Mustard Tiger Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 I hate how the league is trending. Everyone get paid, Nobody can be moved and most your assets are viewed as "negative" simply because of this trash league. Quick solution: Give each team 1 buyout that DOES NOT count against the cap in a calendar year. Buyout structure can somewhat remain the same in terms of the length of it but obviously I would cap it at 2 buyouts max at any given time to prevent the Leafs rangers and Vegas from just swinging on everyone with the intention of buying them out to get out of the cap. Lots of potential greasy loopholes still but at least it would open up some moment around the league and promote giving guys another opportunity elsewhere as well. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 How about strictly enforcing the overall cap and allowing a team to maintain a roster with any number of players? For example, on a cap of 80mil, allow a team to ice only 10 players a game if each of those players had a 8mil contract? Games would be more interesting that way too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 I don't think the league can do that without getting it into the CBA. Would the players go for the risk of additional buyouts? As the CBA is a 50/50 split on HRR, wouldn't extra buyouts drive up escrow? In essence, the teams would be able to spend more than the cap and that has to get accounted for somewhere. Mostly I worry about the unintended consequences as you mentioned. It gives the rich teams an extra advantage of being able to buy out their mistakes while the teams that properly manage their cap get nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jyu Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 NBA has so many transactions. Maybe we can follow them and adopt soft cap + luxury tax? Not sure if it's viable for the NHL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 48 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said: I hate how the league is trending. Everyone get paid, Nobody can be moved and most your assets are viewed as "negative" simply because of this trash league. Quick solution: Give each team 1 buyout that DOES NOT count against the cap in a calendar year. Buyout structure can somewhat remain the same in terms of the length of it but obviously I would cap it at 2 buyouts max at any given time to prevent the Leafs rangers and Vegas from just swinging on everyone with the intention of buying them out to get out of the cap. Lots of potential greasy loopholes still but at least it would open up some moment around the league and promote giving guys another opportunity elsewhere as well. Thoughts? The easiest way would be a performance release. You make $8 million here is the level of production to meet or you can be released from your contract period. Would have saved us with Louis [Player Name] and would allow any number of teams to reject highly paid players not producing to quality standards. Standards to be set by a 3 previous year statistical average. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) I can't see the players agreeing to non-guaranteed contracts (which is essentially what this is)... but I would love to see teams be given the ability to buyout a contract every year, penalty free. Edited February 3 by babych Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highstickin Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 45 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said: I hate how the league is trending. Everyone get paid, Nobody can be moved and most your assets are viewed as "negative" simply because of this trash league. Quick solution: Give each team 1 buyout that DOES NOT count against the cap in a calendar year. Buyout structure can somewhat remain the same in terms of the length of it but obviously I would cap it at 2 buyouts max at any given time to prevent the Leafs rangers and Vegas from just swinging on everyone with the intention of buying them out to get out of the cap. Lots of potential greasy loopholes still but at least it would open up some moment around the league and promote giving guys another opportunity elsewhere as well. Thoughts? Why give trash management and their poor decision making an easy way out? You said everyone is getting paid but who is putting the money in front of the players. GMs and management teams are in place to ensure they can build a competitive roster within the confines of a cost certainty structure. Sometimes they make risky decisions that don't work out. What do those teams/GMs learn if you give them an easy way out that does not impact the team performance? I think the hard cap actually helps to correct the exact problem you are outlining. Teams find out quickly that giving long term, high dollar contracts can lead to huge problems down the road if given to the wrong players or is not balanced throughout the line up. In fact we see evidence of this in the league right now. Not a single player on a $10M+ contract has wont he cup, why? Is this not something management all around the league should be looking at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 25 minutes ago, Highstickin said: Why give trash management and their poor decision making an easy way out? You said everyone is getting paid but who is putting the money in front of the players. GMs and management teams are in place to ensure they can build a competitive roster within the confines of a cost certainty structure. Sometimes they make risky decisions that don't work out. What do those teams/GMs learn if you give them an easy way out that does not impact the team performance? I think the hard cap actually helps to correct the exact problem you are outlining. Teams find out quickly that giving long term, high dollar contracts can lead to huge problems down the road if given to the wrong players or is not balanced throughout the line up. In fact we see evidence of this in the league right now. Not a single player on a $10M+ contract has wont he cup, why? Is this not something management all around the league should be looking at? I agree I think what we are seeing is a second "Learning Period" for GMs the first "Learning Period" came with the advent of the cap in 2006-2010 GMs got creative and signed Kovalchuk/ DePietro etc to long contracts with years of league minimum in later years, culminating with the Luongo contract and the Luongo rule. then came several years of increasing cap and GMs started to depend on increased cap, and contracts were signed depending on the number not looking too bad as the cap would outpace the contract. Now we have a flat cap and we are right back to where