Cap expected to be $56.3 million for next season

I dont have a link on me, but it's on the business of hockey board.

If true, **** yeah.

Actually I think that's a bad thing. The higher the cap goes, the less likely we are to stay near it. It may make it seem easier to fit in all the guys next season, but that's only assuming we can spend up to the cap. In actuality I think we'll be stuck at like ~50-51 million, and because of the large raise it just makes it cost more to a) sign a UFA 2nd line center and b) re-sign Perry.

Actually I think that's a bad thing. The higher the cap goes, the less likely we are to stay near it. It may make it seem easier to fit in all the guys next season, but that's only assuming we can spend up to the cap. In actuality I think we'll be stuck at like ~50-51 million, and because of the large raise it just makes it cost more to a) sign a UFA 2nd line center and b) re-sign Perry.

While you have some valid points, there is no way a higher cap for next season is a bad thing, not with our situation. Absolutely no way. How is it a bad thing considering how tight of a squeeze it was going to be? I also doubt it'll be harder to sign Perry because of this. If this is confirmed, I bet Burke signs Perry as soon as he can, as I'm sure they have a deal in mind but can't confirm it yet because of cap restraints.

As for not spending while the Samuelli's do have a budget, how can't they? I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they're making mad profits off this team, and making the team worse won't help that.

Im pretty sure they are losing money on the team.....I know they lost money last year, not really sure about this year.

Im pretty sure they are losing money on the team.....I know they lost money last year, not really sure about this year.

They lost money last year? How? They held 12 extra games at the Honda Center and had all those sellouts, how do you lose money off of that? If they would've lost money after winning the cup, surely that would've been a big news item. I remember Buffalo owners saying that they'd have to make it to the finals to make money or something like that and it was definitely talked about. Maybe you're thinking of 05-06.

While you have some valid points, there is no way a higher cap for next season is a bad thing, not with our situation. Absolutely no way. How is it a bad thing considering how tight of a squeeze it was going to be? I also doubt it'll be harder to sign Perry because of this. If this is confirmed, I bet Burke signs Perry as soon as he can, as I'm sure they have a deal in mind but can't confirm it yet because of cap restraints.

As for not spending while the Samuelli's do have a budget, how can't they? I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they're making mad profits off this team, and making the team worse won't help that.

It's a bad thing because it will be harder to sign Perry. This isn't an ericnut unfounded statement either. Huge cap increase means Perry's contract demands go up, for multiple reasons. 1) You now have to offer him more $ out of our limited budget for him to receive the same % of the cap (and % of the cap is the TRUE indicator of salary, not pure $ figures) 2) You now have a bunch of teams who have all this extra money that they don't know what to do with. They could offer more in an offer sheet, making Perry more likely to hold out. Even if there is never an OS, the mere possibility and the now increased figures of a possible OS means the asking price to get him to forgo RFA has risen. 3) Related to 1 and 2, but large cap increases resulting in teams having more money than they know what to do with result in large jumps in UFA salary. Which will also have an inflationary effect on top RFAs, like Perry.

They lost money last year? How? They held 12 extra games at the Honda Center and had all those sellouts, how do you lose money off of that? If they would've lost money after winning the cup, surely that would've been a big news item. I remember Buffalo owners saying that they'd have to make it to the finals to make money or something like that and it was definitely talked about. Maybe you're thinking of 05-06.

Nope, I'm 100% sure they lost money last year. However, the Samuelli's knew it would happen, and actually lost less than they thought. I can't find the article though.

They lost money last year? How? They held 12 extra games at the Honda Center and had all those sellouts, how do you lose money off of that? If they would've lost money after winning the cup, surely that would've been a big news item. I remember Buffalo owners saying that they'd have to make it to the finals to make money or something like that and it was definitely talked about. Maybe you're thinking of 05-06.
DropthePuck's (allducks) paraphrasing of what Burke said during this year's state of the franchise. http://www.allducks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7756&st=440
Burke stated that the team lost money last year even with the long playoff run, and they project they'll continue to lose money this year. The lower bowl at the Honda Center just does not have enough seats to turn a bigger profit. When he was in Vancouver, they had 9000 lower bowl seats selling for over $100 each. Here, we have 5700 seats. They're trying to keep pace without having to raise ticket prices too much. We're not eligible for revenue sharing since our market is so large. The Samuelis have been wonderful. The goal is to repeat as champs.

