The latest Salary cap update from TSN. This is purely fact, with no speculation.->Colorado is at $38,281,628. That is $1,281,628 over the cap.

->Dallas is at $36,680,202. That is $319,798 under the cap. They however have 4 players with undisclosed salaries. They are Shawn Belle (D, rookie contract), Dan Ellis (G), Mike Smith (G), and Anti Miettinen (LW).

-> Anaheim is at $33,757,500. That is $3,242,500 under the cap. They however have one undisclosed salary, Ladislav Smid (D, rookie contract). They also only have 19 players, including undisclosed salaries.

->Atlanta is at $31,542,600. That is $5,457,400 under the cap. They have two undisclosed contracts: Mark Popovic (D), and Scott Barney (C). They also still have Ilya Kovalchuk (LW) left to sign.

->Boston is at $31,078,000. That is $5,922,000 under the cap. They however have 3 salaries undiclosed. They are Brad Boyes (C), Hall Gill (D), and Mark Stuart (D, rookie deal). They also have, among the notables, Andrew Raycroft (G) and Nick Boynton (D) left to sign.

->New Jersey is at $43,748,929. That is $6,748,929 over the cap. They also have, among notables, Paul Martin (D), Ari Ahonen(G), David Hale(D), and Scott Stevens left to sign.

->The New York Islanders are at $33,154,340. That is $3,845,660 under the cap. They however have 3 undisclosed contracts: Allan Rourke (D), Petteri Nokelainen (F, rookie deal), and Robert Nilsson (F, rookie deal). They also have among notables Rick Dipietro (G), Eric Godard (LW), Mark Parrish (RW), Justin Mapletoft (C), and Mariusz Czerkawski (RW).

->New York is at $32,154,348. That is $4,845,652 under the cap. They have 5 undisclosed salaries: Hugh Jessiman (C, rookie deal), Al Montoya (G, rookie deal), Henrik Lundqvist (G, rookie deal), Bryce Lampman (F), Garth Murray (LW). They also have, among notables, Dominic Moore, Jed Ortmeyer, Karel Rachunek, and Dan Blackburn left to sign. ***Washington picks up part of Jagr’s salary. I’m not too sure whethere that would affect TSN’s ranking of the cap, but I think they’ve accounted for that.

-> Philadelphia is at $34,120,600. That is $2,879,400 under the cap. They have 6 undisclosed salaries. They include Branko Radiojevic (LW), Patrick Sharp (C), Jeff Carter (C, rookie deal), Mike Richards (C, rookie deal), Dennis Seidenburg (D), Jamie Storr (G). They also have Radovan Somik (RW) left to sign.

->Tampa Bay is at $37,639,379. That is $639,379 over the cap. They have Nikita Alexeev (C) left to sign.

->Also of note: Ottawa is at $30,320,094 with 24 players, but 8 of those players with undisclosed salaries. Washington is at $17,913,505 with 27 players, but almost half of those (12) are undisclosed salaries (including Ovechkin, Sutherby, Yonkman, Fortin, and Bradley).

66 Responses to TEAMS OVER CAP

  1. 19AVSFANFoLIFE19 says:

    OH and since were going by that would mean the leafs are over the cap. Note for those who didnt see i said since we are going by Because it clearly says nolans status is in dispute

  2. devils007 says:

    Was the cap based on last season’s hockey revenues? It must be, because its the only way that I can make the math work.

    1) The players’ share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion.

    2) 54% of $2.17 B is $1.17 B.

    3) 1/30th of $1.17 B is $39 M. reports the maximum salary as $7.8 M, which also translates into a team max of $39 M.

    I’ll comment on the insurance issue in a seperate post, but does anyone know where the $2.17 B projection comes from?

  3. goleafsgo1991 says:



  4. devils007 says:

    The $2 M figure is not reliable and should not be used as a hard reduction on cap figures. Until someone provides a link to an NHL or NHLPA reference that resolves this, I think we have to rely on the following from

    “The payroll range in Year One (2005-06) of the CBA will be $21.5 million (U.S.) at the lower limit and $39 million (U.S.) at the upper limit. A Club’s payroll will include all salaries, signing bonuses and performance bonuses paid to players.”

    There is no reference to insurance or benefits. Indeed, the only credible source that I’ve seen is from THN and, although they are generally reliable, they aren’t necessarily cap experts.

    I believe that that insurance and similar costs will be included when determining total player costs (aka “the player’s share”) as a percentage of revenue. Other items, including playoff bonuses, per diems, and travel expenses would be similarly counted.

    It doesn’t make sense that the cap would include one variable (insurance) but not others (per diems, bonus for winning the Cup, etc.).

