J.I.A.H.N Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Because the Cap being frozen this year, and possibly 2 more afterwards, and is causing such a huge problems, for both the owners and Players Assoc. I propose the NHL, add a small escape clause to the next 2 seasons..............it will certainly be a dangerous thing to use, but will save franchises in the short term. Proposal Basically, this would happen by allowing the teams to go over Cap by 5%, in any given year, but would have to be paid back over the next 3 years. So, in the case of the Canucks, who are short 1.5 million dollars, they would be able to go over the cap by that much, but would have to buy it back, in the form of a reduced cap, over the next 3 years. Aka......a cap which is 81,500,000 this year would be 81,000,000 next year, and 2 years after. In the case of Tampa Bay, who could possibly be over the Cap limit by 10 Million (a guess), it would allow them to be over by $4,525,000, where with their present cap space of $2,800,000 would actually get them close to only loosing 1 player, instead of really destroying their team (over-statement). For the players, it may keep the older ones in the league 1 or 2 more years, before retirement. Possibly only allow them to do this twice in 5 years, so they could not just continually do it.........it truly is not much different than what Toronto did a few years ago with LTIR, or what Ottawa has done with LTIR to gain the cap floor......yes different, but really, it is cap circumvention, in some ways, although legal in the CBA......... So, I just say, clean it up a little and don't let Covid be the reason some teams will be penalized. I would also remind teams, to use it wisely, as to not do so, could make their Cap much worse in short order. Anyways, just a thought! I am open to amendments. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon45ca Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 They should make you Commissioner of the NHL. This idea is genius, probably the best idea to ever come out of CDC. This proposal is greater than the Magna Carta & Milli Vanilli's Grammy win combined. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Not a bad idea But, isn't it just bad managing putting yourself up against a cap assuming the cap will go up, even if it always was? It is any different from any household maxing out all their credit assuming they will always have a job and good health? You should always have something set aside for any unforeseen change As far as a team goes, I can see one going all in for 1 season if you see a very good chance of achieving the Cup, but not putting yourself at risk for the future We were not that team being at the bottom of the league standings for over 1/2 decade Hopefully we will be there soon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Curious... Would you be proposing this same solution if the Canucks had plenty of cap space and it was Calgary and Edmonton in cap hell? Or would you be saying sorry suckas, you should have managed your cap better? My point being, according to Cap Friendly, more teams are under the cap than over. Do you really think the teams that didn't put themselves in this predicament will throw a lifeline to those that did? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, goalie13 said: Curious... Would you be proposing this same solution if the Canucks had plenty of cap space and it was Calgary and Edmonton in cap hell? Or would you be saying sorry suckas, you should have managed your cap better? My point being, according to Cap Friendly, more teams are under the cap than over. Do you really think the teams that didn't put themselves in this predicament will throw a lifeline to those that did? OP's proposal feels like giving an unfair advantage to certain teams. Some teams managed based on the trend of booming economy and rising cap. Now that the trend has changed due to an unexpected event, why should those teams be offered a life line? It's like the US government bailing out some spoiled bankers who were cashing in on millions of dollars buying/selling high risk assets before the subprime. Those bankers made millions because they had very little regards for risk. The economy collapses and they get to keep their millions and offered extra billions of dollars to clean up the mess they created. I'd say let the cap crunched teams suffer. They reaped the benefits when things were going well, it's their time to suffer. If that includes the Canucks, then so be it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 The flat cap IS the NHL and NHLPA’s solution. You’re offering a solution to their solution. They’re not looking to solve the problem of teams having to be more fiscally responsible 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted October 29, 2020 Author Share Posted October 29, 2020 I get what everybody is saying........ I will say this though Most, iot all contending teams are right up against the cap, or darn close to it and IMO, the door was shut this year, but Covid could have easily come in another year different teams would be going through the same pain It was unscheduled and no seen....................it is like a plane falling out of the air, or a hurricane, etc So say 3 years ago, what could be seen of covid? IMO, this does not hurt the Canucks that much now BUt lets go to the extreme Hypothetical Lets just say we had few contracts expiring and Pettersson's contract was coming up All GM's expired to not give the Canucks a break, because their owners were all keeping tighter reins on their purse.............. So now it comes to inking the contract, but we don't have enough cap and someone offers Pettersson a 6 Million dollar contract we can't match We then watch that walk for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd? Or we match and then have to cut 2 or 3 players to have enough cap and run with a short bench for 3 or 4 years The point is, there are endless scenario's that would put a team in Cap hell, that had nothing to do with budgets or forecasting, etc. Well, eventually you get parity, but you also get players leaving for other leagues and even if those players are not 1st line players, their leaving causes the league to be watered down as a whole. Now, it is just great to let a team flop in the breeze, but Montreal, Calgary, Colorado, Tampa, and the Islander's could all be over the cap as well. That would be 13 or the 31 teams, or approx 40% of the league. (Maybe even Phili) Does that mean that those teams should suffer to the point of giving up assets? If they can? I suggest this is extenuating circumstances, and not in the norm, therefore some relief should be offered NOTE! I could easily argue the other side, but, unless the league offers us to reduce the Luongo penalty, we need to make a move............ It will effect the team, negatively, in some way! So, I say, the league needs to help those teams in need, where they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 There are already mechanisms for teams to use to get cap compliant. Buyouts, waivers,and trades. If a team can’t get to the cap ceiling using these tools then they’re out of luck. An increasing cap has never been guaranteed and it’s always been a balancing act for cap ceiling teams. Although the circumstances thst caused the flat cap are unique the cap itself has seen flat or almost flat periods before. Some teams will benefit. Some will suffer. There’s no need to try to reinvent the wheel 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Because the Cap being frozen this year, and possibly 2 more afterwards, and is causing such a huge problems, for both the owners and Players Assoc. I propose the NHL, add a small escape clause to the next 2 seasons..............it will certainly be a dangerous thing to use, but will save franchises in the short term. Proposal Basically, this would happen by allowing the teams to go over Cap by 5%, in any given year, but would have to be paid back over the next 3 years. So, in the case of the Canucks, who are short 1.5 million dollars, they would be able to go over the cap by that much, but would have to buy it back, in the form of a reduced cap, over the next 3 years. Aka......a cap which is 81,500,000 this year would be 81,000,000 next year, and 2 years after. In the case of Tampa Bay, who could possibly be over the Cap limit by 10 Million (a guess), it would allow them to be over by $4,525,000, where with their present cap space of $2,800,000 would actually get them close to only loosing 1 player, instead of really destroying their team (over-statement). For the players, it may keep the older ones in the league 1 or 2 more years, before retirement. Possibly only allow them to do this twice in 5 years, so they could not just continually do it.........it truly is not much different than what Toronto did a few years ago with LTIR, or what Ottawa has done with LTIR to gain the cap floor......yes different, but really, it is cap circumvention, in some ways, although legal in the CBA......... So, I just say, clean it up a little and don't let Covid be the reason some teams will be penalized. I would also remind teams, to use it wisely, as to not do so, could make their Cap much worse in short order. Anyways, just a thought! I am open to amendments. This is a good idea, but I think the league actually wants teams to feel this a little. I think they are hoping it will help curb expectations and reign in future spending on really long term, big dollar contracts. Just think, if the league had insisted on a 4 year, maximum contract length for UFA's, we would be done with Loui now and wouldn't have a cap issue! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said: I get what everybody is saying........ I will say this though Most, iot all contending teams are right up against the cap, or darn close to it and IMO, the door was shut this year, but Covid could have easily come in another year different teams would be going through the same pain It was unscheduled and no seen....................it is like a plane falling out of the air, or a hurricane, etc So say 3 years ago, what could be seen of covid? IMO, this does not hurt the Canucks that much now BUt lets go to the extreme Hypothetical Lets just say we had few contracts expiring and Pettersson's contract was coming up All GM's expired to not give the Canucks a break, because their owners were all keeping tighter reins on their purse.............. So now it comes to inking the contract, but we don't have enough cap and someone offers Pettersson a 6 Million dollar contract we can't match We then watch that walk for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd? Or we match and then have to cut 2 or 3 players to have enough cap and run with a short bench for 3 or 4 years The point is, there are endless scenario's that would put a team in Cap hell, that had nothing to do with budgets or forecasting, etc. Well, eventually you get parity, but you also get players leaving for other leagues and even if those players are not 1st line players, their leaving causes the league to be watered down as a whole. Now, it is just great to let a team flop in the breeze, but Montreal, Calgary, Colorado, Tampa, and the Islander's could all be over the cap as well. That would be 13 or the 31 teams, or approx 40% of the league. (Maybe even Phili) Does that mean that those teams should suffer to the point of giving up assets? If they can? I suggest this is extenuating circumstances, and not in the norm, therefore some relief should be offered NOTE! I could easily argue the other side, but, unless the league offers us to reduce the Luongo penalty, we need to make a move............ It will effect the team, negatively, in some way! So, I say, the league needs to help those teams in need, where they can Interesting discussion. I would throw another idea out. Since some teams are more affluent than others how about a CAP overdraft being measured in draft picks. Over by $500,000 it cost a 4th Round pick, $1 mill = 3rd rdr; $2 mil = 2nd rdr; $3 mil = 1st rdr. Or some version of that. Talent is the currency of the NHL and the threat of losing it counts. Is Covid the special circumstances or the excuse? Teams that don't manage their CAP are penalized by losing players to make their payroll fit. Theoretically the teams picking up those players are in need based on their lower CAP. Maybe the system is just fine. I get more upset with the expansion franchise deals that set up new entrants very nicely. Canucks never got that kind of break. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Interesting discussion. I would throw another idea out. Since some teams are more affluent than others how about a CAP overdraft being measured in draft picks. Over by $500,000 it cost a 4th Round pick, $1 mill = 3rd rdr; $2 mil = 2nd rdr; $3 mil = 1st rdr. Or some version of that. Talent is the currency of the NHL and the threat of losing it counts. Is Covid the special circumstances or the excuse? Teams that don't manage their CAP are penalized by losing players to make their payroll fit. Theoretically the teams picking up those players are in need based on their lower CAP. Maybe the system is just fine. I get more upset with the expansion franchise deals that set up new entrants very nicely. Canucks never got that kind of break. Vancouver paid $6m in 1970 for their team. Inflation adjusted that’s = to roughly $40m. Vegas and Seattle paid $500m each. The league had to give them decent expansion rules. Edited October 29, 2020 by qwijibo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted October 30, 2020 Author Share Posted October 30, 2020 24 minutes ago, Boudrias said: Interesting discussion. I would throw another idea out. Since some teams are more affluent than others how about a CAP overdraft being measured in draft picks. Over by $500,000 it cost a 4th Round pick, $1 mill = 3rd rdr; $2 mil = 2nd rdr; $3 mil = 1st rdr. Or some version of that. Talent is the currency of the NHL and the threat of losing it counts. Is Covid the special circumstances or the excuse? Teams that don't manage their CAP are penalized by losing players to make their payroll fit. Theoretically the teams picking up those players are in need based on their lower CAP. Maybe the system is just fine. I get more upset with the expansion franchise deals that set up new entrants very nicely. Canucks never got that kind of break. That is an interesting idea. I am not against it in general....after all Arizona was hit pretty had this year.............aka their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.......major ouch! I doubt anyone will do that again. LOL But I do see the Covid issue as separate, which teams should not be penalized for................but I guess the owners made the decision, so I guess they will have to live with it,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 29 minutes ago, qwijibo said: Vancouver paid $6m in 1970 for their team. Inflation adjusted that’s = to roughly $40m. Vegas and Seattle paid $500m each. The league had to give them decent expansion rules. Yep. And not only that all the lower priced NHL teams got a boost in equity expectations as well. If it costs 500 million for Vegas, and then three years or so later 650 million for Seattle that’s a hefty growth rate for any big business. Like 10% non-compounding. Vegas for sure could sell now and make a tidy profit. It put money directly into all the owners pockets too. Don’t like it because they basically bought themselves out of the first 5 years of bottom feeding, but for sure they paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 Teams already trade cap for things and have means to become cap compliant, but I do wonder how this will work out with players entering their third contracts that have paid their dues and should be getting their legacy deals. Each year the cap stays flat is just going to put enormous pressure on the system. Guys like JV... see 50-75% raises all the time - and if they produce see another bump like that in free agency. Something will have to give.,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I get what everybody is saying........ I will say this though Most, iot all contending teams are right up against the cap, or darn close to it and IMO, the door was shut this year, but Covid could have easily come in another year different teams would be going through the same pain It was unscheduled and no seen....................it is like a plane falling out of the air, or a hurricane, etc So say 3 years ago, what could be seen of covid? IMO, this does not hurt the Canucks that much now BUt lets go to the extreme Hypothetical Lets just say we had few contracts expiring and Pettersson's contract was coming up All GM's expired to not give the Canucks a break, because their owners were all keeping tighter reins on their purse.............. So now it comes to inking the contract, but we don't have enough cap and someone offers Pettersson a 6 Million dollar contract we can't match We then watch that walk for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd? Or we match and then have to cut 2 or 3 players to have enough cap and run with a short bench for 3 or 4 years The point is, there are endless scenario's that would put a team in Cap hell, that had nothing to do with budgets or forecasting, etc. Well, eventually you get parity, but you also get players leaving for other leagues and even if those players are not 1st line players, their leaving causes the league to be watered down as a whole. Now, it is just great to let a team flop in the breeze, but Montreal, Calgary, Colorado, Tampa, and the Islander's could all be over the cap as well. That would be 13 or the 31 teams, or approx 40% of the league. (Maybe even Phili) Does that mean that those teams should suffer to the point of giving up assets? If they can? I suggest this is extenuating circumstances, and not in the norm, therefore some relief should be offered NOTE! I could easily argue the other side, but, unless the league offers us to reduce the Luongo penalty, we need to make a move............ It will effect the team, negatively, in some way! So, I say, the league needs to help those teams in need, where they can If the Canucks or any team managed the cap that leads to the hypothetical situation that you describe, then I'd say they deserve to lose their star player. The GM should be fired and never be allowed anywhere near managing an NHL team. It's not a league run by high-schoolers. As another poster said earlier, the league already changed the rules to keep the cap flat when the cap should be going down next season because it's automatically adjusted based on revenue/profit. Making another rule to give an out for a select handful of teams like Tampa makes the league look like a joke. Well, I guess the NHL already is proven to be a joke of a league when they introduced the recapture rule. Edited October 30, 2020 by khay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Because the Cap being frozen this year, and possibly 2 more afterwards, and is causing such a huge problems, for both the owners and Players Assoc. I propose the NHL, add a small escape clause to the next 2 seasons..............it will certainly be a dangerous thing to use, but will save franchises in the short term. Proposal Basically, this would happen by allowing the teams to go over Cap by 5%, in any given year, but would have to be paid back over the next 3 years. So, in the case of the Canucks, who are short 1.5 million dollars, they would be able to go over the cap by that much, but would have to buy it back, in the form of a reduced cap, over the next 3 years. Aka......a cap which is 81,500,000 this year would be 81,000,000 next year, and 2 years after. In the case of Tampa Bay, who could possibly be over the Cap limit by 10 Million (a guess), it would allow them to be over by $4,525,000, where with their present cap space of $2,800,000 would actually get them close to only loosing 1 player, instead of really destroying their team (over-statement). For the players, it may keep the older ones in the league 1 or 2 more years, before retirement. Possibly only allow them to do this twice in 5 years, so they could not just continually do it.........it truly is not much different than what Toronto did a few years ago with LTIR, or what Ottawa has done with LTIR to gain the cap floor......yes different, but really, it is cap circumvention, in some ways, although legal in the CBA......... So, I just say, clean it up a little and don't let Covid be the reason some teams will be penalized. I would also remind teams, to use it wisely, as to not do so, could make their Cap much worse in short order. Anyways, just a thought! I am open to amendments. So basically, the cap goes down because of lack of revenue mainly, and your suggestion is to allow teams to exceeds the cap? Why bother making flat cap then? Defeats the purpose. Might be an good idea from a hockey operations perspective, but from a financial standpoint, it is probably the worst, even for rich teams. I'm not necessarily against that idea in a normal year, but right now, doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted October 30, 2020 Author Share Posted October 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, timberz21 said: So basically, the cap goes down because of lack of revenue mainly, and your suggestion is to allow teams to exceeds the cap? Why bother making flat cap then? Defeats the purpose. Might be an good idea from a hockey operations perspective, but from a financial standpoint, it is probably the worst, even for rich teams. I'm not necessarily against that idea in a normal year, but right now, doesn't make sense. The thing is...the league revenues were looking good, and a TV deal in site, then Covid came. My point is that none of the teams would be in this situation, if not for Covid. I am sure Tampa had a plan, but now that plan needs 3 or so Million to pull it off, and its not coming IMO, the flat Cap stopped alot of transactions from occurring I think Benning had deals in the works I think Tampa had deals in the works But now there is no larger cap and no extra money to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davathor Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) Wrong thread Edited October 30, 2020 by Davathor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: The thing is...the league revenues were looking good, and a TV deal in site, then Covid came. My point is that none of the teams would be in this situation, if not for Covid. I am sure Tampa had a plan, but now that plan needs 3 or so Million to pull it off, and its not coming IMO, the flat Cap stopped alot of transactions from occurring I think Benning had deals in the works I think Tampa had deals in the works But now there is no larger cap and no extra money to spend The forecasting g may have looked good. But at the end of the day there’s no guarantee the cap will ever rise. In reality with the way revenues dropped the cap should have dropped significantly. The league and players bent over backwards to manage to keep the cap flat rather than have it more closely reflect the actual revenues like it’s designed to do. Teams that are up against the cap should be thanking their lucky stars that they were able to get a flat cap. They should be in a lot more trouble than they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: The thing is...the league revenues were looking good, and a TV deal in site, then Covid came. My point is that none of the teams would be in this situation, if not for Covid. I am sure Tampa had a plan, but now that plan needs 3 or so Million to pull it off, and its not coming IMO, the flat Cap stopped alot of transactions from occurring I think Benning had deals in the works I think Tampa had deals in the works But now there is no larger cap and no extra money to spend Owner were not in favors of allowing free buyouts for their teams, do you really think they want their team to exceed the cap? You seem to be thinking GMs are calling the shots...but governors/owners/Bettman and $$$ are. Just like a coach has to deal with the players/trades/injuries despite of all his plans....GMs needs to deal with the Flat Cap/Luongo recapture/Expansion draft when it happens. It's called being a manager. Edited October 30, 2020 by timberz21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now