Saturday, November 19, 2005
Why Waivers?
In recent posts, James Mirtle and Tom Benjamin examined the perils of the NHL's salary cap - both are interesting reads. Make sure you read them if you haven't already.
I just want to add one of my random musings:
The intent of the "$75,000 rule" in the NHL's new CBA is to prevent teams from hiding players' salaries in the minors to circumvent the salary cap - I still don't understand why this rule is necessary to accomplish that.
Each player's cap hit is calculated similarly regardless of salary and regardless of what they are making anywhere else - basically it is their NHL salary divided by 196 days.
Another example: Columbus Blue Jackets forward Todd Marchant cleared waivers this week, which gives Columbus the option of sending him to the minors and probably making him the highest-paid player in the AHL. Even then, if Columbus were to do recall him, his cap hit is calculated the same as everyone else's - his average NHL salary of $2.4 million per season divided by 196 days, or $12,244.60 per day. If Columbus has the cap space to accommodate that, and Marchant is the next best player available, then why should they not be able to call him back up without subjecting him to waivers?
Admittedly, not many teams will pay players $2.4 million to play in the minors. Not many teams will pay players $1 million to play in the minors. But in the case they do - let's assume to hide players salaries and circumvent the cap - so what? When they get called up, their cap hit is calculated the same way as everyone else.
A simpler rule would be to subject players to waivers only if they are scheduled to make more elsewhere than in the NHL.
A hypothetical situation: Given how close they are to the cap, the Canucks can't afford to take on any more than a minimum $450,000 salary. If they wanted to hide a Jason Doig or a Mike Keane in the minors, they could sign both to a $800,000 (again, hypothetical) minor-league salary and a $450,000 NHL salary.
In a blatant case like this, I agree that they should be subject to waivers. Otherwise, if the player's salary fits under the team's cap, then let them get called up. Especially if they are the best player available.
I just want to add one of my random musings:
The intent of the "$75,000 rule" in the NHL's new CBA is to prevent teams from hiding players' salaries in the minors to circumvent the salary cap - I still don't understand why this rule is necessary to accomplish that.
Each player's cap hit is calculated similarly regardless of salary and regardless of what they are making anywhere else - basically it is their NHL salary divided by 196 days.
Teams have $39-million to spend over 196 days of the regular season. That's $198,980 per day... If teams spend less than that amount on any given day, the difference in effect goes into a "cap bank" that can be used down the road.A player like Markus Naslund, whose average salary is $6 million per season, takes up $30,612.24 per day ($6 million divided by 196 days); Nolan Baumgartner, whose average salary is $450,000 per season, takes up $2,295.92 per day. Josh Green, whose average salary is $450,000 in the NHL and $75,000 in the AHL, also takes up $2,295.92 per day. If Wade Flaherty, whose average salary is $450,000 in the NHL and $125,000 in the AHL, were to be called up to the Canucks, he would also take up $2,295.92 of cap space per day - same as Nolan Baumgartner and Josh Green, even though their AHL salaries are different. So why does the amount a player is making in the minors matter in the context of the CBA and the salary cap?
Another example: Columbus Blue Jackets forward Todd Marchant cleared waivers this week, which gives Columbus the option of sending him to the minors and probably making him the highest-paid player in the AHL. Even then, if Columbus were to do recall him, his cap hit is calculated the same as everyone else's - his average NHL salary of $2.4 million per season divided by 196 days, or $12,244.60 per day. If Columbus has the cap space to accommodate that, and Marchant is the next best player available, then why should they not be able to call him back up without subjecting him to waivers?
Admittedly, not many teams will pay players $2.4 million to play in the minors. Not many teams will pay players $1 million to play in the minors. But in the case they do - let's assume to hide players salaries and circumvent the cap - so what? When they get called up, their cap hit is calculated the same way as everyone else.
A simpler rule would be to subject players to waivers only if they are scheduled to make more elsewhere than in the NHL.
A hypothetical situation: Given how close they are to the cap, the Canucks can't afford to take on any more than a minimum $450,000 salary. If they wanted to hide a Jason Doig or a Mike Keane in the minors, they could sign both to a $800,000 (again, hypothetical) minor-league salary and a $450,000 NHL salary.
In a blatant case like this, I agree that they should be subject to waivers. Otherwise, if the player's salary fits under the team's cap, then let them get called up. Especially if they are the best player available.
3 Comments:
It certainly does look like it, eh Tom? It's not the team-by-team cap that matters, it's the overall league cap of 54%. As a result, decisions are made on dollars and cents instead of what makes sense.
Because there are no buyouts in the NHL, I've always wondered how teams will deal with bad contracts... and I suppose GB's preferred is to not hand them out in the first place. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with it.
It's useful information
View salary information for thousands of different companies.
Search for salaries by company, city or profession.
Salary Range
awesome size of void that exists there, should be worth a lot of money, as well as better blog buy viagra
Post a Comment
<< Home