Starting to Make Sense
It's fair to say that NHL teams and executives are still getting their heads around the salary cap system, a change to the league's way of doing business six years ago that simply hasn't resulted in the kind of new practices one would think.
Perhaps the Ryan Smyth transaction from the weekend, along with a few other moves, is a sign general managers are finally seeing they can't do business the same way anymore.
Smyth, still a useful veteran player capable of scoring 20 or more goals in the league, was moved from the Kings to the Oilers essentially for nothing. The fact that he comes with a $6.2 million cap hit is the most important point in the transaction, not whether he can still play or how good he is.
The Oilers had the cap space and the need for some immediate help, plus Smyth is a popular figure in the city. The Kings had the player, but could demand little in exchange; in practical terms, their gain in this deal was to delete this cap hit from their payroll, nothing more.
Last summer, we saw the Blackhawks for for winning the Cup by losing a chunk of their roster because of cap concerns. Good players walked out the door. So far this summer, the Flames have waved goodbye to Robyn Regehr and the Flyers peddled Mike Richards and Jeff Carter primarily for cap reasons, although in the Philly situation, there were other factors.
Look at the Regehr deal. To move $7.5 million worth of cap space in Regehr and Ales Kotalik, the Flames basically got little to nothing back AND had to throw in a second round draft pick.
Regehr's the only player in the deal, maybe the best stay-at-home blueliner in the Western Conference. But to get out of salary cap hell, Calgary had to all but give him away.
This was always Brian Burke's theory, that eventually teams with cap room would benefit when teams pressed to the limit on payroll would, in effect, have to pay other teams to relieve them of that cap pressure, or at least simply give players away.
That's what happened with Smyth. This summer, with some teams in need of acquiring big salaries to get up to the cap floor and other teams increasingly mindful that the current collective bargaining deal ends after next season and could result in a significant reduction in both the players share of the gross and the cap, we could see all kinds of transactions that have more to do with salaries and contracts and very little to do with hockey.
the difficulty with Brian Burke is that he says things with such bluster and aggression that it takes a few moments to respond. The salary cap works both ways as Florida's aquisition of Campbell demonstrates: salaries are aquired to take teams up to the cap. A few months ago when it was being suggested that southern Ont was a desirable market for another NHL team, Burke said that he didn't think it would work and he blustered"show me the business case". Given that logic, could we not just use the business case's for Phoenix and Atlanta and and and.... and just change the names to Toronto Horseshoes? In 30 years in business, i have never seen a business case that said that the proposed enterprise would fail.
Posted by: Larry Steed | June 27, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Will the Leafs be able to finally take advantage of it and grab the pieces needed to bump them up to the next level of play? They have the cap space, yes, but I'm not so sure that there are premium hockey players available. And as much as you say it's simply about cap space, the essence is there are a select few players in the league worth paying big bucks for that teams are quite loath to let go of. Good luck, Brian Burke, to getting ahold of them!
Posted by: Christina | June 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM
July 1st should be very interesting and if the CAP goes down after the CBA is renewed there could be some panic by certain GM's.
Posted by: Spanky | June 27, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Trades used to be the most exciting thing in hockey, but not what's been happening lately. The salary cap is killing the sport in my opinion. It ensures an even level of mediocrity among all the teams. There will no longer be any dynasty's. Teams cant afford them. With salaries where they are (which is the real problem) each team can only afford one or two stars. What happened in Philly is a shame. They pickup the final piece of the puzzle in Bryzgalov, and then trade their two best players in order to pay him. One step forward and two back. Chicago builds a winner and then has to blowup the team the following year. The cap may be good for the sport but not for the fans. What needs to be addressed is the root problem - the average Joe Blow player today making millions in salary. Only star players should get big salaries.
Posted by: Mrbill | June 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Hooray! So glad we missed a year of hockey for...what again?
Posted by: John Carss | June 27, 2011 at 12:58 PM
The minimum cap limit is ruining hockey. It should have never been put into place. Also, what happens if the cap limit goes down significantly in the next few years?
Posted by: Akman | June 27, 2011 at 01:53 PM
What were the other factors in Philly? I have heard rumors but nothing has been said.
Posted by: Aaron | June 27, 2011 at 03:31 PM