It's called a buyout.

when did I say the cap went down?

actually 11% which is roughly what both McAvoy and Makar make is 10.6. Not 11.5.
I don't see him making that either though. 9 mil range is probably where it goes. I say this because I don't see the cap being 96 mil in 2 years. It's only going to 87 next year. Don't think it's gonna jump 8 mil the year after. You are just guessing on numbers at this point, and at that point i'm done.

Actually it is exactly the situation Vancouver is facing with Elias Pettersson. Vancouver choose a 3 year bridge deal (3 x 7.35M) instead of signing him to an 8 year contract and buying free agent years upfront for a lower cost.

"(Signing a bridge deal instead of a long-term deal) It’s a hypothesis strengthened by the fact that the club isn’t immediately poised to be a contender in the early part of Pettersson’s new (3 year bridge deal in 2021) extension.

There’s little question that Pettersson will outperform this deal, which makes it a good outcome in the short term for the Canucks....

Over the long term, however, it’s a bit more complicated. There’s an opportunity cost incurred by opting for a bridge deal, both in terms of what Pettersson will be poised to earn on his third contract if he continues to play at a superstar level and more importantly, in the lack of long-term cost certainty that the club will be able to benefit from.

Don’t underrate the impact of cost certainty in cap planning. The predictability that would’ve come with locking up both of Vancouver’s core pieces for years to come would’ve been invaluable for Canucks management as they seek to further upgrade their blue line and supporting cast."

this depends how you view your window though. Because much like Pettersson if he signs at 8 years at 22, you are now almost half way though the contract and just starting to compete. Do you think your window closes with Pettersson at 30? Because if you are saying to yourself, no our window goes to 33-34... then You are now paying way more for that contract in those last 2 years really hurting your cap and probably harder to deal with as you have a whole team build around winning now. You are hamstrung on the back end of those years on how you construct your roster because you know, I have to pay Pettersson in 2 years etc....
This is why I said above, gaining the 2 years at minimal cost is worth the risk assessment. If he makes 9 something as opposed to 8 something, you only save 1 mil more x 8 or 8 mil. But you gain 4 of that on the first 2 years. so it's like saying ok, 500k x8 more. who cares. You get 2 more years and 2 more years is worth 500k more or 1 mil against the cap.
This idea that he's going to make 11+ mil is bogus, he's not making that. it's most likely 9-9.5 mil. Like other guys have got. Even with the cap raise. The small cap hit raise from what you would have paid out this year, is worth keeping him to 33. Especially as it gets you out of the odd situation like Jake Guentzel was in, where you are looking at a guy who is 31 wanting a 7-8 year deal saying I can still play demanding top cap hit. But at 33 no one is going to listen to that even if he can still play at 33.
The whole idea here is capturing the most out of the player to create the biggest window. Instead of worrying about paying 1 mil more a year in cap and letting it cost you 2 years of the players window where you should be closing out your window if you built a team properly.

1. What is "you don't know that, you are dealing with a young player it may go up or down" in reference to?

2. McAvoy's contract is 11.66%, which would be roughly $11.3M under a $96.6M cap.

3. Makar's contract was a secondary contract and only 6 years long, neither of which qualify for the terms you're setting here, which are 3rd contract at max length.

4. $87.675M cap next year, which would be the first year of a new contract for Seider. Second year at $92.05M. That'd put Seider's the cap for Seider's next contract year at *SURPRISE* $96.6M.

There's no guesswork in those numbers at all. It's the cap with 5% raises, which are all but guaranteed considering revenue has continued to increase while the cap has remained stagnant as the players' debt was repaid. It's not guesswork. You just clearly didn't understand why the cap freeze was brought up or how the cap increases work.

You are arguing over 3rd vs 4th contract payouts...but you are discounting three big things:
1) The idea that management (the GM) has cost certainty and doesn't have to plan for a top dollar contract starting at year 2 of the bridge deal
2) And the cost savings on the back end of that 2nd contract (if they go long term instead of bridge)
3) that a player will actually sign an 8 (or 7--to another team) year deal for that 3rd contract (ELC, bridge, long-term) instead of maximizing their value by splitting it into shorter term deal so they can still hit another UFA in their prime years.

