Salary cap ideas on reforms

[I am Bettman]

Just make it so that retention can differ from year to year of a contract

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

I actually kind of liked the idea at first but I see a major flaw

Soccer doesn't have tanking because of relegation

What is there to incentivize tanking teams to take on contracts they won't be able to flip assets for? And what is there to prevent tanking teams from loaning good young players out to contending teams?

 

[llamateizer]

Imagine the player eliminating his team knowing he's coming back to them next season.



Buyout without cap penalty.

Stamkos (34) wants 15 mil/year

Sign Stamkos 8 years at 7.5 mil/year. Buy him out after 4.


My suggestion, Franchise player doesn't count on the cap. One per team

 

[colchar]

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

So what happens if the team they play for needs to bring someone up for that game who has to clear waivers?

 

[Meuracas]

My suggestion, Franchise player doesn't count on the cap. One per team

Next thing you know someone hands McDavid 25m per year since it doesn’t count against the cap, Matthews follows and there we go again…

 

[StreetHawk]

Imagine the player eliminating his team knowing he's coming back to them next season.



Buyout without cap penalty.

Stamkos (34) wants 15 mil/year

Sign Stamkos 8 years at 7.5 mil/year. Buy him out after 4.


My suggestion, Franchise player doesn't count on the cap. One per team

Cap is only one part of the equation. For the PA it’s escrow and allowing a compliance buyout is going to tack that payment onto the player expense which is still limited to 50% of HRR. So the rest of the players see an increase to the final escrow that they owe to the nhl.

 

[VanIsle]

I always believed if you drafted a player and developed them you should get a break on the cap.

For example 10-20% off against the cap.

All that time in the minors and time should give teams a break.

 

[Gaud]

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.

soft cap would surely help the league make more profits, but i personally find that makes it less sportsmanlike. I say this even as a habs fan, as this may actually help us, as one of the bigger markets.

It is like playing a videogame where everyone else is spending money on perks and there you are with your pea-shooter, trying to keep up. Or playing paintball with all your friends and one of them shows up with a full auto paintball gun with a laser.

 

[Gaud]

I actually kind of liked the idea at first but I see a major flaw

Soccer doesn't have tanking because of relegation

What is there to incentivize tanking teams to take on contracts they won't be able to flip assets for? And what is there to prevent tanking teams from loaning good young players out to contending teams?

I was actually thinking that relegation wouldn't be a bad thing either. More teams, more playoffs, more pride in winning league one cups, teams closer together in terms of skill. That is a few decades away at least, though

For your two questions, i would say the incentive is that the price in assets would go up compared to a player whose contracts are about to expire, simply because they dont get the rights (and potential assets that come with a potential flip). Those tanking teams presumably have cap space, so there is also the potential bonus of having leadership or talent, etc. Then of course, there are potential cases like Monahan, who takes the time to get operated, heals and becomes relevant again (of course, he was short term).

Your second question is interesting to me - i hadnt thought of the opposite, but this would be great! (IMO). Imagine you have a surplus of north american D - this would give you opportunities for better development in cases where that surplus prevents you from letting nhl-ready (ish) players get a jump in the NHL, and also freeing up space in the minors for players who would otherwise play in lesser leagues. This probably would help with a lot of cases of waiver management. Super interesting! managers would then have to weigh the benefits of filling that position vs the downfalls of basically training that youth to beat you.

 

[Gaud]

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.

Unlimited number of buyouts would just start a trend with players getting front-loaded contracts, IMO. It would become nonsensical for owners to buy out the contracts at that point, because the remaining years would be at a price that makes more sense.

Objectively, however, the NHLPA would probably be the best argument against both unlimited buyouts and my OP. Unions are always against things that take away from workers' stability. Just like the trend where players would ask for front loaded salaries, there would probably be a trend where those players obtaining a huge contracts simply add a "no loaning" clause, both of which would defeat the purpose at least to a degree.

For some players, it would be an opportunity (ex: get better minutes, recover from an injury, etc). For others, it would be a nightmare, and how do you react when the term is over and you go back to the team you feel "betrayed" you?

 

[Mosby]

You either have a cap or you don't. Easy way to not get into cap trouble is not sign dumb contracts.

 

[Sky04]

Next thing you know someone hands McDavid 25m per year since it doesn’t count against the cap, Matthews follows and there we go again…

That player has to be drafted by said team to count. 1 team gets drafted player excluded from the cap. This should help teams retain some sort of home grown talent.

 

[llamateizer]

Next thing you know someone hands McDavid 25m per year since it doesn’t count against the cap, Matthews follows and there we go again…

It's one player. It should still abide to the 20% rule. Generational talent like McDavid deserves to be paid more.

But I agree, it would penalize smaller market who can't really pay up

 

[BLONG7]

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.

I think this has some merit, but we would be kidding ourselves, if this doesn't help the teams that have more money, than the weaker $$$ franchises.

