The NHLPA has told agents that the union projects a salary cap of approximately $62.2 million next season if the players vote to trigger the 5-percent escalator, Slap Shots has learned.
That represents an increase of $2.8 million from the current $59.4 million cap, or approximately 4.7 percent. This means that, 1) the NHL’s “record” revenues have not increased by the 5 percent the players voted to bump the cap for this season; and, 2) the cap would remain flat or even decrease slightly for the first time if the players opt not to adopt the inflator for next season.
This is a preliminary number recently given to the agents in the union’s “marketplace” assessment that could change slightly depending upon the revenue generated in the playoffs. Just as an example, there would be significantly less revenue generated by the Hurricanes than by the Rangers, assuming an equal number of postseason home games.
There is no guarantee that the union will vote to adopt the 5-percent inflator, given that doing so leads to increased escrow as a tradeoff for additional dollars in the system that benefits free agents and high payroll, powerful teams seeking to keep their rosters intact.
But as 2011-12 represents the final year of the CBA, the 7.5-percent bonus cushion that allows clubs to defer up to that amount in performance bonuses on entry level and over-35 contracts will disappear. According to several sources, that will be an important consideration that is expected to prompt to players to vote for the escalator.
A $62.2 million cap would mean a floor of $46.2 million. The Flyers, by the way, are just about at next year’s cap already, and thus are preparing to find additional defensemen to place on LTI while the Islanders are preparing to buy out more players in order to reach the floor.
*
If the 10-game-plus first-round suspension issued to repeat offender Matt Cooke for his March 20 blow to Ryan McDonagh‘s jaw didn’t send enough of a signal that the NHL is entering a new and more enlightened day regarding head shots, then this week’s two-plus-two game suspension to Vancouver’s Raffi Torres for his run at Edmonton’s Jordan Eberle most surely does.
Those who argue that Torres should have been allowed to slide or should have received just a two-game regular-season suspension because the NHL had erred on the side of leniency before, they are missing the point.
That is, the players have been forewarned not to target the head of an unsuspecting, defenseless opponent. It’s true that Eberle dropped his head as he reached for the puck, but there is little doubt that Torres intended to damage on his hit rather than gain the puck.
Though Torres is not a headhunter in the mold of a Cooke or a Jordon Tootoo, the Vancouver winger has a reputation throughout the line of consistently straddling the line. That line has moved over the course of the last three weeks.
We’re told that the NHLPA, which is in step with the league on more severe sentences for headhunters, has no issue at all with the Torres suspension. In fact, there has been discussion within the union of introducing a rule through the competition committee that would allow referees to call major penalties on players for “reckless” plays, though it would seem impossible to adequately define those acts and to expect referees to enforce such an ambiguous concept.
The larger point though is that the NHLPA has moved away from its long-held and unfortunate position of serving as defense attorneys for the predators in the union’s midst.
*
That there have been no ramifications to coach Jacques Lemaire‘s unilateral decision to pull the plug on the Devils’ season by refusing to pull Martin Brodeur from the elimination game last Saturday night with his team trailing Montreal 3-1 is as stupefying as the decision itself.
Lemaire has done this sort of thing before, claiming that his team hadn’t played well enough to “deserve” the chance to score with the extra attacker, but never in such a critical situation, never when defeat would mean extinction.
No, the Devils did not come up with the expected or required effort against Montreal, and on the night that Zach Parise made his return, that was a significant disappointment.
Ironically, though, the Devils’ lone goal in the match came during a six-on-five situation when Ilya Kovalchuk scored with 4:59 to go with Brodeur pulled for the extra attacker on a delayed penalty.
What, Lemaire wasn’t offended at that moment?
Imagine if, say, Kovalchuk, Patrik Elias, Brian Rolston and Henrik Tallinder simply had left the bench and headed to the room with two minutes to go because in their hearts, they knew the Devils hadn’t played well enough to deserve a chance at an improbable rally.
Would the organization have responded to that?
Lemaire can coach, that’s obvious. The Devils are a notoriously and historically difficult bunch to coach, that’s obvious as well. But in the end, it always comes back to Lemaire’s peculiar sensibilities.
Always.