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

10% Cap Rule, Revisited


Recommended Posts

 

 

Part 1:

 

Prob many posters recall a thread I made 3, 4 yrs back..I'm rehashing this concept I dreamt up, because I still think it's valid, relevant & needed. NO fans are payin their hard-earned to watch the likes of Loui, Looch, & other assorted lumps. It's an unjustifiable impediment to the joy of the game.

 

***PC Crowd*** What about the players' rights?!(bleeding heart intonation). Hogwash! They prob feel lamer than anyone, trying to milk a paycheque, KNOWing the game has speedily left them in the dust. Let's deal with this elephant in the cap room, eh?

 

*********************************10% Rule explained*********************** (use a basic number, say cap is 80,000,000, for ease of discussion)

 

Team A is permitted to EXCEED cap limit by 10%(calculated around the time of TDL, say early March, or late Feb)

 

- Therefore, they can go as high as 88,000,000 $

- TDL would be a freeken-hoot, 10~12 contenders going all in

- Conversely(also interesting) some modest underdogs would sneak into PO's, not spending over cap

- If you exceed the cap, next season you must be UNDER(at TDL) by the same amount. If no compliance, have to waive a player/lose a pick(NHL thinks of app penalty)

 

It only works on a 2 yr cycle..perpetually renewing in relation to the cap:

 

2019: cap is 80 mill. TEAM A spends 85 mill

2020: Team A must be at 75 mill(if cap hit remained at 80 mill, for league)

 

part 2: buyout(next post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part 2: Buyout Concept

 

You are GM of team B. You sell some vets at TDL. Early March you are at 74,000,000(6 mill under cap). Therefore you are permitted to buy out(no cap penalty) a 6,000,000$ contract at yr end(the usual 66% over double yrs, yada, yada)

 

- Next season it's considered team B was at 80,000,000(due to buyout). So you get 0 extra in yr two, of cap

- So fans are punished only 1 or 2 seasons(max) for GM's gaffe

- NHLPA should like this. Stiffs can walk with a nice 66% paycheque in their fatasss pocket. It gives younger performers a shot to contribute, when they are more deserving. Turnover is good for jobs, & a better, younger, faster product for the paying fan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVERY freeken hockey site you go to fans are moaning about player A,B,C & how they're destroying the team's chances. It's soo tedious.

 

If they can put a man in space(legalizing pot) Surely we can construct such a mechanism to improve the freeken game's quality?

 

*Important* Please forget about your team's advantage/disadvantage over rivals, etc... This concept is to clean up the league of unnecessary stiffs, that drag the whole game down.

 

Also adds TDL~June drama. With some teams over/underachieving, despite how they've positioned themselves (under/exceed) cap. PO's become even more dramatic, I'd guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

There's a clever non-sequitur, HDF. Surely there are threads to visit, where you can go moan about overpaid vets? :^)

Hmmm, I don't believe I've ever moaned about overpaid vets on here (other than stating a polished turd is still a turd regarding Eriksson's contract). Maybe you can show me where I have though?

 

I'm also not sure who would hate your proposed system more: the NHL itself or the NHLPA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

I'd like yaz' all at ease..picture I'm EM talkin' to ya.."Let's talk a lil' hockey!"

 

Part 1:

 

Prob many posters recall a thread I made 3, 4 yrs back..I'm rehashing this concept I dreamt up, because I still think it's valid, relevant & needed. NO fans are payin their hard-earned to watch the likes of Loui, Looch, & other assorted lumps. It's an unjustifiable impediment to the joy of the game.

 

***PC Crowd*** What about the players' rights?!(bleeding heart intonation). Hogwash! They prob feel lamer than anyone, trying to milk a paycheque, KNOWing the game has speedily left them in the dust. Let's deal with this elephant in the cap room, eh?

 

*********************************10% Rule explained*********************** (use a basic number, say cap is 80,000,000, for ease of discussion)

 

Team A is permitted to EXCEED cap limit by 10%(calculated one wk after TDL, say early March)

 

- Therefore, they can go as high as 88,000,000 $

- TDL would be a freeken-hoot, 10~12 contenders going all in

- Conversely(also interesting) some modest underdogs would sneak into PO's, not spending over cap

- If you exceed the cap, next season you must be UNDER(at TDL) by the same amount. If no compliance, have to waive a player/lose a pick(NHL thinks of app penalty)

 

It only works on a 2 yr cycle..perpetually renewing in relation to the cap:

 

2019: cap is 80 mill. TEAM A spends 85 mill

2020: Team A must be at 75 mill(if cap hit remained at 80 mill, for league)

 

part 2: buyout(next post)

Kudos for thinking outside the box.

Couple of points I am not clear on. I presume the $8M over the Cap is an annualized number and not a prorated number? With today's system where you are only responsible for the prorated salaries after the TDL many teams can add much more than $8M and not be subjected to any penalties for the following year. As an example, the Canucks are currently projected to have a deadline Cap space of $30.4M.........wouldn't the current system therefore create more of a hoot at the deadline?

With your proposed system, would you not differentiate between expiring contracts picked up at the deadline and non-expiring contracts? Seems like a really stiff penalty to pay for adding an $8M expiring contract at the deadline only to have to reduce your Cap by $8M for the next season. Any GM making that type of move would be seriously jeopardizing his job unless they won the Cup and, as a result I would suspect activity at the TDL may actually decline as opposed to increasing.

