Salary Cap: Cap Treatment: Homegrown vs Acquired Players

[CasusBelli]

The idea is simple: the cap applies only to players acquired from other teams (via trade or the FA market); substantially lower the cap. You don’t lose players you’ve drafted simply because you don’t have the cap for them. For example: Hank’s or Kreider’s contract would not count toward our cap; Panarin’s would.

Rationale: why punish teams for drafting well? You just want to keep people from buying cups via the FA market.

Click to read more...

 

[Thirty One]

The idea is simple: the cap applies only to players acquired from other teams (via trade or the FA market); substantially lower the cap. You don’t lose players you’ve drafted simply because you don’t have the cap for them. For example: Hank’s or Kreider’s contract would not count toward our cap; Panarin’s would.

Rationale: why punish teams for drafting well? You just want to keep people from buying cups via the FA market.

You'd get the same salary disparities you'd see pre-cap.

Teams aren't punished for drafting well. The rewards of drafting well are numerous.

 

[nyr2k2]

If you draft well you can turn those assets into roster players or sell your previous draft choices that have become established players for yet more draft capital. I think this is pretty much how it works now; I don't see good drafting as a punishment.

I do like the idea of some limited form of "homegrown player" slot or exception, as I've discussed before. But that's a limited-scope thing, not an across-the-board homegrown player cap exclusion.

I think the well-run teams will be well-run regardless of the system in which they are forced to operate, and the poorly-run teams will continue to suck.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I've always been in favor of some kind of cap discount for long-tenured players, something along the lines of the Bird exception in the NBA. Call me old school, but I'm a fan of great teams being able to stick together and superstars spending most of their careers on one team. It feels like there is so much more player movement since the salary cap (though, admittedly, I haven't looked at data to confirm that my impression is correct).

This is the first time I've heard someone suggest removing the cap altogether for homegrown players, which isn't the most outlandish idea in the world, but certainly would remove a fair amount of the parity achieved since the lockouts.

 

[n8]

I thought basketball had some exception cap like this but I really don't understand their cap rules so I'm guessing I thought wrong. Or is it that Bird exception thing mentioned above? I like it in principle though. I think instead of homegrown players costing zero cap, it should be a percentage of their cap is exempt, perhaps based on which contract phase they are in (ELC, bridge, RFA, UFA) and maybe some other factors. You'd want to adjust those values based on the the sort of goals the system is trying to achieve because all things being fair, poor teams value $$$ more than cap space so there's probably some relationship to how that all works out that I'm too lazy to think about right now.

 

[Chytilmania]

Homegrown 75% against the cap. Traded for or FA is 100%.
I've been saying the NFL needs this too.

 

[CasusBelli]

Homegrown 75% against the cap. Traded for or FA is 100%.
I've been saying the NFL needs this too.

That sounds good to me.

 

[Crease]

The owners fought tooth and nail for cost certainty. I feel like they would largely be against any proposals to spend money outside the system.

 

[eco's bones]

The NHLPA would never ever agree to that. You'd be restricting the movement of players and in doing so you'd be driving down player salaries or at least that would be what I would think would be their major argument and I'd think it be enough for the players to strike as well. Player movement leads to increased salaries.

 

[GAGLine]

The idea is simple: the cap applies only to players acquired from other teams (via trade or the FA market); substantially lower the cap. You don’t lose players you’ve drafted simply because you don’t have the cap for them. For example: Hank’s or Kreider’s contract would not count toward our cap; Panarin’s would.

Rationale: why punish teams for drafting well? You just want to keep people from buying cups via the FA market.

How many teams have done that? The Rangers have certainly tried in the past, and you can maybe argue that they succeeded in 1994, but that team had some significant homegrown talent in Leetch, Ritcher, Zubov and Kovalev, among others.

If homegrown players don't count against the cap, then there's no limit on what they can be paid, and smaller market teams won't be able to afford them anyway. So basically, your idea just helps the rich teams.

 

[sbjnyc]

The cap requires teams to assess the value of a player as a % of the cap. This % is the same for all teams so teams need to properly assess the value of each player and manage their cap to be able to sign players Allowing teams to circumvent that for homegrown players results in players with contracts above the market dictated by the cap. Without cap consequences teams are more likely to give out bad contracts. That's bad for the league as a whole.

If Kreider's new contract didn't count towards the cap it would have certainly been higher than his market value as perceived by other teams and as a result would become untradeable. That said I'm not sure Kreider is the best example of trying to sign home grown players without cap consequences. A better choice would have been Hank but even now his contract is likely untradeable.

 

[bobbop]

This is a pretty clever idea. 75% is probably too big a break but what if 85-90% of a drafted players salary counted against the cap? That doesn’t depress spending and it rewards development and scouting.

