League wide cap issue solutions

[Ghostsof1915]

Just now, lmm said:

why?

To stop teams like Toronto handing out crazy second contracts?

[lmm]

9 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

To stop teams like Toronto handing out crazy second contracts?

you can't make up new rules because one team, (even Toronto) makes a mess of things.

Imagine you are a player or agent walking into Steve Yzerman's office and saying "we want $8m because Dubass just signed X to that deal"

Steve looks at you and says, "Well I'd tell you to go sign in TO, but they are capped out and only have a 19 man roster"

 

one thing that needs to die is the concept of "Setting the market"

So, everyone waits until player X gets signed by the dumbest GM in the league, then the "Market is Set"

the market should be set by the Yzermans, Sakics or LouLams, not the Bennings, Dubass' or Chaykas

[Fanuck]

58 minutes ago, lmm said:

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

How about this fun idea - buyouts are unlimited, but the owner personally pays and every buyout is a factor of 10, so if you want to buyout a guy with 8mil left on his current deal that's going to cost the owner $80mil.  See how many 'bad contracts' owners authorize their GM's to sign after that.......?

[Mando27]

Maybe remove the cap only for players that a team drafts and develops themselves? Would add more flexibility for teams if they want to add supporting players, while also keeping the players happy if they stick around.

[lmm]

8 minutes ago, Mando27 said:

Maybe remove the cap only for players that a team drafts and develops themselves? Would add more flexibility for teams if they want to add supporting players, while also keeping the players happy if they stick around.

you'd probably see players holding out on teams like Arizona and Vancouver, Buffalo and Ottawa

[lmm]

I guess I am one of the few who do not have a problem with the cap, per se

I think rules could/should and will be tightened round loop holes

but most of the problems with the cap revolve around bad GMs

after 8 years of Jim Benning, it doesn't make sense that Vancouver fans have issues with the cap

 

Cap problems are created by bad GMs

[lmm]

 

I just found this in my facebook it seems apropos 

[erkayloomeh]

5 hours ago, Fanuck said:

How about this fun idea - buyouts are unlimited, but the owner personally pays and every buyout is a factor of 10, so if you want to buyout a guy with 8mil left on his current deal that's going to cost the owner $80mil.  See how many 'bad contracts' owners authorize their GM's to sign after that.......?

How about double?  So 3 years left on LE = 18million times 2 is 36 million to buy him out.  LE gets paid according to current terms of the buyout and the balance gets divided up between sth.  

[Mustard Tiger]

Capping term at 6 years would be huge as well

[Coconuts]

Why would the NHLPA agree to contracts they can be released from, contract caps as RFA's, shortening the max contract length, or anything along those lines? Why would they hurt their own earning power?

 

It'll almost certainly won't happen. There is no simple or likely way to address it, GM's have proven thus far that they can't be saved from themselves.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Coconuts

[Highstickin]

On 2/3/2023 at 11:29 AM, 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. 

Would you then consider allowing performance bonuses for all players throughout their careers? The bonuses would count towards the cap and reward players that are significantly overperforming on their contracts. 

 

You can't put forward a proposal that only benefits the one side (i.e. owners or players) or it would never get through CBA negotiations. 

[BabychStache]

I like the idea. Anything to increase transactions. 
 

“Parody” has created a stale market.

 

I’d also like to see a simplified cap, that goes into the playoffs. $80m aav is the max you can put on the ice, period. Want insane depth? Cool, carry a $100m roster, but your on ice product cannot exceed $80m. 
 

let the big teams that carry the league load up without finding BS reasons to keep guys on LTIR until playoffs. 
 

Would be interesting for teams to create “match up” specialized rosters. 

[combover]

Every four  years all teams are given a compliance buyout.

 

here’s the new rub - it becomes a TRADABLE asset. 
And would expire every 4 years so you couldnt just build up a bunch. 
 

teams that manage their cap and spending will be rewarded with a tradable assets. Teams that don’t can pay and pay some more. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldFaithfulCap]

I'm not sure where I stand. I think one no-cap effect buyout each year is a good start. 

 

I don't like how the cap limits trades and the fact that released players still get full value on the cap but one reason I gave up watching the NBA was because entire teams were being swapped during the season and it became so hard to work out who played where.