Maybe I am missing something here.........and who is EM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

Kudos for thinking outside the box.

Couple of points I am not clear on. I presume the $8M over the Cap is an annualized number and not a prorated number? With today's system where you are only responsible for the prorated salaries after the TDL many teams can add much more than $8M and not be subjected to any penalties for the following year. As an example, the Canucks are currently projected to have a deadline Cap space of $30.4M.........wouldn't the current system therefore create more of a hoot at the deadline?

With your proposed system, would you not differentiate between expiring contracts picked up at the deadline and non-expiring contracts? Seems like a really stiff penalty to pay for adding an $8M expiring contract at the deadline only to have to reduce your Cap by $8M for the next season. Any GM making that type of move would be seriously jeopardizing his job unless they won the Cup and, as a result I would suspect activity at the TDL may actually decline as opposed to increasing.

Maybe I am missing something here.........and who is EM?

EM: Eugene Melnyk

 

Thanks for the question/analysis. I prob complicated matters by saying post-TDL. How they calculate that pro-rated biz seems a lil' sketchy to me..but I'd leave that as is.

 

So if the cap was 80 mill(& it stayed there next season).. a team could go into late-season spending up to 88, but next yr their limit would be 72.

 

One more idea(I had a few yrs back): If you won the Cup(say you spent 87,88 mill..about 10% extra). You'd get a bonus, where your over-cap % isn't counted, so you could repeat that number for one more yr, before reducing the next season. That would also enable a champ to buy out two, 8 mill salaries(once this summer, & next) if they wanted to restructure with youth, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point is to have a hard cap to try and keep costs under control. 

Once you start monkeying with it, teams are going to abuse it, and it will get out of control again. 

Hard cap. And stop raising it. Freeze it for a few years.  If the league is profitable start lowering the escrow? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

EM: Eugene Melnyk

 

Thanks for the question/analysis. I prob complicated matters by saying post-TDL. How they calculate that pro-rated biz seems a lil' sketchy to me..but I'd leave that as is.

 

So if the cap was 80 mill(& it stayed there next season).. a team could go into late-season spending up to 88, but next yr their limit would be 72.

 

One more idea(I had a few yrs back): If you won the Cup(say you spent 87,88 mill..about 10% extra). You'd get a bonus, where your over-cap % isn't counted, so you could repeat that number for one more yr, before reducing the next season. That would also enable a champ to buy out two, 8 mill salaries(once this summer, & next) if they wanted to restructure with youth, for example.

If I would have known it was Eugene Melnyk talking to me I wouldn't have been so civil in my response! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, logic said:

Teams should be forced to stick with bad signings, it prevents teams from throwing stupid amounts of cash at every player

Fans are forced to watch a BS, watered-down product. The system ain't working.

 

Then endless streams of people complaining about signings forever.

 

Or, are all hockey fans happier whilst complaining? GM's are human too. Lots of their trades/ signings are sharp..some are poor. So if a fanbase suffers for 6,7,8 yrs..what is the purpose?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, xereau said:

The NHL simply needs the same CBA framework as the NFL has for contracts.

 

Zero penalty contract termination.  You'd see some great teams emerge, and a LOT more trades.

Heard something about that, but haven't watched a football game in about 25 yrs. Sounds good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Fans are forced to watch a BS, watered-down product. The system ain't working.

 

Then endless streams of people complaining about signings forever.

 

Or, are all hockey fans happier whilst complaining? GM's are human too. Lots of their trades/ signings are sharp..some are poor. So if a fanbase suffers for 6,7,8 yrs..what is the purpose?!

watered down lol? How long have you watched hockey, teams are deeper and more skilled now than ever. Its a business fans shouldn't be catered to because their GM made a dumb-move what about the teams that don't have bad contracts this doesn't reward them at all.

 

What seperates elite GMs from the rest is the ability to make good signings, trades, and drafting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018/11/9 at 4:21 AM, logic said:

watered down lol? How long have you watched hockey, teams are deeper and more skilled now than ever. Its a business fans shouldn't be catered to because their GM made a dumb-move what about the teams that don't have bad contracts this doesn't reward them at all.

 

What seperates elite GMs from the rest is the ability to make good signings, trades, and drafting.

How long? Since the mid 70's. I guess that'd be long from the pov of a millenial, perhaps? The game's inevitably improved, due to training systems, coaching & technological/equip advances..but this could be said for most things. Personally think the NHL c/sh/would have been 4 or 5 magnitudes better, if some honest, sensible people had been in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

How long? Since the mid 70's. I guess that'd be long from the pov of a millenial, perhaps? The game's inevitably improved, due to training systems, coaching & technological/equip advances..but this could be said for most things. Personally think the NHL c/sh/would have been 4 or 5 magnitudes better, if some honest, sensible people had been in charge.

Imagine Elias Peterson playing against the flyers in the 70s.  He wouldn't last a week in that league.  Getting rid of the physical rough and tumble brand of hockey has allowed the more skilled players to emerge and be developed. There was no point before. 

Your not wrong though about your reasons. How many coaches does a team have now anyway compared to back then? Facilities etc.  

The last 40 years have gone by so fast. 

What will hockey be like in another 40? 

( If we're still here ) 

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...