit "ok" button by mistake. I don't want to get into the whole politics of this issue, but just wanted to chime in about Lindros's salery. Its LOADED with bonus's. If I remember correctly, he has a goal bonus, games played bonus, and points bonus. I think if all were met his salary would ballon to somewhere around $7 million.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by BosBrn on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
I personally think Bettman is doing a shitty job. The biggest thing missing in hockey today is a BIG TV deal! It is pretty bad when college basketball gets more TV exposure then the "coolest" game on earth!
How many NHL games are broadcast on "regular" TV per week? I'm not talking ESPN. Just FOX and ABC show games. But how many? 2? 3? But you can turn on the TV any Saturday, and watch college basketball, or college football (depending on the time of year) until you are blue in the face.
This is pathetic!! ABC will show more during the playoffs. But how about the regular season? Bettman needs to get off his ass and get a nice juicy deal with CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, or ABC that will broadcast AT LEAST 7-10 games a week.
You don't think that would help Pittsburg? How about San Jose, Anahiem, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida, Atlanta, or any other "small market" team. A televison deal would help all these teams. And I'm not talking MSG, NESN, or the other local cable stations, I'm talking the "non-pay, don't need cable or sat to watch" channels.
Sorry for the rant.... but I feel Bettman needs to pull his head out of his ass, and strike a BIG deal with someone. Salaries are way out of hand, but with a big TV deal, these smaller market teams could afford a little more.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by mikster on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Ok, some how my arguement was a one way street and with all these comments there started to be more two-way streets that don't have much to do with my point.
Again, the point is that the Rangers will not have such a hard time dealing with the salary cap. That's it, that is all there is to it.
I redid the math and it turns out to be just about, never said exactly, $50M.
I am not worried one bit about the Rangers dealing with a salary cap. It won't be $32M....i think in the future it should be, but in a 16 months or so? Don't think so....
Bure, Pavel $10,000,000
Leetch, Brian $9,680,000
Holik, Robert $9,600,000
Kovalev, Alexei $4,600,000
Nedved, Petr $4,550,000
Kasparaitis, Darius $4,100,000
Richter, Mike $4,000,000
Messier, Mark $3,904,585
Malakhov, Vladimir $3,500,000
Lindros, Eric $2,700,000
Lefebvre, Sylvain $2,600,000
Carter, Anson $2,400,000
Poti, Tom $1,800,000
Karpa, David $1,700,000
Janne Laukennen $1,600,000
Barnaby, Matthew $1,575,000
McCarthy, Sandy $1,300,000
Blackburn, Dan $1,130,000
Wilson, Mike $1,100,000
LaCouture, Dan $550,000
Lundmark, Jamie $512,500
Purinton, Dale $500,000
Petrovicky, Ronald $425,000
Chebaturkin, Vladimir $400,000
Total Amount for Payroll: $74,227,085
Now take that $74.2 Million and add the $4 Million that they gave to Pittsburgh for Kovalev, PLUS the $2 Million they gave to Edmonton for Carter...
and that brings you to roughly $80 Million Dollars!
And keep in mind that Kovalev and Carter's Contracts will both DOUBLE after arbitration this year costing the Rangers an additional $6 Million next year, on two players alone. (!!!)
Even though a 50 milion cap seems high and probably is I can see how it will still help small market clubs out. For the simple fact that the free spending teams will no longer have an infinite budget to snatch away all the other teams budding stars. If toronto, red wings, dallas rangers all had a cap last summer the price of the free agents wouldn't have been nearly as high and Holik would be making between 3-5mill instead of 8 or 9 for the simple reason that there wouldn't be any teams to afford them within the salry structure. The Cap would then allow small market teams at least a reasonable chance of retaining there players when they are up for new deals. And these monster contracts would go the way of the dinosaur except for the few elite players that teams would be willing to commit to at the expense of the rest of the team.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by JeffBurnz09 on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
I dont want a salary cap at all. I mean,I know alot of teams are struggling,but look at Ottawa. The Rangers spend alot,and go no where. Ottawa is bankrupt and in first place. Money doesnt matter in hockey.
Besides,I'm a Dallas fan. I like having a rich team. Not too be an asshole, but if my team can afford to compete, and is always one of the top teams in the leauge, I'm happy.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by WeStSiDe on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
Who pays the contracts of the Farm team?? I have always wondered that, becuz there are prospects or the team playing there so they must have something, and I know some have NHL contracts so the NHL team would pay..
$50 Million. Enough said. (Score: 1) by AmericasteamRedWings on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
There comes a time when you have to step back and say, OK, OK. It might not be fair, and some teams might not be able to stay, but this IS A BUSINESS. To limit the success of another business, or another team, to keep a bunch of bottom feeders afloat is just stupid.
A cap would ruin hockey, period.
