How the NHL’s rising salary cap could eventually benefit the Blackhawks

So far, the precipitous rise of the NHL’s salary cap has mostly hurt the Blackhawks.

At this stage of the Hawks’ rebuild, as they turn their roster over to young players — many of whom are on cheap entry-level contracts — they expected to have abundant cap space, and they indeed do.

However, because the cap jumped up by $7.5 million this season — to a maximum of $95.5 million — and is projected to increase by $8.5 and $9.5 million in the next two seasons, respectively, almost every team has abundant cap space. That luxury isn’t a unique advantage anymore.

This new cap environment has virtually killed free agency as a viable way to acquire high-end players, since every team can now afford to give their pending free agents the raises they demand.

That’s a source of frustration for many Hawks fans, who haven’t figured out July 1 no longer presents the opportunity it used to. There’s not much general manager Kyle Davidson can do.

Over time, though, the precipitous rise of the salary cap might help the Hawks and disrupt the league hierarchy more.

The 2027-28 cap is already set at an approximate $113.5 million, and outspoken NHL agent Allan Walsh posted on March 8 that he expects the 2028-29 cap to end up around $123 million. That would mark an increase of nearly $30 million over the next three years.

The cap is based on a 50/50 split of projected league revenue between the owners and players, so it theoretically rises in sync with revenue. And since the NHL has a revenue-sharing system between its wealthier and poorer franchises, revenues do generally increase across the board.

But it still seems likely that some poorer, smaller-market franchises won’t feel comfortable spending $123 million on players quite that soon.

There’s no risk of an MLB-esque Dodgers-versus-Pirates payroll disparity developing, but a small gap could develop.

According to Forbes data from the 2024-25 season, 13 NHL teams brought in $250 million or more in revenue: the Oilers (the leaders at $431 million), Maple Leafs, Kings, Rangers, Canadiens, Flyers, Devils, Capitals, Bruins, Hawks, Red Wings, Stars and Golden Knights.

That group isn’t surprising. All Original Six teams are included, as are the five teams closest to the United States’ four most populous metropolitan regions.

On the other end, 11 teams brought in less than $220 million: the Blue Jackets (the lowest at $161 million), Sabres, Senators, Sharks, Ducks, Jets, Mammoth, Predators, Blues, Flames and Hurricanes. That group isn’t surprising, either.

It’s worth noting every club turned a net profit. That’s an impressive accomplishment, considering Forbes determined two NBA clubs and 11 MLB clubs did not.

Still, seven turned a profit of less than $30 million — a particularly relevant number. Revenues should increase along with expenses over the next three years, but perhaps not at the same rate for every club.

Internal budgets lower than the league salary cap used to exist around the league. Over the past decade, those have disappeared. But it’s conceivable they could be reinstated by some owners in smaller markets soon, inhibiting those teams’ opportunities to retain or attract talent.

The Hawks would benefit from that scenario, as would other deep-pocket franchises.

Their profitability should only increase as the team becomes more competitive, and owner Danny Wirtz has repeatedly made it clear Davidson will have a green light to spend up to the cap at that point.

“We will spend appropriately — where it makes sense — for us to go and win Stanley Cups,” Wirtz told the Sun-Times in October. “That’s been a hallmark of us during the salary-cap era.”

Come 2028 and beyond, the skyrocketing cap might begin affecting free agency (and trades) in a different way than it does now. It will be interesting to see if that theory proves accurate.