2012/2013 Salary Cap

[Rob]

But you picked up a lot of bargain bench players that are going to extend for more than they're costing you now.  I'd like to see how some other teams shape up before we jump to conclusions on this.  We're using 30 man rosters which is more than the NHL but we're not starting any more players than they are in the real game on any given night.  Some of us are using the extra spots for prospects others are stocking up on extra players to change in and out.  A good question is what are you going to be paying for your primary starters?  If that number is significantly lower then I'm not sure we should make drastic cap accommodations for our bench players. 

[snugerud]

i would agree with that, and there are a lot of players on that list I would not be extending. 

I am of course just playing devil's advocate and trying to look at this from the different angles.  I still stand by my original opinion of not changing the cap.  Since i love the free agent frenzy. 

[GypsieDeathBringer]

That is kind of fun to extend your whole team to see what they would be worth using just our extension values.  It shows you how much of a bargain or not your team really is.

I am sitting at 102.1m, but yeah I wouldn't extend all those folks.  If I had to extend all my starters I would be up Smoking Gun creek for sure, but that is fine because I got good deals and didn't expect to hold onto these players at those amounts.

[Whomp]

I say yes, but based on if the NHL salary cap increases.  That way the league can kind of stay in touch with the NHL.  So, if the NHL raises their cap by 1m we would raise ours by the current ratio of 70m(our cap)/64.3m(nhl cap) or 1.088m.  Already starting off with 70m has made it pretty easy to field a 30 man roster.

Ditto - let's follow the NHL per some formula that relates the real cap per player.

[jmtrops]

you have to look at what the problem is. 1st is we have 30% more players on our roster and 2nd is we have 30% less teams so there are more talented (higher paid players) available to us. I am at the cap limit now and next year when I extend the players whos contracts expiers i will still be at the cap limit and same for the next year. after that Im not sure I will be able to extend my players but I will allways be at the cap limit. I think most teams will be the same so fa will allways be a bargin because no one will have any cap space to spend on them. To compensate for this the cap should be 30% higher than the real NHL cap, then we would have closer to real fa. Like some of you have done is finding out how much your salaries would be if you extended everyone and it gives a true look at the problem. If we made our cap about 80M to 85M about 30% above the real cap we would still have to make some choices on fa but would also give us a more realalistic fa bidding.

[Rob]

you have to look at what the problem is. 1st is we have 30% more players on our roster and 2nd is we have 30% less teams so there are more talented (higher paid players) available to us. I am at the cap limit now and next year when I extend the players whos contracts expiers i will still be at the cap limit and same for the next year. after that Im not sure I will be able to extend my players but I will allways be at the cap limit. I think most teams will be the same so fa will allways be a bargin because no one will have any cap space to spend on them. To compensate for this the cap should be 30% higher than the real NHL cap, then we would have closer to real fa. Like some of you have done is finding out how much your salaries would be if you extended everyone and it gives a true look at the problem. If we made our cap about 80M to 85M about 30% above the real cap we would still have to make some choices on fa but would also give us a more realalistic fa bidding.

I think 30% is excessive.  Like I said before on any given night we don't start 30 players, we start about as many players as a normal NHL team starts.  The extra bench slots are really there for flexibility.  I think we should be looking at it primarily based on what we're paying for our starting players.   There's also a huge savings from the prospect contracts which needs to be considered.

[Rob]

Actually, if you shave that down to 25% to account for cheaper prospects and base it off last years cap, since all our numbers are based on last year, it would put us right around $75m. 

[jmtrops]

If we were able to have that one time free drop of bad contracts then the 75M would be perfect but I think in 2 years most teams will not be able to resign a lot of there players.

[Rob]

If we all could extend all our players every year there wouldn't be much point to a cap anyway.  Look at what CHI and PHI have had to do with their rosters the last couple years to stay within the cap.  There's going to be some tough decisions for teams to make over the years but I think it adds strategy.

I'm leaning towards an increase to $75m.  After all this discussion I think it makes the most sense.

[-BA-]

If we all could extend all our players every year there wouldn't be much point to a cap anyway.  Look at what CHI and PHI have had to do with their rosters the last couple years to stay within the cap.  There's going to be some tough decisions for teams to make over the years but I think it adds strategy.

I'm leaning towards an increase to $75m.  After all this discussion I think it makes the most sense.

I think the $75m is a good number.