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.
7 Comments:
I think the assumption is wrong here JJ. "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."
That's what Bill Daly says the intent of the provision is. The real intent of the provision is to discourage teams from writing off bad contracts by demoting the players. It does not entirely do that, but it discourages it. Marchant is an excellent example.
Columbus doesn't want to demote him because he will cost $10 million if he stays down and he will cost $5 million and $5 million in cap space if they try to bring him back up. Thus, he clears waivers but isn't sent down.
The Rangers, on the other hand, might simply bury Marchant - or any other poor contract they write - in the minors. Need cap space? Demote Kasparaitus. As long as the Devils don't care aboout the money they can create cap space easily by demoting Malakhov.
This provision makes the decision irrevocable and therefore much harder.
All that said, the number one reason for the provision is the absolutely primary concern for Gary Bettman and the NHL. What they absolutely care about is that the players do not get one thin dime over 54% of hockey revenues. If they allow a player like Marchant to be demoted, the players get his salary more than 54%. That is the real cap - the 54% and escrow. If NHL players can be freely moved between the minors and the NHL, the 54% figure won't hold up.
Carnival of the NHL #13 is up! You can view it here: http://behindthejersey.blogspot.com/2005/11/carnival-of-nhl-13.html
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.
Should there be a Salary Cap in English Football?
Personally I think there should be! It’s just getting to be stupid money in football at the top of the premiership!
It’s always the same teams at the top proving that football success is based purely on money which ruins the idea of it being a sport! They’ve done it in rugby, basketball, hockey and American football and it makes the sports more competitive and better to watch!
I do a little Spread Betting from time to time and most matches don’t hold much surprise who is going to win, its boring! I want to see a team at the bottom pulling off an amazing season beating last seasons winners in a close fought battle!
Make things fair! It shouldn’t be about money!
Plus!
All there is all that money in the premiership and barely any of it stays in the UK so it’s not even helping the economy!
From my Spread Betting, if I ever win big (which is never, I’m unlucky) it’s still nothing compared to the average premiership players weekly wage!
This Rant was brought to you by Spread Betting Spike.
It's useful information
View salary information for thousands of different companies.
Search for salaries by company, city or profession.
Salary Range
Our physics replica rolex professor was replica rolex struggling to replica rolex draw the class into replica rolex discussion replica rolex of Archimede's rolex principle rolex of water displacement.rolex He told us that rolex Archimede Final Fantasy XI GIL noticedrolex that when replica watches he got into replica watches a pool at the replica watches public bathhouse,replica watches the water replica watches rose spilling replica rolex over the edge. replica rolex Excited at his replica rolex discovery, he ran down replica rolex the street yelling,replica rolex "Eureka, world of warcraft power leveling eureka!cheap aion kinah The instructor asked ffxi gil if anyone knew what that meant.
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