If you go bridge deal then you have 1 year of control left afterwards. His walk year where he controls the shots and you might not even negotiate until after the trade deadline to put the maximum pressure on losing him for nothing. Or he might pull a Tavares and not give you any indication that he isn't re-signing but never commit to it and then decide at noon on day 1 of free agency he is gone leaving you with nothing and fans scathing for your job.

Facts with a bridge deal negotiation:
Player becomes an UFA at the end of that next season (bridge deal termination + 1 year)
Player has arbitration rights so you're going to pay fair market rates on last year of control after a bridge deal.

So my ELC runs from 19-22. I get bridged from 22-25. Now I say 1 year arbitration requested at age 26. I now can sign anywhere else and you get no value back. I also can say no to any deal over 3years taking me to age 29 where I can still get that 7 year max deal or split it into 1-3 contracts so I hit UFA again at 32 and can get a 4-5 year deal still.

So your idea of a long term contract savings from age 26-33 is gone.

1. His salary and his play.
2. And Makar made 11.04%... I took it at 11.
3 None of that really matters. It's like saying he should just ask for 11.66 now and DET pay him 10.2 MIl on next years 87.6 cap. But you can see he's not going to get that which is why you offer him less. Just like I know he's not going to get paid more than some of these guys already out there like Makar. It's hard to justify it because he's not putting up 85 points.
4 We don't know what the cap will be. You are just guessing. Economy's globally are slowing now. Debt is increasing and inflation for basic things is through the roof. None of those spell people spending more on hockey. So lets not assume the cap keeps going up by 4 mil per. It could be a 1 Mil raise, we don't know.

that's just absurd reasoning. Many teams sign bridge deals and it's not an issue.
On top of it, it is very rare a player gets to arbitration today.
also don't assume it has to be a 3 year bridge, plenty players sign 2 year deals

Teams don't sign superstars to bridge deals unless they are towing the salary cap like Vancouver was (from Tyler Myers fiasco among others)

2 year bridges are the same scenario except the pressure from UFA is applied in year 2 beyond the bridge deal instead of year 1.

It's not going to arbitration that is the issue: it's the leverage to negotiate a fair market contract in that walk year (team cant simply say sit out then as an arbitrator can say no you have to pay x or walk away from the player and they become an UFA). You don't understand leverage and walk years.

1. His play is somehow going to get worse as he finally gets some help and doesn't have to carry the entire load himself? What?!

2. I don't know why you keep talking about Makar. Again. He's on a secondary contract at 6 years. It doesn't apply to the point you're trying to make of wait two years and sign him to 8 on a third deal. If anything it helps my point, because if Colorado had signed him to a 2 year deal, he'd be the highest paid defender in the league starting next year... Probably by a million/year.

3. "None of that matters!" You're the one that brought up McAvoy as a comparable dude. That's what McAvoy's contract inflates to. I dunno what to tell you.

4. You can yell until you're blue in the face that "It's guessing." It's going to happen. GMs know that, short of another worldwide shutdown, it's going to happen. The cap has barely increased since 18-19 when league revenue was $5.1B, and yet revenue has continued to stay on its' trajectory of increasing by $200M+/season like clockwork. Guess what that means? The cap has to catch up to revenue increases.

It's not rocket science. Why do you think the NHL was able to project a MAX increase on the cap next year so early in the season? Why do you think they're already projecting a MAX increase on the cap in 25-26?

Cale Makar, Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power, and Jake Sanderson represent the perfect example of the outcome I am alluding to.