It's a bad thing because it will be harder to sign Perry. This isn't an ericnut unfounded statement either. Huge cap increase means Perry's contract demands go up, for multiple reasons. 1) You now have to offer him more $ out of our limited budget for him to receive the same % of the cap (and % of the cap is the TRUE indicator of salary, not pure $ figures) 2) You now have a bunch of teams who have all this extra money that they don't know what to do with. They could offer more in an offer sheet, making Perry more likely to hold out. Even if there is never an OS, the mere possibility and the now increased figures of a possible OS means the asking price to get him to forgo RFA has risen. 3) Related to 1 and 2, but large cap increases resulting in teams having more money than they know what to do with result in large jumps in UFA salary. Which will also have an inflationary effect on top RFAs, like Perry.

% of the cap is not a salary indicator, the marketplace is, and always will be. I can't speak for Perry, but I don't see him jacking up his asking price because of this news, and I can't think of any examples where that has happened. Also, if anything a higher cap will lead to less offer sheets. Three offer sheets have been made in the cap era, two of which to teams who were right up against the cap, and the other to a team that just let their best two players go because they didn't want to pay them. Plus, the only successful offer sheet made was the Penner one, and only an amazing stretch of games prevented the Oil from giving up a franchise-type player for Penner, who is looking more and more like a future good 2nd liner. And then there's the John Tavares factor. IMO there will be no offer sheets made this offseason, and if there is one my guess is that only a guy like Don Wadell will do it.

DropthePuck's (allducks) paraphrasing of what Burke said during this year's state of the franchise. http://www.allducks.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7756&st=440

That's shocking, and kind of sad. I can't believe no one picked up on the Cup champs somehow losing money.

I imagine it's not as bad as they're making it seem. Owners like to write off losses. With the Samuelis owning the building/parking/concession revenue too, they can monkey with the books a lot to help their accounting situation.

Well then we just downright disagree. 5 million seems like less to a team spending 56.3 million than to a team spending 50.3 million (the cap figures). Because the % is less, the marketplace will be willing to offer more in terms of dollars to a player, probably up until the equivalent % of the cap. For example, if a team were willing to offer 5.03 million to a player last year, I think they'll be willing to offer 5.63 million next year to the same player.

To me % of cap is the most important indicator in just about everything. That's why Chara's 7.5 million salary makes sense relative to Niedermayer's 6.75 salary. Even though Chara is worse and makes more money, it makes perfect sense because 6.75/39 (.173) > 7.5/44 (.170).

As to offer sheets, I don't think there will be many, if any, offer sheets for the duration of the CBA. They just don't make sense for teams. But I'm pretty sure the threat of offer sheets will be heightened because of the cap increase. I'm not talking about an actual offer sheet, but that the threat of an offer sheet will be perceived as having increased, meaning you'll have to pay Perry more to sign him before July 1st.

Perry frankly did the club a favor financially with his prolonged slump and injury. He can hopefully slide into a salary slot just below Getz and we can look at improving our top 6 with the remainder.

Well then we just downright disagree. 5 million seems like less to a team spending 56.3 million than to a team spending 50.3 million (the cap figures). Because the % is less, the marketplace will be willing to offer more in terms of dollars to a player, probably up until the equivalent % of the cap. For example, if a team were willing to offer 5.03 million to a player last year, I think they'll be willing to offer 5.63 million next year to the same player.

To me % of cap is the most important indicator in just about everything. That's why Chara's 7.5 million salary makes sense relative to Niedermayer's 6.75 salary. Even though Chara is worse and makes more money, it makes perfect sense because 6.75/39 (.173) > 7.5/44 (.170).

As to offer sheets, I don't think there will be many, if any, offer sheets for the duration of the CBA. They just don't make sense for teams. But I'm pretty sure the threat of offer sheets will be heightened because of the cap increase. I'm not talking about an actual offer sheet, but that the threat of an offer sheet will be perceived as having increased, meaning you'll have to pay Perry more to sign him before July 1st.

Actually, Niedermayer's value was $7.8 million, the figure he got from New Jersey. He chose less to come to Anaheim, but realistically could've got more. Pronger's contract was also low because he was coming off a big injury. If those guys enter the market completely healthy and go for the most money, they make more than Chara, easily.

While you're right about the amount GMs will offer going up because of the cap going up, but that's the marketplace. The marketplace, right now, is not what it will be on July 1. The marketplace can't change unless there's another signing, that's just the way it is. A player could say "oh I want this % of the cap" and the GM would say "well, player A just signed for this much and is a similar player, so you should make around that much". The RFA marketplace got smacked around when KLowe went on a poaching spree, but it still can't change until free agency, as seen by all the signings since then.