The GM's who make these mistakes never seem to learn? Why? Players and agents are out for the most money, and the GM's are just butt stupid at times.......

5 year contracts max is something to be throwing around also.......

 

[Winger98]

this seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist to bail out GMs not GMing well. No GM is perfect, every team is going to have a contract they don't like at some point, but they all know the parameters within which they have to work. I'm with @Mosby on this, the real solution is for GMs to be more careful about the contracts they hand out.

 

[KeydGV21]

So what happens if the team they play for needs to bring someone up for that game who has to clear waivers?

If a GM constructs a roster so poorly that they can’t use their normal healthy scratches AND minor leaguers on ELC’s to fill the roster and have to bring up someone who has to clear waivers…for a game, that the team has known the loaned player would be unavailable for since the schedule came out…the team deserves to lose said player on waivers…

 

[KeydGV21]

this seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist to bail out GMs not GMing well. No GM is perfect, every team is going to have a contract they don't like at some point, but they all know the parameters within which they have to work. I'm with @Mosby on this, the real solution is for GMs to be more careful about the contracts they hand out.

Would it really bail out bad GMs that much though?

If for some reason a team thought Jeff Skinner was what they needed this deadline and dealt for him, the Sabres still have 3 seasons of his contract they have to deal with…hardly a bail out.

It could add a lot of excitement though, imagine the Oilers who started 5-12-1 this year don’t win their next 8 are 8-15-2 and Draisaitl has a season ending injury. Oilers are cooked and now 20+ teams are thinking what a half season of McDavid is worth.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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.

1) that results in a higher escrow

 

[Golden_Jet]

That player has to be drafted by said team to count. 1 team gets drafted player excluded from the cap. This should help teams retain some sort of home grown talent.

Results in a higher escrow, like some of the other ideas in here.

 

[dukeofjive]

Add a salary tax, the rich teams are already paying for some of the smaller markets.

 

[Chan790]

I don't think the salary cap needs reform.

 

[Fig]

Even though Huberdeau is on our team, no to the idea.


An overboard for a problem that isn't even that bad though....

I've been thinking that teams should be allowed compliance buyouts, but they have to pay to do it. The payment would be offer sheet compensation. I also think that GMs only get one paid compliance slot every 3 years. This way, GMs have an option to get out from under a contract that had nothing to do with their regime and/or not be as badly destroyed by trading futures for cap dumps.

ie: Huberdeau/Skinner would cost 4 firsts (base AAV over max 5 years) to compliance buyout vs regular buyout. A 6 million AAV contract for 1 year costs a first and a third to compliance buyout vs regular buyout.

I also think that a team should be able to remove buyouts and retention on their books (but only once per year at 2x the compensation for compliance buyout).

In this latter scenario, you'd have some funny stuff going on. Isles could basically remove the buyout from their cap structure for DiPietro for 2x 3rds. Someone not willing to pay 1st + 3rd to move a 6 mil AAV contract could trade a player at 50% and then compliance remove the remainder for 2x 2nds. However, if the buyout is less than 1.45 million, then you cannot compliance buy it out (ie: Latter years of Parise and Suter).

I wonder if this would make the draft kinda weird though with less picks from teams if lots of them use this at the same time. Maybe teams get compensatory "8th rounders" for any pick used up in this manner? No change in number of players going into prospect pools. At the very least, having such an option for something borderline LTIRetired seems like something worth contemplating.


The reason I wondered about this is that it's more for scenarios where teams want to make moves, but cannot because cap space league wide is restricted or unavailable. Teams that use this will still be punished heavily, but at least GMs won't walk into an impossible situation where they cannot even use a few mid round picks to try and get a tiny bit of flexibility and field a roster. There's also gotta be some type of additional penalty for compliance buyouts. Something like, "That player can no longer play a single game for your organization." So you wouldn't do this to someone who isn't ending their career or a player who might want to return to play for the org one day.

There's also gotta be some form of a restriction on whether you can or cannot do it. Like total picks used cannot exceed amount of seasons the player played at least 10GP for you in a season. That way you cannot just pick up a player/contract and compliance buyout/regular buyout + compliance buyout later on for another team.


With such an arrangement, I'd actually hope for some GM to use it for nefarious reasons rather than good intentioned ones. Like a disgruntled GM blowing 4 first rounders as a middle finger to ownership on their way out... but the silver lining is they get rid of their mistake and the new GM has a cleaner slate to work with...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

go look at the complete lack of parity in the EPL and you'll see why this is a dumb idea

 

[Slats432]

The only reform that is needed is cap structure not thrown out the window for playoffs/LTIR cap circumvention.

 

[NVious]

Teams that bring in more revenue should be able to spend more, top 16 revenue earning teams should get 1 buyout per year or be able to spend 10% more than the cap