What the league should look into is fixed player raises. What do I mean? Say a player, like per say, Datsyuk, scores 80 pts next year and is making $900,000. Well, he wants $4 mill a year. The league could say since he went and doubled his point output, he could double his salary + 10% and sign a minimum 1 year deal. So, he would make $1,899,000 for 1 year. And, for every year he maintains at least a 70-pt season(pro-rated with injuries in affect) he is eligable for a 20% raise at the end of each contract. So, at the end of that 2 year deal he signed, his contract can be bumped up to about $2,100,000; then 1 year after, $2,310,000; then $2,500,000, etc. for icrement increases up to 10 years. If he breaks over his average point total(70) in a season, each point would be another percentage of raise he would be eligable for. So, he pops in 90 pts, he can get a 40% raise.
That would establish fair market value and ensure teams couldn't grab players simply by over-paying them.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by TrojanMan on Saturday, March 15 (User Info | Send a Message)
This is exactly the article i have been waiting for someone to post. Thank you mikster (altho, i still say the rangers are screwed cuz it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside). i do believe the cao will be grandfathered, but if there is indeed a cap instituted the NHL doesnt make enough money to support one that is over 35millionish. The NHL is gonna have to do something on its own to help back the big budget teams or let them infuse their own cash into their budget to help meet their guaranteed payroll. I actually cant wait to see what happens.
If a cap isint put in place then the NHL may as well contract to 10 teams.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by Kingsfan1 on Sunday, March 16 (User Info | Send a Message)
man what's all this talk about a cap? the NHL, if smart, will not have a cap. They will have a luxury tax, something similar to baseball. If thats the case a 32 million dollor "cap" is reasonable. Doesn't mean you have to stay below it. But you will be penalized if you go over. And the money your penalized will go the the lower teams. Thats the most fair and reasonable thing i see happening with the league.Take the Yankees for example. I don't see Stienbrener worried about being over the baseball tax.He still signs whoever it takes to win. And teams in the NHL will do the same. Some owners could probably afford the tax. And the Canadian teams will sure benifit from it.
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by TC_4 on Sunday, March 16 (User Info | Send a Message)
Well, don't get too pissed about this now!!! Come on buddy, 40-45 million dollar cap? Your ridiculous! This league's owners aren't making any money, they have to get salaries down. There not going to cater to the Rangers, Stars, Wings, Avalanche, Flyers, Blues, and Leafs just because they've blown there payroll out of wack. They deserve it(the Rangers). There ONE(not the only)of the reasons why these prices have been driven through the roof. When they went on there shopping spree of 99 and bought everybody, what's everybody supposed to do? They want these players, so then you get Tom Hicks saying that he can match them and has to if he wants Pierre Turgeon(for example), so he does, and so on. The cap will be around 35 million, give or take, that's the number floating around. All the journalists and broadcasters are saying that's the area they want. But, I think what you'll see is that players salaries will really have to take a major hit before the cap really takes effect. The Rangers and the rest of the teams over the cap will have some years to trim it down.
I remember a couple weeks ago I was listening to a radio broadcast and this topic was brought up the idea that was suggested was the following.
stagger the salary cap, start with a number in the 55-60 million range and lower it over a 3-5 season span till it gets to the 30-35 million mark that bettman is trying to install. Second set up a system in which teams have to put a team "on the ice" that fits within that cap, this means as an example say the rangers do have an 70 mil dollar pay roll, and ill use the current roster since i addmit i dont know enough about them to speak of the future, anyways say they have a 70 mil, the Gm might look at the team and see they have to trim 10+ mil, and say that Bure or Lindros isnt playing up to the value of their contract, the Gm could put them on a list of players who would still get paid, but would be ineligiable to play for that season in any league. At this point these players have the option to sit on their ass and get paid or declare themselves UFA's and hopefully get to play somewhere else even if its at a smaller contract. The Rangers then may or may not get compensated with a draft pick from a team that would sign one of these players.
Personally though I would like to see an NFL type of system where players can be cut with little penalty to the team. How many people out there have players that they wish their Gm hadnt signed and could just be gone with a snap of their fingers? Maybe the oilers could have kept carter if they could have cut guys like reasoner at the begining of the season, maybe the pens could have kept Kovie fi they could have cut Wilson Laukanen Pushor Jonnson ect ect at the begining of the season, its time to make players work for their contracts, and if they dont perform they dont get paid.
B
Re: A Tough Time after the CBA Agreement? (Score: 1) by guinsfan4life on Monday, March 17 (User Info | Send a Message)
A cap will not start out at an enormously low number. Realistically speaking it may start at say 50 mil or 45, then each year after it would decrease by a million or so in order to bring the league back where it belongs.
I think the league could do something like this to deal with the large salaries and how they'd fit in under the cap, and the Rangers wouldn't be the only ones affected by this.
--Say that each contract deemed too high for cap purposes-and the Rangers would decide which players that is- they could take 15% of that contract and buy it out which in turn would let that player become an unrestricted free agent. That number could get higher or lower depending upon economics and such.
I think the Rangers and other teams that spend friviously will have a hard time in the post labor economics of the NHL. Will they amount to the problems the smaller markets are having now?
I doubt it.
Either way, it will be better for the league. Once players realize the money ain't gonna be out there-at least as much as they are making now, they will change their attitudes.