Based on previous RFA signings and players who are comparable to Perry, his value should be at about $4 million. Younger players with similar PPGs who are signed long-term include Nathan Horton, Patrick Sharp, Dustin Brown and Tomas Vanek. Vanek is clearly the outlier here, so take him out and you get 3 players, all of which make $4 million or less. Yeah, Perry could hold out by saying that he could make more, but realistically which young player has done just that so far? The only comparable RFAs at seasons end are Andrei Kotstitsyn, PM Bouchard and Jeff Carter, and both Carter and Perry can't be signed because of their teams' cap situations(and Montreal and Minny aren't flowing with cap room, either). Every other young player, despite the fact that they could get more on the open market, has signed with his team long-term(in some cases very long-term).

While it does make sense for players to wait until free agency starts to gauge their worth, the majority don't. They just don't. Perry made the ASG, but otherwise is putting up so-so numbers and he ended his season on a major slump prior to the injury. While

Perry frankly did the club a favor financially with his prolonged slump and injury. He can hopefully slide into a salary slot just below Getz and we can look at improving our top 6 with the remainder.

I'd say he's there right now. There's no way he should be making more than players similar to him, and those players are all a step below Getzlaf in terms of salary, to the tune of over a million.

Actually, Niedermayer's value was $7.8 million, the figure he got from New Jersey. He chose less to come to Anaheim, but realistically could've got more. Pronger's contract was also low because he was coming off a big injury. If those guys enter the market completely healthy and go for the most money, they make more than Chara, easily.
Same story, different interpretations. Yes Niedermayer was reportedly offered the max from NJ. That doesn't mean that he could have gotten more from elsewhere though. No one has gotten the max.

Now I realize that you don't agree on the % theory of breaking down salaries, but play along with me for a little. I'm too lazy to double check, but I believe that after the initial 2005 free agency period, only Richards got more than Niedermayer (17.31%) until Ovechkin's contract. Even Crosby was paid less, and that's a re-signing using the 50.3 cap as the denominator, even though everyone and their mother knew the cap was going to increase (I believe it was estimated at 54 at the time).

So you can say he could have easily gotten more, but the fact is almost all players (other than Richards), including several guys of comparable value to the team, signed for less. Sakic, Lidstrom, Thornton, Luongo, Chara, Heatley, Spezza, Crosby, Lecavalier. The best example is Sakic, who signed 2 1-year deals. In 06 he signed for 5.75 million (13.1%), in 07 he signed for 6.75 (13.4%), so he chose to re-sign for roughly the same % as his last contract. Of course those guys are all re-signings (and some RFAs), but none of the UFAs (Briere, Drury, Chara, Gomez) got more than Niedermayer either, even if most are a tier below him.

Pronger's injury concern helped get his contract low, but I think some of it also had to do with the fact that he was a RFA.

There's no doubt Niedermayer could have gotten more than he did if he wanted to, but I think it's doubtful that he could have earned more than Chara since only Tampa and Calgary have chosen to offer guys more than Niedermayer got.

While you're right about the amount GMs will offer going up because of the cap going up, but that's the marketplace. The marketplace, right now, is not what it will be on July 1. The marketplace can't change unless there's another signing, that's just the way it is. A player could say "oh I want this % of the cap" and the GM would say "well, player A just signed for this much and is a similar player, so you should make around that much". The RFA marketplace got smacked around when KLowe went on a poaching spree, but it still can't change until free agency, as seen by all the signings since then.
Fine, let's use your term "marketplace," even though you're pretty much saying the same thing but then interpreting what the market is differently. The marketplace isn't just what has already been paid, but it's going to also be influenced by what people can reasonably expect to be paid in the future. Pretend you're Perry's agent. So what if your GM said "player A just signed for 4 million?" Player A had signed under the impression that there was a 54 million dollar cap, but now it looks like it'll be 56. So Perry can (and should) expect that he could get more than 4 now, he might expect 4.1. If Burke only offers the 4 that a comparable player got, Perry could hold out for 4.1 on the market. Yes it's a gamble, but you even agree that GMs will offer more, so it's a reasonable bet.
Based on previous RFA signings and players who are comparable to Perry, his value should be at about $4 million. Younger players with similar PPGs who are signed long-term include Nathan Horton, Patrick Sharp, Dustin Brown and Tomas Vanek. Vanek is clearly the outlier here, so take him out and you get 3 players, all of which make $4 million or less. Yeah, Perry could hold out by saying that he could make more, but realistically which young player has done just that so far? The only comparable RFAs at seasons end are Andrei Kotstitsyn, PM Bouchard and Jeff Carter, and both Carter and Perry can't be signed because of their teams' cap situations(and Montreal and Minny aren't flowing with cap room, either). Every other young player, despite the fact that they could get more on the open market, has signed with his team long-term(in some cases very long-term).

While it does make sense for players to wait until free agency starts to gauge their worth, the majority don't. They just don't. Perry made the ASG, but otherwise is putting up so-so numbers and he ended his season on a major slump prior to the injury. While
Sharp is the only comparable I agree with. The rest were signed so early that there wasn't really a new cap estimate, and my whole point is that you have to add the % increase to turn it into a comparable. When Brown was signed, he was essentially coming off of a 17 goal, 47 point season. But you could also add Boyes to that list.

But like I said before, Boyes and Sharp were signed with a 54 million predicted cap. I think Perry will ask for more because of the new announcement.



But really that's just a long-winded nothingness, and all that argument on both sides is really just skirting central the issue of "% or not?" I think you should ignore that section and address the following only.

I think that using the % of the cap is how players and GMs compare salaries, rather than absolute $ terms. I think GMs go by % when planning their salary structure. It's the logical, fiscally responsible way to do it when formulating a long term plan and structure for your team. "My 1st line can make roughly 30% of the cap." If you don't plan like that, it seems to me that you're going to quickly run your team into cap hell.

As a player, you have to know that more cap money means more money to you, and it seems reasonable to expect a similar % as the comparables at the time they were signed.

It's kind of like inflation in the real world. Why would you sign for what your predecessor earned 10 years ago when he signed? X dollars just isn't worth as much now as 10 years ago. If there's no current comparables, I would estimate what I should expect by taking whatever the most recent comparable earned and adjust it for inflation.

thank god

the reason we can't spend up to the cap is that you guys aren't buying enough jerseys. You should all go out and support your team.

the reason we can't spend up to the cap is that you guys aren't buying enough jerseys. You should all go out and support your team.

haha..isnt Ducks merchandise up like 1000% since they won the Cup?

the reason we can't spend up to the cap is that you guys aren't buying enough jerseys. You should all go out and support your team.
Tell them to get rid of that lame new collar this year and I might consider it. Man I wish I'd bought one last year.

I imagine it's not as bad as they're making it seem. Owners like to write off losses. With the Samuelis owning the building/parking/concession revenue too, they can monkey with the books a lot to help their accounting situation.
I have a feeling that this is the case.

Didn't they say that the cap was going to go up to 52 million prior to this season and it ended up at 49?

Not saying it won't jump 7 million, just noting it's not a given.

Well then we just downright disagree. 5 million seems like less to a team spending 56.3 million than to a team spending 50.3 million (the cap figures). Because the % is less, the marketplace will be willing to offer more in terms of dollars to a player, probably up until the equivalent % of the cap. For example, if a team were willing to offer 5.03 million to a player last year, I think they'll be willing to offer 5.63 million next year to the same player.

To me % of cap is the most important indicator in just about everything. That's why Chara's 7.5 million salary makes sense relative to Niedermayer's 6.75 salary. Even though Chara is worse and makes more money, it makes perfect sense because 6.75/39 (.173) > 7.5/44 (.170).

As to offer sheets, I don't think there will be many, if any, offer sheets for the duration of the CBA. They just don't make sense for teams. But I'm pretty sure the threat of offer sheets will be heightened because of the cap increase. I'm not talking about an actual offer sheet, but that the threat of an offer sheet will be perceived as having increased, meaning you'll have to pay Perry more to sign him before July 1st.


I completely agree with this analysis. The rise of the cap places more upward pressure on RFA and UFA salaries because there are more potential $$$ for the non-economically constrained teams to pursue FA's. Given that Burke has already been bit once by the Penner situation along with the threat of more $$$ floating around in the marketplace, Perry's agent can use this algebra to exact a higher price for his client.

Comparables are still just as strong a marketplace force as rising cap room. Take into consideration that Perry and Penner are in very different situations. Penner was offered prime minutes and the chance to be an important player in addition to his huge raise.

