What We Learned: What does a $100-million salary cap mean?
You know something probably isn't good for the league when there are warnings about how bad it’s going to be a couple of years in advance.
When the idea that the salary cap could exceed $100 million in the near future first started circulating from NHL insider types in the last few weeks, it came with a word of warning. Basically, there's a nonzero number of teams that feel as though they will not be able to spend to that number because it would begin to imperil them financially. And for a league that has been all about the brutally enforced parity in these last 20 years of the salary-cap era, things could soon change rapidly.
Lots of NHL teams operate on relatively thin margins. This is why there are so many teams trying like hell to get the eighth seed while you're looking at the roster like, "Shouldn't they be tanking?" Sure, the idea of Being A Playoff Team and Selling Hope is nice, but truthfully, the extra few million dollars that even a couple home playoff games before they get bounced can sometimes be the difference between being in the red and being in the black in any given season. Now imagine if the salary cap goes up something like $12-15 million over the course of the next three seasons.
Because that’s the number the NHL announced late last week: increases to $95.5 million for next season, then $104 million, then $113.5 million. And even if we’re accepting on its face that some percentage of teams will just say, "We’re not going that high," the fact is that the salary floor rises with the cap, meaning that in 2027-28, no team can collectively pay their players more than $83.9 million against the cap. There are seven teams that have lower cap commitments than that today.
Marty Walsh, the head of the NHLPA, said over the weekend that the players are pleased with this announcement, because of course, that means their salaries will rise. I don’t think we’re getting a $20-million AAV anytime soon, but $18 million? Yeah. And since the salary cap is tied to revenues, and revenues are on the rise specifically because this generation of players is the most exciting in a long, long time, they ought to get their piece of the pie (and, based on the fact that they’ve actually detached the cap from revenues for the past few years, maybe a little more).
But the question is how many teams are going to be willing to give out AAVs approaching or exceeding $20 million, or anything close. There has to be a point at which, for example, the Winnipeg Jets tap out on being a cap-ceiling team, right? They’re a small-market team with a small building that generates revenues in Canadian dollars and pays players in American ones. There are some, let’s say, looming geopolitical issues that could affect the economics of the league and well beyond, but even leaving those aside if we somehow could, the fact remains that this is a gate-revenue and beer-sales league to a greater extent than I think anyone involved would want. Without a radical change to how revenues are shared between franchises, the idea of having a nine-figure payroll becomes a little difficult for many to consider.
You’re already hearing talk about changing the revenue-sharing model to make sure struggling teams can keep up, but even if the percentage of total revenue the latter receives increases (which would be a little surprising), we’re talking about a couple million dollars per team at most.
This anxiety, just in the last few days, has people theorizing about the league simply instituting a soft salary cap/luxury tax system, which would be difficult to foresee given how much the league and the NHLPA have suffered to make sure the hard cap system works well for as many parties as possible. There will always be teams that can’t really stay in the black in any given season, but if you want a luxury tax to subsidize those teams, one has to imagine you’d hear the words “lockout” and “strike” start to work their way into the conversation.
What I think people don’t realize is that there are maybe only 10 or so teams that generate like half of league revenue, and names like the Maple Leafs and Rangers won’t surprise you at or near the top of such a list. Those teams would likely be a lot more empowered to spend to a cap approaching $110 million, but you wonder what the trickle-down is. Does it create another bad-old-days-in-Arizona situation where guys who are LTIRetired get traded there? What about the veterans in the last years of bad-value contracts where their AAV is like $7 million but the money they’re owed for the last season or two is closer to $3 million? How many franchises get involved with that before there aren’t enough to go around?
To put it all a different way, the NHL’s salary cap is going to rise 29 percent from today’s $88 million over the next three seasons. There hasn’t been a rate of growth even approaching that level since the first few years they instituted the salary cap, and it rose from $39 million in 2005-06 to $56.8 million by 2009-10. Surely there were similar concerns about some teams being able to afford a $57-million salary cap 15 years ago. But probably not nearly as many as the ones that could be turning out their pockets in a few years.
