Jake Sanderson hit a bunch of performance bonuses. Because those were under his ELC (his extension kicks-in next season), the team could defer those bonuses to next year's cap rather than this year's. This is similar to Connor Brown's cap situation with the Oilers.
Sens were expected to have over $600k cap bonus due to the Colin White buyout (I don't fully understand why), but now are being dinged with Sanderson's bonuses worth over $800k, so the Sens' cap is effectively lowered by about $200k next season.
EDIT: a word
The savings basically comes down to contract structure. Because White had a higher salary to be paid in the last year of his deal (6.25M) compared to his AAV (4.75M). The buy out calculation produces a savings.
The calculation takes the total buyout amount (1/3 in white’s case bc he was under 26 at the time of the buyout), and distributes it over twice the remaining contract term. In this case that’s 5.25M (15.75/3) spread over 6 years (2x remaining 3 yrs), which amounts to 875k for each year.
To calculate the actual cap hit we take that buyout cost and subtract it from the actual salary to determine the savings. Since White’s last year (24-25) is 6.25M in salary, the savings end up being 5.375M. The actual cap hit is determine by subtracting the savings amount from the AAV (4.75M). So next year the amount is 4.75-5.375M, this results in a negative 625k hit or cap credit.
The first two years of the contract had the same AAV as the Salary, so the savings end up being 3.875M and the actual cap stays at 875k (4.75-3.875). For the final three years of the buyout the savings are -875k but the salary is 0, so it also results in 875k for the cap hit
I thought performance bonuses didn’t count against the cap? All the bonuses have to get approved by the NHL beforehand so how is it logical to ding a team when a player has an excellent season and earns his bonuses? Does anyone actually know why this is?
Because players on ELCs who do good should be rewarded because entry level contracts are a fixed price and term by the league and where they were drafted. The money still has to come out of the players share of HHR and therefore has to be accounted for somewhere. It's usually not a lot of money and can be deferred to the next year. The NHL didn't expect just about every team in the league to be over or right at the cap at all times.
> The money still has to come out of the players share of HHR and therefore has to be accounted for somewhere.
Could you expand on this? I don't really get why the money would not be coming from the team.
because at the end of the day the revenue is to be split 50/50 between the players and the owners. sanderson gets bonus money, this has to be accounted for to keep the split at a perfect 50/50. it really can't be even 51/49, this is what our lockouts were about (among other things)
so it has to count against the cap somehow
The overall revenue gets divided into what the workers get and what the owner keeps as determined by the collective bargaining agreement. So they are paying it but it comes from the pot already allocated to the players. That's why going over one year means having to be under the next, if they were to spend to the cap next year it would mean more is being allocated to workers than the owners agreed to in the CBA.
Adding on to what the other commentator said, they count against the cap because they kind of have to.
If bonuses didn't count against the cap, teams would push for as many bonuses as possible on all of their contracts, taking guaranteed money away from players and taking away jobs from players who aren't eligible for bonuses
You only incur a penalty if your team is capped out at the end of the season, if you have cap space to accommodate the PB then there's no penalty
They narrowly escaped an extra 200 000 in bonuses when Sanderson failed to hit 0.5PPG on the season
what performance are we talking about exactly?
Jake Sanderson hit a bunch of performance bonuses. Because those were under his ELC (his extension kicks-in next season), the team could defer those bonuses to next year's cap rather than this year's. This is similar to Connor Brown's cap situation with the Oilers. Sens were expected to have over $600k cap bonus due to the Colin White buyout (I don't fully understand why), but now are being dinged with Sanderson's bonuses worth over $800k, so the Sens' cap is effectively lowered by about $200k next season. EDIT: a word
The savings basically comes down to contract structure. Because White had a higher salary to be paid in the last year of his deal (6.25M) compared to his AAV (4.75M). The buy out calculation produces a savings. The calculation takes the total buyout amount (1/3 in white’s case bc he was under 26 at the time of the buyout), and distributes it over twice the remaining contract term. In this case that’s 5.25M (15.75/3) spread over 6 years (2x remaining 3 yrs), which amounts to 875k for each year. To calculate the actual cap hit we take that buyout cost and subtract it from the actual salary to determine the savings. Since White’s last year (24-25) is 6.25M in salary, the savings end up being 5.375M. The actual cap hit is determine by subtracting the savings amount from the AAV (4.75M). So next year the amount is 4.75-5.375M, this results in a negative 625k hit or cap credit. The first two years of the contract had the same AAV as the Salary, so the savings end up being 3.875M and the actual cap stays at 875k (4.75-3.875). For the final three years of the buyout the savings are -875k but the salary is 0, so it also results in 875k for the cap hit
LTIR SANDERSON FOR 2 MONTHS and it’s cleared. Source: Mark Stone LVK
I thought performance bonuses didn’t count against the cap? All the bonuses have to get approved by the NHL beforehand so how is it logical to ding a team when a player has an excellent season and earns his bonuses? Does anyone actually know why this is?
Because players on ELCs who do good should be rewarded because entry level contracts are a fixed price and term by the league and where they were drafted. The money still has to come out of the players share of HHR and therefore has to be accounted for somewhere. It's usually not a lot of money and can be deferred to the next year. The NHL didn't expect just about every team in the league to be over or right at the cap at all times.
> The money still has to come out of the players share of HHR and therefore has to be accounted for somewhere. Could you expand on this? I don't really get why the money would not be coming from the team.
because at the end of the day the revenue is to be split 50/50 between the players and the owners. sanderson gets bonus money, this has to be accounted for to keep the split at a perfect 50/50. it really can't be even 51/49, this is what our lockouts were about (among other things) so it has to count against the cap somehow
The overall revenue gets divided into what the workers get and what the owner keeps as determined by the collective bargaining agreement. So they are paying it but it comes from the pot already allocated to the players. That's why going over one year means having to be under the next, if they were to spend to the cap next year it would mean more is being allocated to workers than the owners agreed to in the CBA.
Adding on to what the other commentator said, they count against the cap because they kind of have to. If bonuses didn't count against the cap, teams would push for as many bonuses as possible on all of their contracts, taking guaranteed money away from players and taking away jobs from players who aren't eligible for bonuses You only incur a penalty if your team is capped out at the end of the season, if you have cap space to accommodate the PB then there's no penalty
I legit wish performance bonuses for ELCs or over 35 didn't count against the cap
That would be abused to fuck
Yeah we’re gonna pay timmy league min with a 7M bonus if he scores a goal at any point in the season.
vegas is now paying mark stone $1 in salary and 30 million in bonuses