MisterT
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2006
- 1,417
- 1,211
Dumbest thing posted here in a long time.Im not saying they have one right now, but give it two years they would love to do the proposal with Tavares
Dumbest thing posted here in a long time.Im not saying they have one right now, but give it two years they would love to do the proposal with Tavares
Teams are stuck with bad contracts everywhere.
What if the league allowed teams to trade players at 50% of their salary, and remove that from the cap? So basically, let's take Buffalo.
They trade Skinner to a team for $4.5 million x 7 years (still overpaid, but for the sake of argument). That team agrees to pay Skinner half his contract and take on that cap hit, while Buffalo agrees to pay Skinner that remainder $4.5 million x 7 years but no longer take the cap hit.
Couple of stipulations would have to be put into place.
1. A player cannot be traded in this manner again from a team. So if the second team does trade him, they cannot retain salary
2. A team cannot take back any assets for "dumping" said player, this is purely a for free situation. If it works out for the new team, fantastic, if not, well, they won't feel like they gave up anything but cap space.
3. Can only be done for contracts longer than 3 years, or else teams should just use a buyout
It's a win-win-win.
-Players keep their contract, and the money they signed for, instead of being bought out
-Teams free up space
-Teams with space get cheaper players that might be able to turn things around
-Less dead space on the cap in the form of buyouts, and more flexibility for teams that are avoiding buyouts
Edit: Also I think this is a bad title, but too late to edit it now. Basically allow teams to trade contracts and remove 50% of the cap from that player's contract.
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.Even with the "intense consequences" there are multiple teams in a bad situation due to cap mismanagement. I'm failing to see how lessening consequences is going to result in less people exhibiting the bad behavior. That's completely counter-intuitive This is like saying the way to discourage people from over drafting their bank accounts is to *lower* the overdraft fees.
If Tommy spends his whole paycheck on hookers and beer and doesn't have any left for rent, is he more or less likely to do it again if the landlord says "its ok we'll let you slide this time" rather than throwing him out into the street?
Yes, I get that some of these teams are pretty much completely f***ed but there really is only so much you can do to protect people from their own stupid decisions.. If it really bothers the owners, maybe they should hire GM's with a little bit of fiscal responsibility
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.
None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
How brave and courageous of you to tell a Leafs fan that his team hasn't won a series. Simply astounding.
What's funny is that you hedged your post by recognizing that the Leafs have good players, which is the entire point of the cap arguments. If the Leafs end up trading Nylander for some depth or something whoop de f***ing do, that's not an actual cap problem, it's just shuffling the allocation around.
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.
None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing....no, what you're arguing is basically making Cap Circumvention OK...which is worse for the League than letting teams with terrible contracts live with them...there's a Cap for a reason...
You're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.
None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing.
I've said my piece and am going to depart the thread. Feel free to snicker amongst yourselves, but remember these arguments the next time you're on Capfriendly wondering what on earth the next guy is going to do to fix your current GM's mess.
The fact that you don’t give a rats ass about the owners is the reason your proposal is pure fantasy. Without the owners there is no league. The league suffered two significant work stoppages so the owners could get a salary cap and 50/50 shared revenue. They aren’t going to discard those things to give a loophole to help a few poorly managed teamsYou're not looking at this from the angle that I am presenting at all. You and the other guys who are arguing with me are all pointing out why it's only fair that the teams who did this to themselves suffer the consequences. Sure, I get that. But what I am arguing is that this is not good for the league. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners, I care that the Oilers are stuck with Chiarelli specials for another 3 years which directly effects their ability to ice a contender around McDavid. I care that the Panthers are spending like 15% of their budget on a sieve. I care that the Sharks aren't going to be able to rebuild properly for the next five years.
None of this has anything to do with dissuading bad contracts. Bad contracts are as constant as death and taxes, so it's about minimizing their impact on the competitive nature of the league. The day that GM's stop giving out bad contracts is the day the league folds, so they might as well give teams so more tools to deal with them. The league needs to figure out that letting teams hamstring themselves is creating a worse product and that being vindictive to the GM's is pointless.
I'm torn. On one hand, teams should get penalized for bad deals. However, on the other hand take a team like San Jose. They are buried in bad contracts. On one hand, the signed them. On the other hand, I can see being a long term fan and watching an inferior product on the ice. That's not good for the league/product. As a Ranger fan, I'm paying among the highest prices in the league to see a team that's barely compliant due to Staal (who was since dealt), Hank, Shattenkirk, and Girardi.
Again, what's the answer? Idk, but I can see both sides.
Dumbest thing posted here in a long time.
Yes. The purpose of the salary cap is parity and cost control. Owners did not fight for the right to punish their teams with dead cap space for years at a time. Cap-destroying contracts go directly against the objective of parity and therefore the league should tweak the CBA to make them less punishing.
I've said my piece and am going to depart the thread. Feel free to snicker amongst yourselves, but remember these arguments the next time you're on Capfriendly wondering what on earth the next guy is going to do to fix your current GM's mess.
This would be the way to go, especially with no cap increases due to covid.1 compliance buyout every 3 years, but if you use it, you forfeit your 1st round pick. Can only be used before the season starts and your draft placement is set.
EDIT: maybe 4 years.
There’s no cap increase because players are being paid more than their 50/50 share of revenue. (With the league agreeing to cap escrow at 20% this year and reduce it every year over the next few seasons). The players will eventually have to pay back that difference through an artificially low cap once revenue does start to increase againThis would be the way to go, especially with no cap increases due to covid.
Yea I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s a far better idea then teams being able to acquire other players on other teams cap hit for picks. The compliance buyout worked once before. I think with tweaking of some form it could work again, but I agree we’re not going to see itThere’s no cap increase because players are being paid more than their 50/50 share of revenue. (With the league agreeing to cap escrow at 20% this year and reduce it every year over the next few seasons). The players will eventually have to pay back that difference through an artificially low cap once revenue does start to increase again
There is literally no chance the owners agree to pay out even more to players in the form of compliance buyouts. People need to let go of the idea that compliance buyouts are a possibility
Neither are an option. The op’s idea is pure fantasy. It totally ignored the owners interests.Yea I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s a far better idea then teams being able to acquire other players on other teams cap hit for picks. The compliance buyout worked once before. I think with tweaking of some form it could work again, but I agree we’re not going to see it
This is not a good idea... it totally defeats the purpose of a cap.... just like the net income (tax margin differentials)... I am disappointed the league didn’t address this in the latest CBA... but look at the teams getting the advantage. Hmmm...