we were in 2006, with GMs needing again to learn how to live within the cap I think the answer is equal payment contracts and no signing bonus' You want to give player X an 8 year - $64 M contract fine, year one is $8M and years 2 thru year 8 are all $8M each What needs to happen is GMs need to learn to pay players for what they have to offer for the length of the contract, and not pay them into their late 30s for what they can do in their 20s the problem is that GMs are smarter than the league when getting into trouble, but not smarter when getting out It's really no different than the gambling ads on TV, "Know your limit, play within it" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Strawbone Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 7/8 year contracts need to go. It inevitably leads to teams paying big $$ for non-productive years and it just ties up too much money for too long. Contracts should be 4/5 years max. 2 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 We could start buy forbidding signing bonuses that are not buyout prove or restricted to like league minimum. What I really want to see is a minimal performance clause that allows teams to terminate contract if a player significantly underperforms relative to when they signed their contract on a sliding scale to account for aging. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 24 minutes ago, Strawbone said: 7/8 year contracts need to go. It inevitably leads to teams paying big $$ for non-productive years and it just ties up too much money for too long. Contracts should be 4/5 years max. The league tried but the players don't want it. LeBrun had a series of tweets on that topic this week: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 30 minutes ago, Strawbone said: 7/8 year contracts need to go. It inevitably leads to teams paying big $$ for non-productive years and it just ties up too much money for too long. Contracts should be 4/5 years max. ^ THIS! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 26 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said: We could start buy forbidding signing bonuses that are not buyout prove or restricted to like league minimum. What I really want to see is a minimal performance clause that allows teams to terminate contract if a player significantly underperforms relative to when they signed their contract on a sliding scale to account for aging. If the player still gets paid, I'm ok with ONE buyout that doesn't effect the cap. Will GM's abuse it to make up for stupid contracts. Yes. As long as they know they only get one per year, and it's more of an escape clause. Pretty sure the player would be happy to be paid out, and can then run out and sign for a low cap hit somewhere else. Owners will probably fire a GM who uses too many buyouts. because that's still costing money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 hours ago, Mustard Tiger said: I hate how the league is trending. Everyone get paid, Nobody can be moved and most your assets are viewed as "negative" simply because of this trash league. Quick solution: Give each team 1 buyout that DOES NOT count against the cap in a calendar year. Buyout structure can somewhat remain the same in terms of the length of it but obviously I would cap it at 2 buyouts max at any given time to prevent the Leafs rangers and Vegas from just swinging on everyone with the intention of buying them out to get out of the cap. Lots of potential greasy loopholes still but at least it would open up some moment around the league and promote giving guys another opportunity elsewhere as well. Thoughts? Was something that was bounced around a couple of years ago when Covid wiped out the cap increase that all the GM's were expecting. Bettman shot it down as a hard NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Was brought up during the CBA MOU negotiations and rejected. Owners don't want to pay for it and doubt players want to either. Owners would just find a way to cut costs elsewhere eg laying off employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 3 minutes ago, mll said: Was brought up during the CBA MOU negotiations and rejected. Owners don't want to pay for it and doubt players want to either. Owners would just find a way to cut costs elsewhere eg laying off employees. And now! Vending Machines at hockey games! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawbone Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 13 minutes ago, mll said: The league tried but the players don't want it. LeBrun had a series of tweets on that topic this week: Feels so greedy. I just don't think 8 year contracts are good for the sport, and you end up with teams saddled with huge contracts on non-effective players, and it drags the whole team down. Just thinking about JT Miller's last couple of years on his contract makes me sad. I don't see how players can't feel bad for getting paid $7m when they are skating around with walkers and just trying to stay out of the way of the young'uns flying around the ice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 2 minutes ago, Strawbone said: Feels so greedy. I just don't think 8 year contracts are good for the sport, and you end up with teams saddled with huge contracts on non-effective players, and it drags the whole team down. Just thinking about JT Miller's last couple of years on his contract makes me sad. I don't see how players can't feel bad for getting paid $7m when they are skating around with walkers and just trying to stay out of the way of the young'uns flying around the ice. Something is going to have to be done. Like a $ cap on second contracts or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 27 minutes ago, mll said: The league tried but the players don't want it. LeBrun had a series of tweets on that topic this week: but getting to 8 years from 13 was a pretty big step I still think 4-5 years should be the goal, but can't expect it to happen in one go. there does need to be some work done by the GMs, they can't blame the CBA for paying guys into their late 30s here's a fun idea, buyouts should be attached to the team and the GM, so if the Canucks decide to buy out OEL, his hit is attached to JB if he gets another job that would make GMs think twice about "Save my Job" moves. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 How about we actually address the cause instead of the symptom - which is NHL GM's spending with complete lack of foresight or restraint. A player can't sign a contract, whether it's a fair value or a gross overpayment, if an NHL GM doesn't offer it to them first. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.