Penguins owners are spending into the mid 70's, not to the cap

That rumor already got shot down

Source? I saw pretty recently that the plan was still to spend to mid 70's

Edmonton accepts

Pretty sure it was Yohe in the Athletic that interviewed GMJR. He said he has full authorization from management to spend to the cap as long as they're competitive, which they almost certainly will be. Sounds as though they might start the season a couple million under the cap, but just swapping Bjugstad for someone like Pateryn from MIN (which has been done on here a lot) accomplishes the necessary savings. In this, I'm assuming Bjugstad/ZAR start on LTIR and Bjugstad is swapped once he's healthy

Translation of we can spend to the cap as long as we are competitive. We will start the year well under the cap. If at the trade deadline we are a clear contender and the financial circumstances have not gotten any worse then we can add salary to bring us closer to the cap. That being said if the Pens can flip Bjugstad's contract for Russell's that would be a huge benefit for the Pens budget because it would be 4 million less in actual contract dollars the team would have to pay. Bjugstad base is 5.25 and Russell's is 1.5.

Disagree, I think realistically the lowest they would spend is ~77M. Very rarely does a team add more than 4M at the deadline, so if the plan is to end up at around the ceiling then the floor is pretty high. And just generally speaking, there isn't a coherent argument for not maxing out spending the last few years of the window. Yes the Bjugstad/Russell swap makes sense as part of that plan

Sure there is. Hockey is a business and even though spending more money gives you a better chance to win it does not necessarily equate to more revenue in the current environment. When owners are losing significant money the most coherent argument to them is the one that best protects their financial interests.

I mean if you want to talk about it in business terms sure. Highest ROI for cap spent would be now, as the window will never be more open. In a couple years, the incremental cost of adding cap will yield almost no benefit as the core will be too washed up to make a run either way. Adding cap now adds more certainty to playoff earnings, so it makes sense to ownership

Sure if you are playing home games in front of capacity crowds then yes you are getting quality ROI. What credible source expects that to happen anywhere next year let alone in Pennsylvania.

If revenue is down it affects players and ownership the same because of escrow, 50/50 revenue split. The 'cap' number might be 81M but players are only seeing 50% of the revenue proportionally to their 'salary' earnings.

Escrow has been capped in the new CBA for the next few years so players actually will not share equally in losses.

Find it for yourself... but there is also a difference between cap and salary.

Russell and Bjugstad almost same cap.
One has a $2.5M salary, the other $5.2M.

$0.1M difference in cap, $2.7M difference in salary. 27x difference. Twenty seven

This concept goes across other players too.

yea of course. Only seeing more sources coming out saying its true. guess we will see

25 people quoting the same original article is not 26 sources.

well you've yet to give me 1 ...
anyway,
the article does say "Spend into low to mid 70's for the beginning of the season. Potentially they would be willing to spend higher but not until well into the season, and after the team looks like they are a contender". Seems counter-intuitive, not sure how they are supposed to truly contend without full financial weaponization to start with

Believe the OG source on that was Pensburgh... a blog. The Athletic interviewed GMJR and he said directly that they can spend to the cap, which I tend to trust more than a blog, even if that blog then gets used as a source in 20+ articles and rampant speculation

It was a made up story for clicks. Rutherford himself said that it was false. You are confusing yourself over fake news.

https://theathletic.com/1992907/2020/08/13/inside-the-penguins-collapse-and-the-big-changes-that-still-remain/?source=emp_shared_article

Its the Athletic. Not Fox News. Read the article. The owners themselves, who are above Rutherford said mid 70's, unless they believe "the team is one or two pieces away from" being a contender, then they would be able to spend more than that

Yes, and Yohe and Rossi made it up. Other Pittsburgh writers said that it was false, Rutherford himself said that it was false.

You are confusing yourself over fake news.