 

I think there could be a better player release compromise, maybe one per season doesn't count, then you count 50% of the next one for one year and then the full amount for the contract term after. 

 

I saw that the latest espn figures were abysmal so if the tv rights fall then owners are going to want the cap to freeze.

[Mollyworld]

I don't know if this is the same as the soft cap/luxury tax the NBA has, but teams that are profitable should be allowed to go over the cap. If teams such as Arizona can't attract revenue then too bad for them. I would like to see something such as, if a team goes over the cap up to 5 million they pay a 20% tax. The next 5 million is a 40% tax. Next 5 is 60%. Anything over 20 million would be a 100% tax. So if the Canucks wanted to go over the cap by 15 million, it would cost them an extra 6 million in taxes.

[stawns]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:24 AM, 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, deals are far too long.

 

granting buyouts just encourages GM's to make increasingly stupid deals because they get a get out of jail free card.  Ultimately it's  moot point until the next CBA........we're stuck with the status quo until then

[lmm]

7 hours ago, BabychStache said:

I like the idea. Anything to increase transactions. 
 

“Parody” has created a stale market.

 

I’d also like to see a simplified cap, that goes into the playoffs. $80m aav is the max you can put on the ice, period. Want insane depth? Cool, carry a $100m roster, but your on ice product cannot exceed $80m. 
 

let the big teams that carry the league load up without finding BS reasons to keep guys on LTIR until playoffs. 
 

Would be interesting for teams to create “match up” specialized rosters. 

I like your cap idea

what you would start to see is, Robidais Island being in the press box

then you would see $4-5-6M players asking to be traded

 

but you are missing one thing on the trade front

players don't like to be traded

that is why there are so many "clauses"

'removing clauses from contracts would free up trade, and cause another long strike

[lmm]

7 hours ago, OldFaithfulCap said:

I'm not sure where I stand. I think one no-cap effect buyout each year is a good start. 

 

I don't like how the cap limits trades and the fact that released players still get full value on the cap but one reason I gave up watching the NBA was because entire teams were being swapped during the season and it became so hard to work out who played where.

 

I think there could be a better player release compromise, maybe one per season doesn't count, then you count 50% of the next one for one year and then the full amount for the contract term after. 

 

I saw that the latest espn figures were abysmal so if the tv rights fall then owners are going to want the cap to freeze.

The NHL is a poser league

it always has been

the NHL is to the major sports what American Motors was to the auto industry

In both cases, it was always the BIG 3 +1 not , as the NHL would have you believe, THE BIG4

If you went to every city with an NHL club and said, 'You only get to keep 1 team', the NHL would be down to 9 teams

7 in Canada, and Columbus and Raleigh

 

So the NHL continues to tinker with the rules, hoping to find a game that appeals to Americans

they tried to take out fighting, but Americans like fighting, and so do many Canadians

they tried to recreate Gretzky's office, but they couldn't recreate Gretzky

they have removed the center line and played with the offside rule

but mostly Americans don't care

 

So it's not the cap or lack of trades that brings down American interest

It's a back seat league 

that has not stayed true to itself, except that it will do almost anything to get Americans to open their wallet

[Fanuck]

7 hours ago, BabychStache said:

I’d also like to see a simplified cap, that goes into the playoffs. $80m aav is the max you can put on the ice, period. Want insane depth? Cool, carry a $100m roster, but your on ice product cannot exceed $80m.

Wouldn't this simply  circumvent the entire reason for the cap - which is to create a financially equal playing field for all teams? 

What kind of NHL player wants to be traded to one of the teams with unlimited budgets and told - you're in the pressbox until we hit PO because your salary puts over the $80mil limit?  I'm not sure the NHLPA would even like that idea? 

[lmm]

6 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Wouldn't this simply  circumvent the entire reason for the cap - which is to create a financially equal playing field for all teams? 

What kind of NHL player wants to be traded to one of the teams with unlimited budgets and told - you're in the pressbox until we hit PO because your salary puts over the $80mil limit?  I'm not sure the NHLPA would even like that idea? 

the NHLPA would hate it

but just because the PA disagrees does not mean it would be bad for hockey

the NHLPA thinks Loui Erricksson deserved $36M over 6 years because he found a sucker and put up 63points one year