Salary cap ideas on reforms

[Gaud]

I listened to a discussion on hockey 360 (rds - french affiliate for TSN) on the difficulties of having both guaranteed contracts and a salary cap.

I wonder if loosening up on certain rules would benefit the nhl, in particular to give the teams the choice to take on years of salary for a player instead of a percentage over time.

Look at Huberdeau's contract. If the flames wanted to get rid of it, they would have to contend with price of getting someone to take on the amount and the duration.

What if a player could be "lent" to a team, who would take on a contract for a set amount of years instead of for the duration of the contract and a percentage of it?

The team lending the player could get salary off and buy itself some time to deal with the contract. It would regain the rights to the player when the lease is done, but by then maybe the player bounced back (therefore has value) or maybe the cap went up enough that it becomes a non-issue to take him on again. It gives competing teams weapons to boost their teams for a push and middling teams to "erase mistakes" that prevent them from becoming competitive.

For a team that is rebuilding, taking on a contract for 2-3 years gets it picks and prospects as payment for but only for an amount of time that makes sense to them. There is a chance that the player in question actually makes an impact on a rebuilding team in a role it couldn't get otherwise. If the GM was diligent, it may get offense or leadership in the locker room as a result.

The player gets a second chance, and possibly more ice time in situations that can help him succeed.

The league benefits of success stories where both teams are possibly more competitive as a result.

Click to read more...

 

[GeeoffBrown]

My initial reaction is that this is weird and I don't like it. Like what if Huberdeau scores against the Flames? It would kinda be like an own goal but on purpose

 

[BLNY]

Not in favour of this.

 

[KeydGV21]

My initial reaction is that this is weird and I don't like it. Like what if Huberdeau scores against the Flames? It would kinda be like an own goal but on purpose

Soccer does loan moves all the time…just have an optional clause “can’t play against parent team”

 

[BB88]

Soccer does loan moves all the time…just have an optional clause “can’t play against parent team”

Soccer is not something I’d try to follow

 

[Gaud]

Soccer is not something I’d try to follow

as long as players dont fake injuries and get up like nothing happened when a penalty is called, im good.

 

[Gaud]

The way i see it, it is kind of like when a team takes on a shitty contract for picks or compensation because it has one or 2 years left on its contract, only for players that have more term than that.

 

[BayStBullies]

Just apply it after tax and you solve most of the imbalance.

 

[Chainshot]

as long as players dont fake injuries and get up like nothing happened when a penalty is called, im good.

We have some bad news for you…

 

[KeydGV21]

Soccer is not something I’d try to follow

That seems like a you problem

 

[SUX2BU]

 

[x Tame Impala]

If the cap truly isn't to level out competition and is a cost-stabilizer for owners, why not allow teams to have one compliance buyout at a time?

1) The full amount of the contract has to be paid to the player

This ensures neither the player nor the NHLPA loses out on money. Which I believe was the argument for not allowing compliance buyouts after the last round of them in 2013.

2) Teams are ineligible for a 2nd compliance buyout while the 1st buyout contract is in effect

Meaning if the Kings bought out PLD, they'd be unable to have another compliance buyout for 7 more seasons. This prevents large market teams from abusing their financial power and keeps a relatively level competitive balance throughout the league

3) The cap hit is completely off the books

This prevents teams from being saddled with an awful contract and limiting their effectiveness. I think it would strengthen the league and make teams more fun to watch.

A salary cap + guaranteed contracts basically ensures that GMs think short term, not minding if they hand out an 5-8 year deal to a 30+ year old player because they won't be around to deal with the consequences.

 

[Lemieuxs]

Personally, I think that a team should be allowed an unlimited number of buyouts.
It is hard to understand why you would not want to allow this.
I think this would solve the problem. If a player is signed to a big contract, and he is not performing, he should be allowed to be bought out.
If the NHLPA has a problem with this, then the specifics of the buyout can be negotiated. Maybe even allow the player to be paid in full if bought out as an option but without any cap repercussions.

For example, Tavares is owed 11M next season. The Leafs should be allowed to fully buy out that contract if they want. Tavares gets 11M and is instantly a UFA and the Leafs should not be penalized for it.