Cale Makar = ELC then 6 year extension
Rasmus Dahlin = ELC then bridge then 8 year extension
Owen Power = ELC then 7 year extension
Jake Sanderson = ELC then 8 year extension

Makar costs 2.854M (because of performance bonuses) from 20-23 and 9M from age 23-28.
Dahlin cost 3.775M (because of performance bonuses) from age 18-20 and 6M from ages 21-23 and 11M from ages 24-31.
Power costs 1.85M (because of performance bonuses) from 19-21 and 8.35M from ages 22-28.
Sanderson cost 1.85M (because of performance bonuses) from 19-21 and 8.05M from ages 22-29.

There are real scenarios from Seider's contemporaries that were signed in recent years. So Bridging Dahlin meant overpaying starting at age 24 while saving during the age 29-31 years.

That has no relevance to Seider because Seider was over-ripened (overseas) so he had 2 ELC slide years making his ELC start at age 20. At 23 now an 8 year deal would take him to start that last year of an 8 year deal at age 30. It makes absolutely no sense to give up what we can plainly see is approx 3M in extra salary for a three year bridge deal reprieve and end the next contract at age 33 instead. Meaning from ages 26-30 you are paying 3M more than you would be if you signed him to a long-term deal instead of a bridge deal vs paying more from ages 31-33 without that bridge deal.

Beyond that you face the pressure from that 1 year game of chicken after the bridge deal expires where Seider would have more negotiating leverage and can simply threaten arbitration of 1 year and the following summer leave as an UFA at age 27. This can mess with the entire makeup of an organization.

If we disagree on these points it's not worth further discussion.

there are plenty of players who have 1 or 2 good years and then fall apart. Don't think it can't happen. The point is teams want to see on a lot of players to know what they are getting.
Makar is 11% of cap that's where we are. You seem to think Seider is getting more than him. He's not. This idea he's getting 11.5 is absurd and that's the point. Like I said, he might as well ask for his 10.2 now by your attitude.

As far as the league revenue growth, their viewing audience is shrinking right now. Like many major sports. So to think that the revenue is set to predict this for 3 years is all smoke and mirrors.
Ratings are down this year compared to last, and last year they took a real hit.
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/nhl-regular-season-2022-23-us-tv-ratings-audience-viewers-espn-turner-tnt/
down 22% in 2023. So lets not pretend, the money is growing 200m+ a season year after year. There is a lot of reason to not believe that. They have expanded every direction they could. From 2 tv contracts in the US, to logos on helmets over the years. Streaming contracts etc... but much like Netflix and other streaming services are cutting back, eventually those hits are going to come to the NHL as the audience is shrinking. People consume differently if at all now a days. Which is why you can't predict 3 years out. As the numbers are pointing down.
None of that is rocket science either.
So lets not try to predict the salary cap in 3 years. You don't know.

you seem to think there will be a 3 mil difference per year in his pay. This is where we disagree.
There won't be.
On top of it you seem destine to want him to hit FA at 31, at which point he'll be gone or you'll be paying him a 7 year deal on a massive contract which is sure to end up in bad cap hit.
What teams really want is to capture the window. 18-34 years. Everything after that is god knows what on a really good player.
But it's not out of question that a really good player will play well at 33 and 34 years old. It's around 35+ the wheels start to fall off.
There is no point to just give up on the upper years of that range or to massively over pay for it. Not if it's only going to cost you 1 mil more or so per year. Especially when that contract coming up, is in the middle of a competitive window. Because lets be clear. They are not really competitive now. They won't be for a few more years. By the time they are, you'll be here having to deal with balancing cap issues instead of having guys locked up to close out a window. Like I said, no need to end up in a Guentzel situation with a guy who's suppose to be a corner stone. In todays market, it's just as likely he'll walk out and your window will start to look shot and you only ended up with 4-5 years of it.

If you really want to see why you don't do what you are suggesting..... Just wait till the McDavid contract comes up in 2 years and the panic if he leaves.
You'll realize if a guy is suppose to be a corner stone, him breaking the bank at 30 or walking isn't a good situation it's better to just get the peek years and not worry about the small added cost.

Of course lost in the whole conversation is he gets a choice too. He might choose to go the Matthews route and never sign a long term deal. And just keep increasing you over and over and over till he's 30 and then asks to be paid 7-8 years.

