Cap Retention Allocation

[hamzarocks]

Should NHL teams be allowed to choose how much of the total cap retention burden on a bad contract they want to allocate on a yearly basis rather than average amount split over term of contract?

Say a team has a contract with 3 years term for a player at 9M AAV. No market for said player at this AAV. However at 6M there is a solid market.

Should a team be allowed to retain a total 9M over three year term and be able to allocate it however they want to their cap on a prorated/yearly annualized basis?

Said team decides to allocate the full 9M retention on their cap in 1st year of the contract with Y2 and Y3 having not any retention for the team trading retained player but the team acquiring retained player still having said player at 3M per year AAV retained value?

Could be a strategy for a team who is near exiting a rebuild but has 1 morw year left where they are under the cap and leave big cap space to allocatw for this type of deal and it allows them to move a player with it not having major cap consequences during period of targeted contention vs a buyout where a player is bought out and a lingering cap hit is allocated for numerous years including in period of contending?

Thought on why this isnt possible/feasible or if it is would it ever actually be implemented by teams (thinking Skinner by Sabres last summer instead of buying out doing a big time retention and allocating it to this year where they have 5-6M capspace sitting right now)

Click to read more...

 

[eojsmada]

Hard and fast rules, that way it is consistent and, hopefully, not able to be loop-holed by teams who have better financial situations than others.

 

[hamzarocks]

Hard and fast rules, that way it is consistent and, hopefully, not able to be loop-holed by teams who have better financial situations than others.

Well this rule would aim to promote ownership spending and better committment to winning/better cap management and help reduce buy-outs and poor cap decisions.

 

[eojsmada]

Well this rule would aim to promote ownership spending and better committment to winning/better cap management and help reduce buy-outs and poor cap decisions.

While I would normally agree, I never underestimate how dumb GM's will be when managing personnel/contracts. Especially since their "ingenuity" is how the poor cap decisions keep occurring.

All rules should be even and fair for all teams.

 

[dgibb10]

The NHL clearly does not want this. Hence why cap hit=AAV in the first place.

Now, you can say that the NHL's cap hit structure should be more like the NFLs with cap hit being representative of money actually paid that year, to allow more creativity for GMs, but it reduces parity, as teams will go "all in" by backloading deals, and others will tank by frontloading deals to get massive bargains down the line and not worry about cap floor.

But the NHL clearly likes it the way it is. They like parity

 

[dgibb10]

del

 

[Pablo El Perro]

The NHL clearly does not want this. Hence why cap hit=AAV in the first place.

Now, you can say that the NHL's cap hit structure should be more like the NFLs with cap hit being representative of money actually paid that year, to allow more creativity for GMs, but it reduces parity, as teams will go "all in" by backloading deals, and others will tank by frontloading deals to get massive bargains down the line and not worry about cap floor.

But the NHL clearly likes it the way it is. They like parity

The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts across the board. So it's hard to compare the two.

 

[dgibb10]

The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts across the board. So it's hard to compare the two.

100%. There's not a great comp out there, at least from the big sports I'm familiar with

Basketball and Baseball don't have a hard cap.

Football doesn't have guaranteed deals

 

[dirtydanglez]

too many loopholes as is.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't dislike it

too many loopholes as is.

Loopholes are fun.