Thursday, March 5, 2009

Capology, 2010-11

MF37 at the Bitter Leaf Fan Page explains why there were not any "blockbuster" trades and why first round draft picks were at a premium in the run-up to deadline day:
The key ingredients going foward will be a strong collection of cost-contained youth and players outperforming their contracts.
This will definitely have a downward pressure on contracts going forward. Even if a player like, say, Chris Neil is "worth" $2.5 million based on what other teams are currently paying comparable players; if none of the teams have the cap space to pay that $2.5 million, it becomes academic. Neil either takes a pay cut or is left out altogether. This could become the stark choice facing "premium" players as the current long-term contracts run out.

It also means going forward we are going to see even more volatility in the NHL coaching market; with more restrictions on even less cap space, GMs will have even less of an ability to buy their way out of the financial holes they dig. They will also be unable to dump their problem, premium contracts on other clubs since the cap issue will be widespread.

I think over the next two of three years we will see more in terms of younger looking teams, and those teams who luck-into and then develop the right cluster of talent will be the ones who have success. It goes without saying that since the teams currently near the bottom of the standings now have a better shot at the talent pool, although the element of lottery will continue.

What might be interesting going forward is that instead of paying premium players fixed amounts, players get a "cut" of the salary cap. So instead of paying a player $5 million of a %55 million salary cap, you tell him you'll pay him 9% of whatever the cap is that year. If the cap goes up, he gets a raise; if the cap goes down, the team still has room to maneuver. If everyone ends up with a percentage, it could make for more predictability.