1. Yes, Seider is definitely going to fall apart.

2. You keep talking about Makar and it's honestly hilarious to me. He literally doesn't apply. Signed a 6 year deal on his 2nd contract and you're asking for 8 years on a third deal. These are not the same thing. Stop comparing the two. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Dunno how much more clearly you need that spelled out.

3. Super weird how you abandoned ship on McAvoy when you realized you messed up there...

4. Audiences have been shrinking on TV for decades and yet TV revenue continues to increase across every sport. Not to mention you're citing US ratings and the US TV contract doesn't end until after the 2027-2028 season... Which is a year after where I'm projecting.

5. "So lets not pretend the money is growing $200M+ a season year after year."

Hmmmmm...

13/14 - $3.7B
14/15 - $3.98B
15/16 - $4.1B
16/17 - $4.43B
17/18 - $4.86B
18/19 - $5.09B
19/20 - $4.37B (COVID Playoffs)
20/21 - $2.33B (COVID Season)
21/22 - $5.93B ($840B increase over three seasons)

Pretty sure I don't have to pretend...

6. Netflix is an interesting example to use for "Cutting back" considering they just signed WWE to a $5B contract... You're arguing just to argue at this point, and you're doing a bad job at it. Stop.

why do clueless people like you bother posting nonsense about what other people do and do not understand.

No team is worried about going to arbitration with their best players. You never saw the penguins go to Arbitration with Guentzel. Just like you will never see DET go to arbitration with Seider.
It's just clueless nonsense you are dribbling on about.

What teams don't want, is to end up in the exact same boat teams like PIT, EDM and TOR have all ended up in.
Their very good players, in some of the highest years of their career turning FA.
That is why teams sign bridge deals. To capture years.
So when McDavid turns FA in 2 years. The panic will hit in EDM. He will cash out big time, and the question will remain on how they should have bridged him, and then extended him. Because they were going to pay a ton on him either way. The same Convo will happen in TOR with Matthews. Who managed to never sign a long term deal and is really looking like the best playbook to maximize a players future payout if they know it's never declining and want to bet on themselves.

So don't come to me about leverage. You clearly don't know what it is, because in 2 years, McDavid holds all the cards. That isn't a spot anyone would want to be in instead of hitting that spot at age 33.
Which is why bridging is the best option. Yes, you will pay a little more... but it's not going to break the bank, and it's not going to leave you in a stupid position where you watch your really good player walk or are basically held hostage. Because that's what leverage really looks like. Not this. And you clearly don't understand that.

"NHL team sponsorship revenue rose by 21% YoY to $1.28B in 2022-2023."

One single revenue stream. $200M+ increase.

"sO lEtS nOt pReTeNd rEvEnUe iS gOiNg uP $200M+ eVeRy yEaR!"

you really don't want to get into the convo about netflix as they are making massive cuts to their movie making departments. And have laid off large portions of their work force.
I mean honestly.

Again, you don't know the revenue growth stop pretending you do. It's not a linear curve.
They did everything they could to get those numbers those final 3 years. The years before they weren't putting logos on helmets, in game advertisements, and digital adds all over the ice, 2 tv contracts and streaming rights.
There is only so much you can do to keep growth like that..... especially with a known declining viewership. Stop pretending you are smart, your clearly not. They are running out of ways to add and a lot of their attempts are turning the viewership away. Which is why it's declined massively over 2 years.

Again, you keep ranting about how Makar isn't relevant. I don't care if Makar signed a 6 year deal. You are talking about a defense man who was a PPG player when he signed his deal. Seider isn't getting paid close to what he's getting paid. Period. the value of the player alone, dwarfs the 2 year difference in contract length and you really fail to understand that.

ratings down 22% in 2023, ratings down this year..... how long you think people going to keep paying for advertisement when no one watches?

1. Oh no buddy, I absolutely want to talk about Netflix. Because you're gonna lose that one, too. Do you know why Netflix is making cuts to their original content? Movies cost millions to produce. Do you know what's cheap? Sports and live events... Crazy right?! It's almost like that's why they signed that $5B contract with the WWE...