    People keep on throwing around $2 M as the cost for insurance, however this would vary significantly from team-to-team, with a particular discrepancy between Canadian and American teams because of health care coverage. I can’t imagine that the 24 American teams would, in effect, have permitted the 6 Canadian teams to have a higher salary cap than them.

    I would also assume (but don’t have data to back it up), that both the size of player contracts and the age/health of players would impact a given team’s insurance costs, e.g. the liability for a team with $25M of young players is less that for a team with $25M of older players, and significantly less than that for a team with $37M worth of old guys.

    As others have mentioned, it would be needlessly confusing/misleading to widely promote a cap of $39 M if, in fact, it was effectively $37 M. At the very least, you could reasonably expect the above quote from the NHL to reference death, disability, and health insurance costs.

  5. devils007 says:

    Notably, the Levitt report lists “benefits” (which I believe includes pension and not just insurance) as $64 M league-wide for 2002/2003.

  6. wheresthesoda says:


    for the rangers, jagrs salary is cut off 50% by the caps. and the rangers have already signed lampman, rachunek is playing in europe and blackburn is not needed

  7. Nevyn says:

    It is my suspicion based on what I have seen (I have no link to back it up, it’s speculation), that the 2 million dollar figure applies to calculation of the cap for future years.

    The cap is linked to revenue. I think that there is a further adjustment to that linkage that says while 54% of league revenues is the cap number going forward, 2 million of that number is for ancillary costs. This doesn’t necessarily mean each team will spend that much or that no team will spend more, just that 2 million of what teams spend is considered part of the linked spending limit.

    However, since the cap for this year was negotiated and specified, I don’t think the ancillary costs reduction necessarily applies. If it does, I think it would just apply at the end (ie: if 54% of revenues this year is 39 million, then they will use the 15% in escrow to adjust player salaries based on a 37 million dollar cap). Again, this is just speculation.

    Other than that one Hockey News quote (and the CBA is murky enough that they could easily have it wrong), I have not seen one major news source suggesting or calculating proximity to the cap based on it being 37 million. They all use 39.

    Either way, such an article IS speculation when you don’t know all the cap details and when each team has undisclosed contracts.

  8. pens_fan says:

    que que elo pathatico el shevyo

  9. pens_fan says:

    youo el morono

  10. devils007 says:

    That’s my conclusion as well.

    From a business perspective, it makes way more sense to essentially transfer such costs back to the players (via the escrow account) rather than create an uneven cap in which the owners bear more of the risk.

  11. devils007 says:

    Can you please provide a source for that conclusion?

    From what I can tell, the CBA does not permit “transferring” cap space. Although the Capitals are “covering” half of Jagr’s salary, he is actually being paid 100% by the Rangers, who then get reimbursed by Washington.

    TSN and other reliable sources have all been counting Jagr’s full salary against the Rangers cap. Although contracts were grandfathered as far as the maximum salary goes, I can’t believe that they would also apply side salary deals to the new CBA.

  12. H_E_DBL_HCKY_STCKS says:

    you talk to much shit buddy boy, its a good thing you hide behind your computer screen otherwise you’d get beat down 20 times just walking down the street.

  13. pens_fan says:

    Que? keep giving internet threats its pretty fvckin hilarious puts a laugh on my face every time!

  14. H_E_DBL_HCKY_STCKS says:

    ya because you know how to hide behind your keyboard and talk smack without consequence …. grow up junior, its time for you to stop smearing your pants.

  15. chiefwigams says:

    I think the leaf fans have gotten into their parents stash again. The Cap is 39 in Payroll and not 37 plus insurance… Insurance is a business expense and not a payroll expense… Here is what the CBA says about team Pay rolls:


    What will be the range of Club payrolls?

    The payroll range in Year One (2005-06) of the CBA will be $21.5 million (U.S.) at the lower limit and $39 million (U.S.) at the upper limit. A Club’s payroll will include all salaries, signing bonuses and performance bonuses paid to players. Except in the case of bona fide long-term injury (injuries that sideline a player for a minimum of 24 days and 10 games) to one or more of a club’s players, Club payrolls will never be permitted to be below the minimum or in excess of the maximum. Clubs at or near the upper limit that have players who incur a bona fide long-term injury will be entitled to replace up to the full value of the injured player’s NHL salary (even if such salary would result in the club’s team salary exceeding the upper limit). The “replacement salary” will not count against the club’s upper limit but will count against the League-wide players’ share. Upon return of the injured player, the team must come into immediate compliance with the requirements of the payroll range.

    Please do a little more research before you write this nonesense up..

  16. dlo44 says:

    no, YOU are 100% incorrect.

    the cap is 39.

    insurance is seperate.

    the almost deal last feb was reported to be structured that way. not the current deal

Leave a Reply