Nuxfanabroad Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 ***The Carry Over-Cap rule*** Posted this yest(slightly modified), on a thread that's been locked. It would make the GM'ing side more intriguing, to be sure. Calculate a team's cap at their highest point, after the trade-deadline(last quarter-season). Imagine this season, Team A is at 59.3 million. With the limit being 64.3 mill, that squad would be 5 mill below the ceiling. Thus, they'd have the option to 'carry' 5 mill over to next yr's limit. With 2014-15 being 71 mill, said team could theoretically have a 76 million cap-ceiling. Wouldn't allow a team to add more than 10%(nice, round number) atop the limit.EG:Couldn't exceed 78 mill, next season. RULE#2... At 2014/15 end, that team would have the option to amnesty any contract(say 80% player buyout, to appease NHLPA) up to their 'carried' amount. In previous example, Team A could amnesty a 5 mill-contract. Both concept/rules reward a GM who assembles a good team, whilst maintaining cap-space. If you won it all with a team that's maybe 5 million under, you'd have also earned that extra space to try & sign/retain your RFA's & UFA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggy Bank Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 wtf SAY Chicago dumps a 5 million dollar contract now. They get 6.8 in rising cap. 5 from contract dump, and 5 for salary carry over. That means they have 16.8 to spend for next season. SO now Chicago has 16.8 Million to spend in FA for the 2015-26 season. SIGN say, David Krejci and Cpry Schneider? Krejci 7 million 8 years Schneider 6.5 million 8 years Sharp Toews Hossa Kane Krejci Bickell Saad Shaw Teravainen Bollin Handzus Vertseeg Keith Seabrook Hjalmersson Oduya Leddy Roszival Schneider Crawford. leaving cap for another carry over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Could be wrong, but I think it was explained fairly clearly in the post. Don't want to suggest your reading skills are inadequate; this may be a one-off. You might be heavily absorbed/engaged in challenging physics homework, or advanced algebra?..Can only suggest you read again, if motivated to do so. Or maybe you were accidentally replying to a different topic? :^) PS-wtf means 'way too fantastic'? Thanks, but hyperbole isn't required... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAntar Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't agree with it at all. Teams should all spend to the cap to encourage success. In fact I'd rather see a team who spends less be penalized the following season, certainly not rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon4401 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 so teams that have 10+mil space get an advantage? there is a reason there's a cap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 so teams that have 10+mil space get an advantage? there is a reason there's a cap... Yeah, & I agree with you, & believe the cap has helped level the field(indeed, there are MANY reasons the league has a cap). But I think this adjustment might make it better. Further illustration: 2014(say cap is 71 mill). TEAM A spends to cap, until Feb(plays poorly). At deadline they deal a few strong players for picks/futures, & are down to 65 million. 2015(cap rises to 76 million). Team A can spend up to 82 million. They sign some FA's, & trade for a stud player(or two). They reach 81 mill(after deadline). So NEXT season(2016) they can only add ONE million(but they've already acquired a lot of talent/contracts). They're also allowed to amnesty ONE 6 mill contract, if desired(NHLPA would love this added rule/more flexibility for GM's). ...Example also illustrates it would be possible to turn around a team's fortunes more quickly with a competent GM. Fans of one team don't get stuck in a negative rut for an eternity. In that example the 2014 + '15 yrs amount to 147 million cap limit. TEAM A spends 65 + 81 million, totalling 146 million. They've simply shifted more resources towards ONE year; choosing to retool in the other. I think this idea rewards top teams that spend wisely; yet also rewards spending teams that want to reshuffle quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon4401 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah, & I agree with you, & believe the cap has helped level the field(indeed, there are MANY reasons the league has a cap). But I think this adjustment might make it better. Further illustration: 2014(say cap is 71 mill). TEAM A spends to cap, until Feb(plays poorly). At deadline they deal a few strong players for picks/futures, & are down to 65 million. 2015(cap rises to 76 million). Team A can spend up to 82 million. They sign some FA's, & trade for a stud player(or two). They reach 81 mill(after deadline). So NEXT season(2016) they can only add ONE million(but they've already acquired a lot of talent/contracts). They're also allowed to amnesty ONE 6 mill contract, if desired(NHLPA would love this added rule/more flexibility for GM's). ...Example also illustrates it would be possible to turn around a team's fortunes more quickly with a competent GM. Fans of one team don't get stuck in a negative rut for an eternity. In that example the 2014 + '15 yrs amount to 147 million cap limit. TEAM A spends 65 + 81 million, totalling 146 million. They've simply shifted more resources towards ONE year; choosing to retool in the other. I think this idea rewards top teams that spend wisely; yet also rewards spending teams that want to reshuffle quickly. So teams that are not allowed to spend to the cap become even worse because teams like Chicago, Boston, LA, Anaheim etc will always have spare cap available...Cap is there to let everybody have a shot at being competetive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 So teams that are not allowed to spend to the cap become even worse because teams like Chicago, Boston, LA, Anaheim etc will always have spare cap available...Cap is there to let everybody have a