B's: "Saving money for midseason moves"

[Jason Harris 31]

I'm curious what others think of this.

The Bruins have said they'd like to have some room under the cap for flexibility to make midseason moves; that sounds very prudent. However, they've self-imposed a $35M cap, leaving $4M flexibility. Since the trading deadline is around the 2/3 point of the season, they'd only be liable for 1/3 of any salary, meaning they are leaving themselves enough room to pick up three $4M-a-year players at the trading deadline. Seems rather unlikely.

Given their own $35M cap is preventing them from signing Boynton and Raycroft to longterm deals, I'm starting to have an uneasy feeling that we're seeing more of the same from the B's.

[chippa13 1844]

This is something most teams are doing. If you're right up against the cap then you leave yourself no wiggle room in the case of a long-term injury to one of your top players. Also, if you make a deal for a player, his total salary for the year counts towards your cap figure.

[ktang 34]

Another effect of the cap: the Canucks' GM, Dave Nonis, was saying that he planned to have a 21-man roster, instead of 23, because then he could have more to spend per player. He's hoping that his club stays relatively healthy.

[RadioGaGa 162]

This is something most teams are doing. If you're right up against the cap then you leave yourself no wiggle room in the case of a long-term injury to one of your top players. Also, if you make a deal for a player, his total salary for the year counts towards your cap figure.

Not from what I've heard. A players salary will only count for the time he is on your roster.

[Jason Harris 31]

Also, if you make a deal for a player, his total salary for the year counts towards your cap figure.

Are you sure about that?

Teams only have to pay the pro-rated portion of the salary, so it doesn't make sense they have to count the entire salary against the cap. If they did, then what would happen to the salary cap for the team that traded the player? I can't imagine there'd be double accounting.

If you're correct, I agree the B's are being prudent. However, if only the pro-rated portion of the salary counts against the cap, then I'd say the B's will probably end up leaving nearly $3M unused. We know they can afford to spend the money, so I find it bothersome that this policy may be preventing them from inking Boynton and Raycroft to longterm deals -- something they have expressed they want to do.

[Chadd 916]

This is something most teams are doing. If you're right up against the cap then you leave yourself no wiggle room in the case of a long-term injury to one of your top players. Also, if you make a deal for a player, his total salary for the year counts towards your cap figure.

That's not correct, only the amount remaining to be paid will count against the cap. This situation was addressed directly by Bettman in one of the many press conferences after the CBA was ratified.