 

[haveandare]

Teams buying cups in UFA pretty much never happens. On the other hand, teams that have fallen backward into elite talents at the very top of the right drafts have won many cups this era. It’s not an issue of drafting well in many cases, it’s just winning the lottery in the right drafts. We don’t need to increase the value of that good luck, it’s already sky high

 

[Leetch3]

interesting ideas but the NHLPA would never agree to a system based on draft because the players drafted by big $$ teams would be rich but the players drafted by poor teams would be screwed and never get a chance to make big $$ since they would be restricted if they are signed by another team. also out of their control if they get traded....so the idea could work from a team standpoint but I don't think the players like it.

 

[Chytilmania]

This is a pretty clever idea. 75% is probably too big a break but what if 85-90% of a drafted players salary counted against the cap? That doesn’t depress spending and it rewards development and scouting.

You're right I think 85-90 would be just enough to make a difference. Teams should be rewarded for drafting well.

 

[egelband]

Maybe a bit off-topic but since it’s cap-related I thought I’d ask here.
Can anyone tell me the reasoning for using AAV, ie having cap hit static for the duration of the contract?
Practically, why not adjust the cap hit on a year-by-year basis. I’m sure there’s a good reason, but I just don’t see it.
I can see pros and cons, like it’s a good way to encourage longer contracts for players. And it cuts cap hits earlier in contracts, generally.
But it also leads to more buyouts. I mean, were Henrik’s and Staal’s cap hits the same as their salary this coming season, there’s much less grumbling about them.
So, I guess, I see the “semantic” reasons but I wonder if I’m missing a big practical reason they use AAV as opposed to adjusting yearly.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

While it's easier to gauge the value of players you acquire through FA or trade, it's still not some slam dunk those will work. Not even close. So why are we treating it as if building through the draft requires 100% skill and building through trade and FA requires 0% skill?

 

[NYSPORTS]

Would wreck the league. Examples were shared

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Also, the Rangers just got VERY lucky two years in a row, that required no skill. If Alexis and Kakko become superstars and don't count against the cap that will be an unfair competitive advantage. Our trade for Mika was a lot shrewder of a move than either of the two picks of the last two years.

 

[Chytilmania]

Also, the Rangers just got VERY lucky two years in a row, that required no skill. If Alexis and Kakko become superstars and don't count against the cap that will be an unfair competitive advantage. Our trade for Mika was a lot shrewder of a move than either of the two picks of the last two years.

We're not saying to not count against the cap. But if you draft a superstar and his next contract is $10M then it's a $9M cap hit, as opposed to someone you trade for or FA signing.

 

[CasusBelli]

Maybe a bit off-topic but since it’s cap-related I thought I’d ask here.
Can anyone tell me the reasoning for using AAV, ie having cap hit static for the duration of the contract?
Practically, why not adjust the cap hit on a year-by-year basis. I’m sure there’s a good reason, but I just don’t see it.
I can see pros and cons, like it’s a good way to encourage longer contracts for players. And it cuts cap hits earlier in contracts, generally.
But it also leads to more buyouts. I mean, were Henrik’s and Staal’s cap hits the same as their salary this coming season, there’s much less grumbling about them.
So, I guess, I see the “semantic” reasons but I wonder if I’m missing a big practical reason they use AAV as opposed to adjusting yearly.

Easier for financial planning. Trading could well be impossible otherwise. One workaround, I suppose, would be to renegotiate the contract when a trade is executed (like they do in soccer transfers) — but that is even more convoluted.

 

[CasusBelli]

So how about this: you can declare a player “exempt” from cap at the moment he is acquired (draft, trade or FA) — but no team can have more than one such player — and lower the cap by the AAV of the median NHL contract. So, if you deem your #1 pick exempt on draft day, all future contracts with him won’t count toward the cap — but only his contract can have that status as long as he’s with the team. If he has an injury that hampers his productivity after you offered him that 10x10 AAV contract? Too bad. You won the lottery a year ago because he’s now a fourth liner, and this new kid wants a 10x10 of his own, which would put you over the cap? Too late; he had to be deemed exempt upon acquisition.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Couldn’t agree more. Look at Chicago. They had to break up their team even though they did everything right. If you draft a player with your own pick ( not one acquired via a trade) that players salary should not be counted towards your cap max.

 

[jniklast]

I don't feel like building a cup winner through FA is in any way a thing. It didn't really work pre cap-area and certainly doesn't now. Drafting well is probably the most important part in building a cup contender already, along with good asset management with both trades and also making the right cap commitments. So why marginalize the second part and make it pretty much only drafting, which would reward the lucky teams that won the lottery even more?

I think getting good players is already more than enough of a reward for good drafting - getting cap free superstars would be simply too much.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Couldn’t agree more. Look at Chicago. They had to break up their team even though they did everything right. If you draft a player with your own pick ( not one acquired via a trade) that players salary should not be counted towards your cap max.

i don’t feel there is anyway of making it fair when you have so many variables (cost of living, state income tax, the US vs Canadien Dollar) but you are right, Chicago did everything right.