Back before there was a salary cap, there were a lot of teams that spent less than $30 million a year on player payroll, and a handful that spent $60 million or more. The disparity this time around couldn’t look like that because of the salary floor, but the number of teams spending to the upper limit and those huddling around the lower level could be pretty similar. And if that happens, I wonder what the NHL as a whole starts to look like after two decades of placing a premium on parity.
What We Learned
Anaheim Ducks: Ya don't say.
Boston Bruins: You can say this about every team in the Eastern Conference Wild Card race: They'll put together a few good games and then look like one of the worst teams in the league for a week. Feels like a nasty game of musical chairs, but you never know who's gonna end up where when the music stops.
Buffalo Sabres: What?
Calgary Flames: Makes sense that the Flames aren't trading anyone of any greater note from their lineup, but also: That's no fun. Trade some guys!
Carolina Hurricanes: Whatever illness is currently running its way through the Hurricanes' room, it sounds like you really really really don't wanna get it.
Chicago: This article could just replace every letter with a dollar sign and that would be just as accurate.
Colorado Avalanche: The idea was always pretty clear: Get a store-brand Rantanen at store-brand prices and you're still getting a hell of a player. Let someone else pay 80 percent more for 25 percent more production.
Columbus Blue Jackets: I keep checking the standings and they keep being above the cutline. Very cool season for them.
Dallas Stars: Not sure why the Stars were so eager to do this trade but you can at least see the vision if you squint.
Detroit Red Wings: Six in a row. Hey, they're actually in a playoff spot, and all they had to do was win 14 of 18 to get back into that convo. I'm almost starting to buy it.
Edmonton Oilers: This is like taking credit for when two houses of cards fall over on a windy day, but congrats to you, I guess.
Florida Panthers: Short-term help, sure. What about long-term?
Los Angeles Kings: Gotta say it feels really weird that they're even having to clarify that their stud young defenseman isn't available. How do you even let it get to that point?
Minnesota Wild: Man, the cap's going way up AND they're getting out from under those buyouts? They should sign every UFA in the league. Corner the market.
Montreal Canadiens: Yup, sounds about right.
Nashville Predators: The answer here should be "none of them," but unfortunately for the Preds it just doesn't work that way.
New Jersey Devils: Yeah I guess I hadn't really thought about it, and the gap is still big enough to not sweat it too much yet, but the Blue Jackets did just show up over the horizon behind New Jersey, didn't they?
New York Islanders: These guys simply love acquiring defensemen lately. Fun hobby.
New York Rangers: Hmm yeah I mean I think that's the problem a lot of people have with it.
Ottawa Senators: Ultimately it boils down to who's selling and what you wanna buy. If the guy in the picture at the top of this article is your big add, how is that worth it for you?
Philadelphia Flyers: Yeah probably. That's often how it works.
Pittsburgh Penguins: Not sure what you mean by "steady" when it's pretty clear to me they're just tanking without trading any of the big names. Like which of the guys from the Canucks are gonna help get back into the playoff race?
San Jose Sharks: That'll fix it.
Seattle Kraken: Brutal news.
St. Louis Blues: I can help him make that determination in exchange for $100,000. But I bet he won't like the answer.
Tampa Bay Lightning: Yeah. Wait for the Frozen Four to end.
Toronto Maple Leafs: Funny headline but you might wanna visit a doctor if you think this is happening.
Utah [fill in the blank later]: Interesting to see fans weigh the pros and cons of the available names. I will note no one made a particularly strong case for keeping "Hockey Club," as well they shouldn't.
Vancouver Canucks: Yeah we know that.
Vegas Golden Knights: The rich get richer.
Washington Capitals: Hey, if you're gonna buy high, might as well keep doing it.
Winnipeg Jets: The Jets have two guys who are top-five in goals right now. That feels really weird, doesn't it?
Gold Star Award
David Pastrnak with 3-1—4 on Saturday. He's up to 14-14—28 in his last 15 games. What a player.
Minus of the Weekend
This was a CRAZY play. The Macho Man Randy Savage did less damage with his elbow.
Perfect HFBoards Trade Proposal of the Week
User "Mr.Ulanov" is saw the Luca trade coming:
For
3 million retained
2026 1st