Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Selling or trading Cap why not?


surtur

Recommended Posts

Just a question not really a proposal but thought this was the best place for this topic.

If teams can trade a player and retain Cap from that player why can teams not trade or sell unused Cap space.

Lets take a team that spends to the cap floor a team that has no interest in spending more then they have to, a team that needs money or cheap players more then anything. Why not give them the ability to trade say 10 million in cap space for 2 or 3 years for a 1st round pick or sell it for some needed money to a team that spends to the cap and could and will use up that space.

The way i see it is there is unused money that could benefit the players since bigger contracts would be offered from certain CAP teams, it would benefit the CAP teams since they could basically pay a price to go over the cap to improve there team, maybe the League could have a tax like in other leagues for going over a certain CAP level (a luxury tax) so it could benefit the League.

Has this come up ever in the past since the CAP was introduced?

obviously it would have to have a limit of how much CAP a single team could buy out or trade for since you don't want one team buying it all up and having 200m in available CAP.

and maybe if they limit the Cash value of what can be offered for that space so teams would be forced to include draft picks or roster players in order to edge out the competition for that CAP.

what do you think would be the benefit or down fall of such a system? would it be good or bad for the league and trying to have parity of the teams ( i feel short term it would give the edge to the rich teams but in the long run collecting cash and draft picks could improve the future success of bottom spending teams)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you think would be the benefit or down fall of such a system?

I think such a proposal would lead us back to the same place we were when we started calling for a cap.

If have teams can buy cap space from have not teams, what's really the point of the cap in the first place? The main idea behind the cap was to make it a level playing field. This would just widen the gap again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No..as mentioned, widening the market-disparity/cash available into haves & nots. Don't want it to become like the Yankees in boring baseball. I think Burkey had suggested this before, didn't he?

There's a similar line of thought which may be worth analysis. What about carrying your cap-situation yr to yr, with a increase/decrease of say, 10%(easiest number to quickly calculate)?

So your team-cap is calculated at season-end(say, highest number you hold, after trade-deadline).

Say that number is 60.3 million. The cap is 64.3. Your team would be able to CARRY an extra 4 million onto next yr's 71 million. So the team's 2014-15 cap would be 75 mill, instead.

It would be interesting if a team could win the Cup while being well under the cap. Sort of an additional reward to help them keep UFA's, in attempts at repeating. Also, would highlight the work of GM's who shopped wisely, the summer prior.

I would only allow teams to add up to 10% to the total cap. So next year, a team could add a max of about 7.1 mill.

Anyone like this concept?

PS-If a team went 'scorched earth-rebuild' they could retool very quickly with an extra 10% cap, for summer-shopping, while adding picks/prospects from spring's deadline-deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seriously hurt the game of hockey if pieces of a team's cap became a commodity. There are teams out there that struggle to make their payroll and there are only a few teams that have owners who have money to burn.

Take my hometown team for instance, the multi-billion dollar owner of the team has sincerely said that money is no object to him and he has backed up his words since then. How many teams do you think would like to compete with this guy's pocketbook? http://forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery/terrence-pegula

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seriously hurt the game of hockey if pieces of a team's cap became a commodity. There are teams out there that struggle to make their payroll and there are only a few teams that have owners who have money to burn.

Take my hometown team for instance, the multi-billion dollar owner of the team has sincerely said that money is no object to him and he has backed up his words since then. How many teams do you think would like to compete with this guy's pocketbook? http://forbes.com/fo...terrence-pegula

What did he do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did he do?

Besides doing decent sized renovations to the First Niagara Center, he gave Darcy an open checkbook to do what needed to be done personnel-wise (even though that turned out to be a major cluster-f***). Actually gave the team a real scouting department, outside professional skating coaches, created a whole dept. that is solely there for sports psychology, computerized everything, etc.

Outside of the Sabres he has given Penn State over $100 million to create their own top-flight college program, he's building and opening the $170 million dollar Harbor project in Buffalo.

He's pretty much just shooting out money at everything.

I'm not saying this to sound like a kiss-ass, but Ted Black a couple years ago said that many of the new NHL style improvements that they made after buying the team in regards to the off-ice efforts were nearly carbon copied from the Canucks.

Even down to the locker room: Look Familiar?