shot at being competetive Yes, that would be the counter-argument towards such an initiative. Based on rev/markets the first 7 seasons of cap(2006-2012) it's probably valid. With the new CBA(especially enhanced Revenue-sharing), & NHL rapidly climbing with profits, the momentum will probably permeate even into the smaller markets. Or they might be moved to more viable regions(eg:Flor/Phx to Seattle, or Quebec). Especially now that owners have the 50/50 terms they yearned for. If this occurs, it's conceivable almost every franchise might eventually spend to the cap. Then richer teams will aim for spending-advantages mostly in team-infrastructure/development/scouting, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That's silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon4401 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes, that would be the counter-argument towards such an initiative. Based on rev/markets the first 7 seasons of cap(2006-2012) it's probably valid. With the new CBA(especially enhanced Revenue-sharing), & NHL rapidly climbing with profits, the momentum will probably permeate even into the smaller markets. Or they might be moved to more viable regions(eg:Flor/Phx to Seattle, or Quebec). Especially now that owners have the 50/50 terms they yearned for. If this occurs, it's conceivable almost every franchise might eventually spend to the cap. Then richer teams will aim for spending-advantages mostly in team-infrastructure/development/scouting, etc... That is how the richer teams spend money...Van has poor scouting the last few years but top notch trainingstaff...That is and will be how things go the league would never be able to abide by this kinda thing need to stick to 1 cap for all to keep things simple instead of complicating things like this team has 85mil cap this one has 81min etc...They will keep things simple instead of blowing it all apart for something they would have to monitor closely to ensure every1 follows this...This is just a bad idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 ^I even walk like John Cleese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 That is how the richer teams spend money...Van has poor scouting the last few years but top notch trainingstaff...That is and will be how things go the league would never be able to abide by this kinda thing need to stick to 1 cap for all to keep things simple instead of complicating things like this team has 85mil cap this one has 81min etc...They will keep things simple instead of blowing it all apart for something they would have to monitor closely to ensure every1 follows this...This is just a bad idea Simplicity is rarely a compelling argument, especially in a game as strategically-complex as ice hockey. For example, I prefer a good game of chess to playing checkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon4401 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Simplicity is rarely a compelling argument, especially in a game as strategically-complex as ice hockey. For example, I prefer a good game of chess to playing checkers. Really? ok say Florida leaves 10mil open every year for 5 years...by your logic that means they would have 50mil more cap then what the cap would be...You saying that extra cap wouldent be a huge factor in them being more competitive then any other team in their conference? This just does not work...and the game of hockey vs business is very different...The league would have to spend more to ensure to monitor it properly so businesswise still makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't like it. It encourages teams to be thrifty one year so they can load up the next. The cap works better if all teams are held to the same restrictions at the same time. The other problem is how it would mess with the 50/50 revenue split. That's calculated annually. If you have carryover cap amounts that now need to be calculated against the next year, that gets really messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 Really? ok say Florida leaves 10mil open every year for 5 years...by your logic that means they would have 50mil more cap then what the cap would be...You saying that extra cap wouldent be a huge factor in them being more competitive then any other team in their conference? This just does not work...and the game of hockey vs business is very different...The league would have to spend more to ensure to monitor it properly so businesswise still makes no sense No you're taking the number to Dr Evil-proportions. Again the concept is only relevant for the preceding season, & a team could only exceed by a maximum of 10%. Then that number(that they're at) is adjusted according to the NEXT season's cap. SO THEY'RE NOT GAINING ANY EXTRA CAP-SPACE, mannn. They're simply SHIFTING 10% of it from one season to another's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 you think there's some bad contracts now....just imagine if this was actually implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I think it's problematic for a couple reasons. First, it encourages a team to underspend/underperform/tank in order to bank some advantage in the future; a similar phenomena to what the draft lottery is in place to prevent. I also think it could/would result in some even sillier spending in the UFA market, something that has already been a flat out contradiction to the need for a lockout. I think the structure of such rules should pressure teams to put the best product on the ice that they can in the present, and not reward teams for the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 OF COURSE we need this to enhance/facilitate a busy, hectic deadline! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 So it's just another way to circumvent the purpose of a Salary Cap. It stays the way it is or the league may as well get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 It's hard to reason with a fruit. :^( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.