There definitely would be a lot more movement in the league and as a fan, it would be more fun to see how things play out.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Personally, I think that a team should be allowed an unlimited number of buyouts.
It is hard to understand why you would not want to allow this.
I think this would solve the problem. If a player is signed to a big contract, and he is not performing, he should be allowed to be bought out.
If the NHLPA has a problem with this, then the specifics of the buyout can be negotiated. Maybe even allow the player to be paid in full if bought out as an option but without any cap repercussions.

Cost certainty was why we lost an entire season.

It isn't a level playing field between rich teams and poor teams if there's no consequence for doling out bad contracts.

For example, Tavares is owed 11M next season. The Leafs should be allowed to fully buy out that contract if they want. Tavares gets 11M and is instantly a UFA and the Leafs should not be penalized for it.

You mean cap circumvention? You described cap circumvention.
Which is once again, not a level playing field. Not cost-certainty. And the entire reason we lost 2005.



This is the very exact reason there is a cap recapture penalty.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Personally, I think that a team should be allowed an unlimited number of buyouts.
It is hard to understand why you would not want to allow this.
I think this would solve the problem. If a player is signed to a big contract, and he is not performing, he should be allowed to be bought out.
If the NHLPA has a problem with this, then the specifics of the buyout can be negotiated. Maybe even allow the player to be paid in full if bought out as an option but without any cap repercussions.

For example, Tavares is owed 11M next season. The Leafs should be allowed to fully buy out that contract if they want. Tavares gets 11M and is instantly a UFA and the Leafs should not be penalized for it.

There definitely would be a lot more movement in the league and as a fan, it would be more fun to see how things play out.

The owners brought in the cap for cost certainty. If all of these buyouts are included in the players share of the 50/50 split it would make escrow go through the roof as there would be more spent on players than should be able under the cap. If the buyouts aren't included in the split then the owners aren't getting their cost certainty, which we all lost a season of hockey to get.

It sucks having bad contracts on the books, but maybe GMs should just be less terrible when signing players?

 

[Bizz]

I listened to a discussion on hockey 360 (rds - french affiliate for TSN) on the difficulties of having both guaranteed contracts and a salary cap.

I wonder if loosening up on certain rules would benefit the nhl, in particular to give the teams the choice to take on years of salary for a player instead of a percentage over time.

Look at Huberdeau's contract. If the flames wanted to get rid of it, they would have to contend with price of getting someone to take on the amount and the duration.

What if a player could be "lent" to a team, who would take on a contract for a set amount of years instead of for the duration of the contract and a percentage of it?

The team lending the player could get salary off and buy itself some time to deal with the contract. It would regain the rights to the player when the lease is done, but by then maybe the player bounced back (therefore has value) or maybe the cap went up enough that it becomes a non-issue to take him on again. It gives competing teams weapons to boost their teams for a push and middling teams to "erase mistakes" that prevent them from becoming competitive.

For a team that is rebuilding, taking on a contract for 2-3 years gets it picks and prospects as payment for but only for an amount of time that makes sense to them. There is a chance that the player in question actually makes an impact on a rebuilding team in a role it couldn't get otherwise. If the GM was diligent, it may get offense or leadership in the locker room as a result.

The player gets a second chance, and possibly more ice time in situations that can help him succeed.

The league benefits of success stories where both teams are possibly more competitive as a result.

 

[pcruz]

Hard salary cap is just stupid and has been the worst thing for the sport in some time.

Why not have a soft cap with a luxury tax that becomes increasingly punitive?

The crappy teams would benefit from the rich teams more than they do now, even.

Make it similar to FFP in UEFA where you're given a 5 year window to be in compliance.

And then go ahead and remove the cap relief on LTIR.

 

[StreetHawk]

Money for the compliance buyout becomes a player expense/salary. Thus, impacts the player's escrow. If we are talking like 8 buyouts a year that average $6 mill per player in real money (average salary here), it's an extra $50 mill of player costs which escrow has to account for.

Probably why the PA wouldn't go for it.

 

[Guttersniped]

I listened to a discussion on hockey 360 (rds - french affiliate for TSN) on the difficulties of having both guaranteed contracts and a salary cap.

