Toggle sidebar

NHL should remove the salary cap

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
LemonSauceD

LemonSauceD

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 31, 2015
9,220
16,022
Vancouver
Having no cap will increase the quality of teams significantly and raise not only the level of quality teams, but have much more of fan support and interest into the game itself. GMs will be able to trade and afford players they want.

To avoid teams completely super powering their roster, each team has 4 or 5 of its best players under a cap threshold. Teams can evenly distribute the money and the clause will affect their contracts for the duration of it. However, if you trade them, their clause follows them to the next club. This is to avoid teams just stacking talent and it not having an effect on the cap threshold. Effectively, NMC’s are removed at the expense of being placed on this threshold clause as teams with this space will be the only teams they are traded to.

Example: Cap Threshold limit set at $50M and minimum contract $8M for eligibility.

Blackhawks have John $10M, Ben $9M, Jim $9.4M and Owen $12M.
Total cap hit: $40.4M

Blackhawks have 1 more space and $9.6M left. They want to acquire Bill from LA. They trade for Bill. Bill’s contract is up the following year. Hawks can have Bill in their lineup at no cap hit. The following season has arrived. Bill wants $10M x 7. Hawks like Bill better than Ben, so they give him that contract. Hawks need to trade Ben to be cap compliant to threshold. Hawks need to trade Ben, who has the clause still, to a team with an available space. They trade him to the Avs for Dane, who is making less than $8M therefore they don’t need to put him on a cap threshold. Avs now have added Ben to their threshold.

Having this cap system, teams can move equivalent players freely. Teams can get star players at a limit to avoid superteams being led by teams with the biggest pockets.

Players have more flexibility and options, and teams still have meaningful ways of controlling their assets and business side of things. Removing NMC means stars can’t handicap teams with their massive contracts, which benefits the team. However, they can ask for more money. NTC’s are would still be allowed.

Thoughts?
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Pyrophorus, Lt Dan, Ban Hammered and 19 others
LQGL1yX.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: HBK27, kylek023, Casper The Soy Ghost and 39 others
Sky04 said:
Yeah and teams didn't suck for years before the cap either right? right?!?!

Terrible idea, must be a fan of a team that sucks right now.
Click to expand...

ThatGuy22 said:
That was there without the cap. Because of shitty management. No cap isn't going to fix that.
Click to expand...

It's almost like having good management is key to success no matter the playing field.

What a concept
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silky Johnson, TheSanny, Perfect_Drug and 5 others
The players would love it, the owners would be against it.

I think a compromise can be made with a 'franchise player' tag where you can designate one player who doesn't count towards the cap (but is still limited to the max 20% cap hit under the CBA). Every team gets one. The owners might agree to it because it gives them 1 extra star per team, the players would like it because the top players get paid more and there's more money to spread out on the rest of the team.

There probably would be opposition from poorer teams like Arizona, because if you end up with a superstar, you have no reason not to give them 20% under the franchise player tag. You might see more movement among star players too because you can involve your franchise players in trades and just designate another.
 
Divine said:
The players would love it, the owners would be against it.

I think a compromise can be made with a 'franchise player' tag where you can designate one player who doesn't count towards the cap (but is still limited to the max 20% cap hit under the CBA). Every team gets one. The owners might agree to it because it gives them 1 extra star per team, the players would like it because the top players get paid more and there's more money to spread out on the rest of the team.

There probably would be opposition from poorer teams like Arizona, because if you end up with a superstar, you have no reason not to give them 20% under the franchise player tag. You might see more movement among star players too because you can involve your franchise players in trades and just designate another.
Click to expand...

Honestly should be "drafted players" or 2-3 drafted players that are cap excempt. This would help all teams retain homegrown talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holocene, Mattilaus and DistantThunderRep
Sky04 said:
Honestly should be "drafted players" or 2-3 drafted players that are cap excempt. This would help all team retain homegrown talent.
Click to expand...

It would punish teams that don't tank though. Most of the superstars in this league are high draft picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ollewall
Divine said:
It would punish teams that don't tank though.
Click to expand...

Why not? Competitive teams would still have cap relief from some players allowing for more flexibility. If you don't have a homegrown superstar you can designate 1-2 players you drafted.
 
Sky04 said:
Why not? Competitive teams would still have cap relief from some players allowing for more flexibility. If you don't have a homegrown superstar you can designate 1-2 players you drafted.
Click to expand...

So it's different depending on star level? I don't know how you'd implement that. Assuming it's just 2 players that are drafted by a team that are cap-exempt, it would favour teams that finish low in the standings (rebuild/tank) more than teams that are competitive for a long time.

Example:
Matthews (1) / Marner (4)
MacKinnon (1) / Makar (4)
Stamkos (1) / Hedman (2)
McDavid (1) / Draisaitl (3)
Crosby (1) / Malkin (2)
Ovechkin (1) / Backstrom (4)

Those are all top 4 picks with each of those teams having a 1st overall.

Teams like Detroit when they kept making the playoffs, or Pittsburgh and Washington currently would be at a severe disadvantage. It incentivizes you to tank more often so you can keep superstars peaks cap-exempt. It'd make it harder to win a cup with aging players.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PainForShane
Divine said:
So it's different depending on star level? I don't know how you'd implement that. Assuming it's just 2 players that are drafted by a team that are cap-exempt, it would favour teams that finish low in the standings (rebuild/tank) more than teams that are competitive for a long time.

Example:
Matthews (1) / Marner (4)
MacKinnon (1) / Makar (4)
Stamkos (1) / Hedman (2)
McDavid (1) / Draisaitl (3)
Crosby (1) / Malkin (2)
Ovechkin (1) / Backstrom (4)

Those are all top 4 picks with each of those teams having a 1st overall.

Teams like Detroit when they kept making the playoffs, or Pittsburgh and Washington currently would be at a severe disadvantage. It incentivizes you to tank more often so you can keep superstars peaks cap-exempt. It'd make it harder to win a cup with aging players.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? A team like Pittsburgh and Washington would free up nearly 20M with Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin and Backstrom off the books, you're saying that wouldn't help them?

What you're talking about is teams who don't grow expensive talent like the NYR but even they would take a cap relief to add depth players, literally any team would to get more flexibility.

How would it incentive tanking moreso than now? Lol, you talk like teams don't want high end talent through the draft currently. Makes no sense.
 
What is so hard to understand about the cap being a measure for cost certainty for the owners and the league rather than for parity? It will never ever be repealed unless you can get the vast majority of owners to agree about not caring about runaway salaries (compared to team/league revenue), you know, one of the main things that caused the 2004-05 lockout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VivaLasVegas, VikingAv, Summer Rose and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom