Both items of intriguing news; ought to make Chief salivate like a block of aged cheddar!!!

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 06/29/07 at 12:13 PM ET

So basically, Leaf’s Lunch just gave Isles fans indigestion.

Posted by B.D. Gallof from NYC on 06/29/07 at 12:16 PM ET

The $6.5 million per season will only scare off teams that can compete on monetary grounds only.  If they have anything else to offer (the desired opportunity to win), then they should find it a bit less scary.  Everyone with two cerebral neurons to rub together knew that Ryan Smyth was going to get a ton of money from someone.  Thw only question is how much of a ton is his lower limit, and he will no doubt determine that by looking at what other teams are offering as well.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/29/07 at 01:18 PM ET

A cap increase of 14% seems quite large. Every free agent will probably say, “Since you already have most of the players you need next year under contract, you can spend all that extra cap space on me!”

I’ve heard that a significant part of the cap increase is due to Canada’s dollar being worth more compared to the U.S. dollar. I doubt this trend can continue every year, but free agents seem to think they’re entitled to pay increases just because the cap increases, instead of compensation for hard work, dedication, heart, durability, sportsmanship, etc.

It just drives me crazy when guys like Ruslan Fedotenko, who, if you take out his only good year, has just 3 points in 31 playoff games, or Jason Blake, who has 7 points in 24 playoff games, or Ladislav Nagy, who has 4 points in 18 playoff games, demand huge pay increases just because the cap increases and some GMs are desperate (and stupid) enough to waste their money on cap space that could be used later in the year to acquire players from struggling teams.

And don’t get me started on Sheldon Souray, whose ONE good season is a statistical outlier from the rest of his career. He’s coming off shoulder surgery and he was an amazing minus-28 last year. His shooting percentage will drop to more human-like 7-8%, and he’ll probably put up 14 goals and 22 assists in 68 games, while being a minus player. Yet, he will probably be getting paid over $6 million. There are far better values to be had, but GMs seem to get caught up in bidding wars, which leads to overpaying.

Posted by Muero on 06/29/07 at 02:26 PM ET

cool.

Posted by me from here on 06/29/07 at 02:58 PM ET

I was a big fan of the salary cap when it first started but it’s getting way out of hand.  $50 mil?!?  Come on, that’s more than some teams could hope to spend a couple of years ago.  Keep the salary capped at 44 mil (even that’s a bit high) and stop paying undeserving players obscene salaries.  Some players actually deserve that kind of money (Thornton, Crosby, Brodeur, Luongo, Nieds and Pronger).  They’re good AND consistent.  Have a good year and hey, let’s give him a 300% raise.  Here’s a thought.  Salary cap doesn’t go up = more profits = possible lower tickets prices.

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 06/29/07 at 03:04 PM ET

I have a feeling in a few years, once this cap hits a hard stop (because it will)  the buyout process is going to bet an extended workout from numerous teams, who overpay for players playing for big UFA payoffs.

Smyth isn’t worth 6.5 million.  He is often compared to Holmstrom around the leauge.  Lets look at numbers from last season.  Holmstrom 30 goals, 52 points in 77 games… Smyth 36 goals, 68 points in 72 games. Is that really a 4.25 million dollar difference?  Smyth is worth around 4.5 - 5 million, not for his point total, but because of his leadership, and ability to kill a penalty from time to time.

Posted by Jdunc from Flint, MI on 06/29/07 at 03:13 PM ET

As far as I’m concerned, if GM’s overpay for players, and players’ agents, in turn, demand ridiculous salaries for their clients, because of a higher salary cap, it ruins the market for the teams that are operating on a budget, but it also “happens.” 

Nobody held a gun to Paul Holmgren’s head and told him to sign a 32-year-old who put up 55 points $8 million bucks and an average $6.3 million a year until he’s 38 years old. 

Does that stink for my team, which is trying to re-sign Mathieu Schneider for at or under $5 million bucks for similar numbers?  You’d better believe it, but you can’t legislate against stupidity.  If GM’s are that desperate, shame on them, and if players are that greedy, shame on them. 

The Red Wings have something called a “budget” under the salary cap, and if one player wants so much money that he’ll prevent the team from signing and re-signing enough complimentary players to keep the team playoff-bound for the next ten or fifteen years, he can go be the best player on a team that’s handcuffed by the contract they’ve given to said player (see: Zdeno Chara, Eddie Jovanovski).

The whole premise of the lockout was based upon Bettman getting fan support by claiming that it was player salaries that drove ticket prices into an “inflationary spiral” that made it too expensive to attend NHL games thanks to big payrolls, but that’s always been BS because ticket prices are determined by supply and demand on a market-to-market basis.

Example?  Detroit.  In our crummy economy, the demand for tickets is less than it was ten years ago because people are losing jobs left and right in the automotive industry, so we had empty seats in both the regular season and playoffs.  If the Wings want those seats to be filled, they have to reduce ticket prices.  The Wings’ payroll had nothing to do with the team’s ticket prices. 

The honest truth about the cap—which disappointed more than a few people who supported Bettman—is that it rose because revenues ballooned thanks to ticket price increases in almost two thirds of the NHL’s markets.  Some of those teams are increasing ticket prices once again this summer, too, and they’re doing it because they can, not because they’re losing money because of payroll issues. 

More profits almost never equal lower ticket prices.  Fluctuations in supply and demand do. 

If more money goes into the owners’ pockets, the rest of that money may as well be put to use providing a better on-ice product, and even for a team that only spends to the cap floor, a slightly higher cap is good news. 

The NHL’s become a very, very profitable business for the owners, especially as the theoretically-fixed expenses increase franchise equity at an exponential rate, allowing teams to cash in on that equity to start and operate other businesses such as concerts and other entertainment ventures, financial consulting firms that guarantee their loans against the equitable value of their franchise, and a myriad of other business interests. 

If the higher cap leads to an “inflationary spiral” in payrolls, the owners and GM’s have no one but themselves to blame, and if they try to blame the players again, they won’t be able to get away with it because they were more than willing to sacrifice the 2004-2005 season to get what they said was their “dream” CBA. 

Again, they’re making a lot of money because they’ve cranked up ticket prices, so we should see that money reflected in a better on-ice product that’s worth spending more for tickets to witness in person.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/29/07 at 04:20 PM ET

What happens if league revenue go down next year?

Does the cap go down as well for the following season? 

And if so, wouldn’t that force some teams to buy out some players even if they are “satisfied” with their production?

Posted by Yves from Montreal on 06/29/07 at 06:19 PM ET

Yep.  That’s the fun part.  If revenues do fall, the cap goes down, and the teams that’ve saddled themselves with big ol’ contracts have to either dump salary or buy out contracts.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/29/07 at 06:43 PM ET