2. Those numbers cited are literally from the NHL. Try again.

3. You keep citing "Declining viewership" like the death of cable hasn't been going on since the early 2000s... Again, it's weird how you think this is relevant considering the numbers I cited were for a 25-26 cap and a 26-27 cap, and the league's US TV deals are guaranteed until the end of the 27-28 season.

4. I'm not pretending I'm smart at all, but I'm definitely smarter than you. Not that that's hard to do, apparently.

5. Makar isn't relevant lol. You want an 8 year deal on Mo after a two year bridge. Makar signed a 6 year deal after his ELC. Makar's contract buys 2 years of UFA. What you're asking for Seider would buy SIX. There is a clear difference there. You refuse to see it because you can't accept that you're wrong.

6. Again, appreciate that you have run from the McAvoy discussion after you compared him to Seider without realizing what his contract would inflate to.

Netflix budget for the Movie "Triple Frontier": $115M
ESPN cost to broadcast 1000+ NHL games/year: $400M

Golly, I wonder why Netflix is cutting their movie department?! Wonder what they'll shift that money to!

Netflix didn't make cuts because they were expensive to make, they made cuts because the streaming war has cut away at their growth and profit margins.
They aren't the only game in town and they can no longer spend without being competitive just like Disney.

Sports aren't cheap and wwe isn't a sport, it's fake....crazy right, i know you thought it was real. In many cases they have found paying for sports no one watches isn't worth it. Which is why many large brands have walked away from expensive sports advertising, like the superbowl. But keep thinking the shrinking audience doesn't matter.

The fall of cable has nothing to do with viewership. The numbers aren't balanced out by streaming. This is a known fact. They are just gone.
Every analyst has said... people just watch highlights on their phone now, they don't watch the games. So that's a dead argument. You think a shrinking audience doesn't mean shrinking revenue, it does.
For the record no one ran from the McAvoy conversation. There are many comparables out there. Again the point is he's not getting 11.5. in 2 years You just don't want to admit that.

You can cry Makar isn't relevant all day.... but it is and that's that. He's not making more than him. The production isn't there 2 years shorter deal or not.



and yet 3 body problem got higher ratings than the NHL ever will.

Jesus Christ you really are stubborn enough to keep making yourself look like more and more of an idiot.

1. This is kinda the same thing dude... They made cuts because the movies weren't worth what they were spending on them anymore.

2. Uhh yes, sports are very cheap compared to original content. And whether you like it or not, WWE is a regular event, broadcasted from an arena, that sells their broadcasting rights to the highest bidder. I never said it was a sport. It does operate on a similar business structure as sports, particularly when it comes to broadcasting. But I'm not surprised you had to nit-pick at this because your arguments have been pathetic thus far.

3. Weird. "Many large brands have walked away from expensive sports advertising, like the superbowl", and yet the Superbowl keeps charging more and more for ads...

4. "You keep thinking a shrinking audience doesn't mean shrinking revenue, it does." Well this is just a weird argument considering... The revenue isn't shrinking.

5. Nah bud, you definitely ran from the McAvoy conversation when you tried contesting what his contract would inflate to and then found out that it was indeed $11.3M.

6. There's no crying about Makar's relevancy. There's laughing that you keep bringing it up because it's stupid. A player on his third contract at 8 years buying six years of UFA is not remotely close to a player on his 2nd contract at 6 years buying two years of UFA. In fact... The 8 year deal proposed for Seider on his second contract is comparatively WELL UNDER what Makar got, for more years. Keep eating Ls on this, though.

You can yell and scream and **** and moan until you're blue in the face that they're the same, but they're not.

I have no doubt it did! Hopefully it got 500X the ratings of the average NHL game because 8 one hour episodes vs. 1200 three hour game broadcasts is kind of a mammoth sized difference in content purchased... But you're the broadcasting genius, I don't need to tell you that!