Here’s an article on why the majority of GMs are reluctant to impose a cap on the POs. It’s not so simplistic.
“NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said there's a majority appetite across the league's 32 general managers to potentially tweak the system, but the way cap space is accumulated and calculated in-season doesn't make for a simple equation.”
It’s not as simplistic a fix as you paint it
Have you closely followed Landeskog’s recovery? It sure doesn’t sound like it.
You wrote, “ Never said anything about the avalanche or landeskog personally except for them probably knowing he would return. He’s been skating with the team for a while so it’s not really as surprising he returns just in time for game 83.“
BTW, I was unable to bold this particular part of your quote which is IMO both presumptuous and egregious.
“except for them probably knowing he would return.”
Not even when Landeskog first began skating did Avs fans automatically assume he could return to the NHL as you seem to. Your position takes liberties in your assumptions. Skating doesn’t mean Landeskog would be ready to play in the NHL. That’s one reason why I, as an Avs fan, think Stars fans are taking a big leap in assuming Miro would be effective in the POs if he returns early. RECOVERY IS A PROCESS. In fairness, the conditioning stint proved Landeskog is well on his way to returning but even now, most knowledgeable Avs fans aren’t penciling him in as 1LW.
I thought about it a bit more and you strike me as the sort of person that hasn’t fully thought through the ramifications of your position. Is there a problem that needs to be fixed with LTIR cap abuse? Yes. Is there a value to allow players on LTIR to use that program without their team being hobbled and penalized by the cap? Yes. You certainly don’t want to create a disincentive for teams and their players to avail themselves of LTIR if they’re qualified to do so.
So how do you address both interests without impairing one or the other? It requires looking for a thoughtful, considered solution. The position you take hobbles the second interest. What to do? Well I suggested an IME because it forecloses abusing the LTIR for cap related purposes. Isn’t that the problem which you want to focus on? What’s the problem with that? Even if you think an IME is problematic then you at least ought to state why.
Your position isn’t wise and it’s too restrictive. I suspect if you’d have been Solomon then you would’ve cut the baby in half. Both unwise and not really a well thought out, considered much less creative solution. So try again.
BTW, spare me your invocation of the martyr syndrome. Focus on fixing the problem the right way. In this reality we call that keeping your eye on the ball.