I wonder if loosening up on certain rules would benefit the nhl, in particular to give the teams the choice to take on years of salary for a player instead of a percentage over time.

Look at Huberdeau's contract. If the flames wanted to get rid of it, they would have to contend with price of getting someone to take on the amount and the duration.

What if a player could be "lent" to a team, who would take on a contract for a set amount of years instead of for the duration of the contract and a percentage of it?

The team lending the player could get salary off and buy itself some time to deal with the contract. It would regain the rights to the player when the lease is done, but by then maybe the player bounced back (therefore has value) or maybe the cap went up enough that it becomes a non-issue to take him on again. It gives competing teams weapons to boost their teams for a push and middling teams to "erase mistakes" that prevent them from becoming competitive.

For a team that is rebuilding, taking on a contract for 2-3 years gets it picks and prospects as payment for but only for an amount of time that makes sense to them. There is a chance that the player in question actually makes an impact on a rebuilding team in a role it couldn't get otherwise. If the GM was diligent, it may get offense or leadership in the locker room as a result.

The player gets a second chance, and possibly more ice time in situations that can help him succeed.

The league benefits of success stories where both teams are possibly more competitive as a result.

I don’t see players going for “player rentals”.

If you find no trade clauses annoying now, then you’ll really not like them if players could be rented on top of traded.

Players don’t want less control of where they play after they’re RFAs. I doubt RFAs want to get shipped around either.

Were they actually proposing player rentals on the radio or just short-term salary retention on long term deals?

 

[Sky04]

Hard salary cap is just stupid and has been the worst thing for the sport in some time.

Why not have a soft cap with a luxury tax that becomes increasingly punitive?

The crappy teams would benefit from the rich teams more than they do now, even.

Make it similar to FFP in UEFA where you're given a 5 year window to be in compliance.

And then go ahead and remove the cap relief on LTIR.

Let me guess, Leafs fan tired of losing and needing to blame the cap?

 

[Djp]

Personally, I think that a team should be allowed an unlimited number of buyouts.
It is hard to understand why you would not want to allow this.
I think this would solve the problem. If a player is signed to a big contract, and he is not performing, he should be allowed to be bought out.
If the NHLPA has a problem with this, then the specifics of the buyout can be negotiated. Maybe even allow the player to be paid in full if bought out as an option but without any cap repercussions.

For example, Tavares is owed 11M next season. The Leafs should be allowed to fully buy out that contract if they want. Tavares gets 11M and is instantly a UFA and the Leafs should not be penalized for it.

There definitely would be a lot more movement in the league and as a fan, it would be more fun to see how things play out.

This will lead to cap circumvention by having a team sign a player then buy him out and he then signs with original team to front load a contract

 

[pcruz]

Let me guess, Leafs fan tired of losing and needing to blame the cap?

Yes, attack the messenger, but not the message.


People like you make this world worse.

Be a better person.

 

[Sky04]

Yes, attack the messenger, but not the message.


People like you make this world worse.

Be a better person.

Your message is rooted in bitterness so it doesn't matter. I get it, your team hasn't been successful under the same rules as everyone else so you want to change them to favor you.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't hate the idea of having partial salary retention, so you would only be retaining on a deal for maybe 2 or 3 years of a 5 year deal.

That's about the only salary cap idea I've seen thrown out on this board that I don't flat out hate. And I don't even think that was the point of this thread, but rather me misunderstanding the suggestion at first

 

[wintersej]

I don't hate the idea of having partial salary retention, so you would only be retaining on a deal for maybe 2 or 3 years of a 5 year deal.

That's about the only salary cap idea I've seen thrown out on this board that I don't flat out hate. And I don't even think that was the point of this thread, but rather me misunderstanding the suggestion at first

Yeah the fact that retention is all or nothing seems like an easy and nice adjustment.

I could listen to some luxury tax ideas for going 5-10 million over the cap as long as it was so punitive even a Toronto or whatever wouldn’t dare go above the cap for more than a couple years. Would have to be so punitive as to make the other luxury taxes seem like a cute joke. I’m not convinced it’s a need, but I don’t think it would be bad for the league to have the bigger money making markets get a little (little) extra juice.