BW3_6085_slide.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably a sneaky way around that.

Sign a really crap player to a 10M deal, then the teams like the Islanders can trade that guy for a 1st round pick and retain say 90% of his salary so his cap hit on the new team is much lower, but the Islanders get enough cap to get above the cap floor AND their 1st rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably a sneaky way around that.

Sign a really crap player to a 10M deal, then the teams like the Islanders can trade that guy for a 1st round pick and retain say 90% of his salary so his cap hit on the new team is much lower, but the Islanders get enough cap to get above the cap floor AND their 1st rounder.

So basically what the Florida Panthers do now but on a larger scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably a sneaky way around that.

Sign a really crap player to a 10M deal, then the teams like the Islanders can trade that guy for a 1st round pick and retain say 90% of his salary so his cap hit on the new team is much lower, but the Islanders get enough cap to get above the cap floor AND their 1st rounder.

There are only two rules worth knowing for salary retention. First a team can only retain up to 50% of a player's cap hit. Also you can only retain the salaries for 2 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the point of the last lockout to close loopholes, not make new ones?

The simplest answer is the one the players will never accept. Get rid of guaranteed contracts.

DownUndaCanuck was using a little hyperbole to make his point. You can't actually keep 90% of a players hit on the cap. My post pointed out that Florida can and will use this new system as a tactic since they regularly sit at just above the minimum cap because they are on a severe budget. If you look at where a number of teams are overall, they are sitting at just below the maximum allowed.

The new rules aren't really a loophole per se, if anything they actually help the poorer teams in the league just as much as they help the richer teams.

As to the OP's post, his idea would seriously hurt the game of hockey. Teams that have owners with money to burn would in essence end up buying the Stanley Cup if there was a system in place that would let them have that huge of an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you could accomplish what you are aiming with only a small change and less danger to parity.

Simply remove the rule right now on retaining cap/salary that makes you retain the same % of actual cash AND cap during a transaction.

Right now if you retain 50% cap, you also retain 50% salary which makes it a pretty seldom occurrence.

If you could trade one OR the other (still to the max 15% of total salary/cap). Then it would really spur the trade market and help the lower end teams as well.

Imagine the scenario from last summer. We could have traded Luongo to Florida for Campbell (please don't argue the merits of this actual trade... it is simply used as an example). We retain 50% of Luongo's salary but move 100% of his cap hit. We take back Campbell and pay 100% of his salary and only get 50% of his cap space.

We get cap relief which benefits us, but Florida who had an internal cap suddenly can get a big name player without spending the dollars they don't have.

There are a lot of veteran players with name recognition that could have contracts that are not a great value for cap dollar... but are great values at half the price. The low end budget teams could end up with a really good looking roster while spending way less in actual dollars. They are not able to compete in the high priced UFA market, so this is an avenue for them to get guys who can sell tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to read all of the OP, nor all of the posts after, but there's one point I think the OP is missing:

  • In a retained salary trade an equal percentage of cap and salary are kept.

So a team can't 'buy' cap space by offering to keep just salary of a player they trade to make it more affordable to teams that have an internal cap. For instance, we couldn't trade Luongo to Florida for picks/prospects and ask they take on all his cap hit yet we pay 50% of his salary for the remainder of the time he plays.

Similarly, they've made it that you can't trade money or sell cap space since it encourages the haves to keep having, and the have nots to just make money while taking on the cast offs and contract mistakes from the contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to read all of the OP, nor all of the posts after, but there's one point I think the OP is missing:

  • In a retained salary trade an equal percentage of cap and salary are kept.

So a team can't 'buy' cap space by offering to keep just salary of a player they trade to make it more affordable to teams that have an internal cap. For instance, we couldn't trade Luongo to Florida for picks/prospects and ask they take on all his cap hit yet we pay 50% of his salary for the remainder of the time he plays.

Similarly, they've made it that you can't trade money or sell cap space since it encourages the haves to keep having, and the have nots to just make money while taking on the cast offs and contract mistakes from the contenders.

You might want to read posts before commenting on them... you tend to look less foolish that way.

The OP was suggesting that the league looks at that sort of system... not suggesting that we do it under the current system.

Thanks for the entirely unrelated and irrelevant comment though... keeps your post count ticking I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...