Perry's situation can't improve that dramatically. He can already expect top line minutes and important scenario ice time. In order for his situation to dramatically improve he would have to be offered dramatically more money. Otherwise I think the notion of leaving a top-level team where he is an impact player can't be overcome by something as little as a 100k difference in offers as obobo suggests.

The players aren't stats programs, and there are more than just market concerns at play. I think as long as the Ducks offer is in the ballpark of what's already reasonable for him, he stays, unless he's unhappier than we know.

Comparables are still just as strong a marketplace force as rising cap room. Take into consideration that Perry and Penner are in very different situations. Penner was offered prime minutes and the chance to be an important player in addition to his huge raise.

Perry's situation can't improve that dramatically. He can already expect top line minutes and important scenario ice time. In order for his situation to dramatically improve he would have to be offered dramatically more money. Otherwise I think the notion of leaving a top-level team where he is an impact player can't be overcome by something as little as a 100k difference in offers as obobo suggests.

The players aren't stats programs, and there are more than just market concerns at play. I think as long as the Ducks offer is in the ballpark of what's already reasonable for him, he stays, unless he's unhappier than we know.

Don't forget the factor of where he's playing, either. He gets to play hockey in one of the nicest places in the entire country and for one of the best organizations, not only in terms of the way they treat their players, but in general. He's a top player on a top team who plays in one of the top spots to play in and for one of the top organizations. It doesn't get any better than that.

IMO, unless Corey Perry is a money-grubbing type guy, which I doubt since he signed for absolute peanuts when coming into the league, he'll stay here as long as the offer's close. He also won't know what to expect from the free agent market, so I'm guessing he'd sign for $4 million or so before free agency so he can enjoy his summer. I can't see him chasing the money at all, especially if it's not a substantial amount.

Comparables are still just as strong a marketplace force as rising cap room. Take into consideration that Perry and Penner are in very different situations. Penner was offered prime minutes and the chance to be an important player in addition to his huge raise.

Perry's situation can't improve that dramatically. He can already expect top line minutes and important scenario ice time. In order for his situation to dramatically improve he would have to be offered dramatically more money. Otherwise I think the notion of leaving a top-level team where he is an impact player can't be overcome by something as little as a 100k difference in offers as obobo suggests.

The players aren't stats programs, and there are more than just market concerns at play. I think as long as the Ducks offer is in the ballpark of what's already reasonable for him, he stays, unless he's unhappier than we know.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that Perry would leave over 100k. I meant that, assuming Perry was originally willing to sign for a minimum of 4 million back when the assumed cap was 54, the 56 million cap number probably means he would require 4.15 million to sign now. To forgo testing the market.

If he hits FA, he probably gets much more than 4. Penner got 4.25, Perry should get at least 4.76 (4.25 adjusted for new cap). So he would be getting "dramatically more money." Depending on how much he cares about money, it might be too tempting to pass up.

One thing to keep in mind with a rising cap in the Corey Perry situation:

Yes, it gives Burke more space to resign him but it also raises the maximum compensation levels. A team can tack on an extra half million per season to an offer now without having to slide up into the next picks level. Not that it'll be a deciding factor but it'll raise the effective RFA value he has to other teams now.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that Perry would leave over 100k. I meant that, assuming Perry was originally willing to sign for a minimum of 4 million back when the assumed cap was 54, the 56 million cap number probably means he would require 4.15 million to sign now. To forgo testing the market.

If he hits FA, he probably gets much more than 4. Penner got 4.25, Perry should get at least 4.76 (4.25 adjusted for new cap). So he would be getting "dramatically more money." Depending on how much he cares about money, it might be too tempting to pass up.
Things like playing for good teams on good lines cost, too, and being comfortable most of all. Not being in that situation, I don't think 4.15 vs. 4.76 would move me overmuch. It's not a simple numbers game.

Do all the math you like.

If Perry comes back this year and has a strong showing in the playoffs, I can see him getting Ribero type money ($5M for 5 years). I can't see him re-signing for much less than $4.5M/yr.

Perry will be a Duck before the RFA period.

Yes! The Ericnut Bolded Statement is the new e5.

Perry will remain a Duck for years to come before the RFA period.

yea..i'm nit picking..i had a bad day

Perry will be a Duck before the RFA period.

THE DUCKS WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THIS SEASON:sarcasm:

Yes! The Ericnut Bolded Statement is the new e5.

An easy observation at most. Perry wants to be a Duck and Burke won't lose him.

yea..i'm nit picking..i had a bad day

He will be.

THE DUCKS WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THIS SEASON:sarcasm:

So funny!