Skip to main content

Pittsburgh Penguins' Matt Niskanen (R) attempts to tie up Boston Bruins' Brad Marchand during the second period in Game 4 of their NHL Eastern Conference finals hockey playoff series in Boston, Massachusetts, June 7, 2013.

JESSICA RINALDI/REUTERS

It was a difference of only $2-million (U.S.), but it had NHL general managers fretting all the same as the league attempted to finalize the salary cap prior to the draft.

On one side, there was a host of big-market teams – such as the Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers – feeling the pinch, arguing for a $70-million-plus ceiling to bail them out with a little extra room and free agency approaching.

On the other, the small-market clubs were more concerned about the salary floor, which rises in concert with the cap and has forced teams like Florida to spend unwisely in the past to simply be compliant.

Story continues below advertisement

But the biggest hurdle was getting the players to buy in and agree to a bigger number.

As strange as it sounds, the National Hockey League Players' Association fought for a lower salary cap, wanting it to be tied to last season's revenues, which ultimately came in at closer to $3.62-billion than the $3.7-billion that was rumoured during the Stanley Cup finals.

That lower revenue number would have meant a $68-million cap – a rise of only $3.7-million from last year – and it was that figure that had several GMs that expected it to exceed $70-million getting anxious.

The players' biggest issue with a higher cap number comes back to escrow. Players lost nearly 10 per cent of their paycheques last season due to it and didn't want to see that rise.

While raising the cap benefits the thin crop of players going to unrestricted free agency on Tuesday, it actually hurts all those with existing contracts, as the pool of money is redistributed each year based on revenues.

The behemoth new contract defenceman Matt Niskanen is expected to sign on July 1, for example, isn't so much a dollar figure as a shifting share of league revenues, a percentage that would theoretically be higher if all the teams bidding for him had more to spend.

Ultimately, the NHL and the NHLPA had to come up with a compromise on the cap number. The league's new collective agreement allows the two sides to factor in large new sources of revenue – like the 12-year, $5.2-billion TV deal they signed with Rogers that kicks in this fall – ahead of schedule when it comes to the cap calculation.

Story continues below advertisement

Of that new money, there was roughly $100-million for next season alone that was above and beyond the previous Canadian TV contract.

Including all of that TV revenue growth would have boosted the cap $2-million to $70-million, which is what the league pushed for.

The NHLPA's resistance, however, led to them including only half of the Rogers cash for 2014-15, which is how they settled on a $69-million cap and $51-million floor.

That's good news for the free-agent class of 2015.

Factoring in all of the new revenue this weekend would have meant no sizable boost a year from now.

As it currently stands, the 2015-16 salary cap should now easily exceed $74-million.

Story continues below advertisement

Which means that whoever next year's Niskanen is can be just as handsomely rewarded for making it to July 1.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter