Larry Brooks

Larry Brooks

NHL

Loonie bin: Tying NHL salary cap to Canadian dollar unfair

Gary Bettman’s definition of a “dramatic difference” in the salary cap likely is different than yours, mine, the 30 general managers and the 750 players for whom the commissioner presumed to speak at his midseason State of the League address in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend.

“I assure you, even with the decline in the Canadian dollar, the salary cap does not fall off a cliff,” said the man who assured fans through the 2003-04 lockout that ticket prices would become more affordable upon the introduction of a hard cap.

“No one can project where [the dollar] is going,” Bettman said, “but the point I’m making is, you are not going to see a dramatic difference.”

Actually, I would say the difference between the $73 million cap the league initially projected for 2015-16 based on a Canadian dollar worth 88 cents U.S., and a cap of $68.1 million calculated on an 80-cent Canadian dollar without the 5-percent escalator, is pretty darn dramatic.

Bettman laid out the numbers: With the dollar at 82 cents the rest of the season, next season’s cap would be $72.2 million. At 80 cents the rest of the season, it would be approximately $71.7 million. Both contemplate the union and league agreeing on implementing the 5-percent bump that is the default position written into the CBA.

But the Canadian dollar closed on Friday at a six-year low of 78.67 cents U.S. Every cent the dollar declines represents an increase in escrow losses for players who forfeited approximately 12 percent of their pay to escrow last year, had 14 percent of their salaries withheld the first half of the season and are having 16 percent withheld this quarter.

Which is why it is patently absurd to assume the NHLPA is going to vote to adopt the 5-percent escalator next season. And though it is true the union and the league have to both agree not to implement the inflator, it is difficult to imagine Sixth Avenue insisting on increasing the cap if the players vote against it.

Even if the owners have kind of made a habit of reaching into the players’ pockets whenever the opportunity presents itself.

If escrow is going to be the campaign’s single issue, and if players are going to vote their own individual interests as was the case last year regarding both Canadian television revenue and the make-whole mechanism, then it is difficult to imagine the PA will endorse the escalator, regardless of executive director Don Fehr’s counsel.

For by my calculation, of the approximately 780 players on NHL rosters over the last three weeks, 530 are under contract for next year while 250 are set to become free agents.

In other words, 530 who would gain personally by having lower escrow in 2015-16 and 250 who would gain personally by having more cap space available next summer for free agents.

One can argue over and over and over again the benefits of having the highest cap and the most money in the system possible so players — and by extension, teams — have as many options as possible.

But the argument becomes more difficult when attempting to convince a player under contract he should sacrifice some (more) of his money so other players have the opportunity to make more; should give more of his money back to the owners after doing so over and over again.


This is about next year’s cap, but it is also about this year’s March 2 trade deadline, for teams facing a 2015-16 cap squeeze — like, for example, the Blackhawks, who have nearly $65 million committed to two goalies, three defensemen and nine forwards, and good luck signing/keeping Group II Brandon Saad — won’t be able to acquire anything other than rentals.

The Rangers are at $52.375 million for next season for two goaltenders, five defensemen and six forwards. You can make book on the fact prospective salary-arbitration eligible Group II Derek Stepan will get between $5.75 million and $6.5 million per depending upon the length of his deal. Just check out Stepan’s numbers against the Avalanche’s Ryan O’Reilly, awarded $6 million in salary arbitration.

Derek StepanAP

This means, a) the Blueshirts will be restricted going into the deadline, and, b) they likely are to be restricted when it comes to signing both Martin St. Louis and Mats Zuccarello, both of whom are pending free agents, neither of whom is having a particularly good season and with neither of whom have the Rangers made any progress toward an extension.

“I think everybody knows where I stand. I want to be here,” Zuccarello told Slap Shots this week. “But if there’s not room for me, there’s nothing I can do about that.
“I understand that is part of the business.”

It is part of the business of a business whose revenue increases hinge on a strong Canadian dollar. It is part of a business that as a matter of course employs lockouts to enforce its world view. It is part of the hard cap in which escrow has become the focal point of union business.

If Zuccarello picks up his play (and maybe even if he doesn’t, given the vagaries of free agency), money will be there for him this summer. But he may have to go to Edmonton or Buffalo in order to get it.

Edmonton … Buffalo … Manhattan.

Hmmm.

I can’t speak for the commissioner, but I’d say the difference is pretty darn dramatic.


So good for the league that additional and advanced statistics will be available soon on NHL.com.

But if the NHL truly wants to do the public a service, it will introduce a salary cap component featuring information that essentially has been unavailable since the invaluable web site, capgeek.com, went off the grid at start of the calendar year.

Upon further review, if the NHL truly wants to do the public a service, it would eliminate “cheerleader” from the job description of anyone and everyone working for the NHL Network.