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
There’s no perfect system but IMO the cap is fine now


Hard cap, buyouts, retention allows enough maneuverability to make some mistakes but not constant. It also, things like retention and otherwise “weaponizing cap space”, provides rebuilding teams with another means to acquire draft picks without having to sell every single good piece they have.


The cap does help with parity, but it was never really about parity as an above post states. That’s just how they sell it to fans after the lockout.
 
I just wish teams would get rewarded for drafting, developing and keeping their cores together. It's great for the fans and teams for identity. Teams should get % cap discounts for salaries for long-term core players. Not sure how you could make it work, but still.

Now to be honest the salary cap appears to have worked wonders for some franchises, when those teams are winning. But a team like Arizona is a train wreck and a farce. The teams who are doing the majority of the revenue sharing, should probably be given something for their troubles, extra buyout maybe.

As a fan of the Wings and Toronto, the unlimited cheque books were nice pre salary cap.
 
Just how many teams would survive in that scenario? Players getting even bigger contracts than now from teams with cash to burn and then many teams not being able financially to survive. Smaller league, less games, less interest from fans, media etc leads to a collapse......... but hey lets give it a shot!!!
 
The salary cap isn't working when there's teams like Arizona who take on bad contracts just to hit the cap floor.

If the point of the salary cap was for teams to be competitive, what the heck are the Coyotes doing?

The NHLPA needs to file a grievance against Arizona because by refusing to hit the cap floor without injured players on LTIR, there is less money for players in this league. The idea was every team has to spend at least a minimum amount of money on NHL talent to remain competitive, so Arizona took on LTIR and players with less salaries remaining than their cap hit to avoid it. That's cheating the cap just as much as someone who goes over the cap.

The cap ceiling and floor should be based on active roster, including in the playoffs. That way teams like Arizona can't just take every LTIR'ed player to avoid paying healthy NHLers, and teams like Tampa can't sit out Kucherov for the whole regular season only for him to be magically 100% healed on Game 57 of the season.
 
The salary cap isn't working when there's teams like Arizona who take on bad contracts just to hit the cap floor.

If the point of the salary cap was for teams to be competitive, what the heck are the Coyotes doing?

The NHLPA needs to file a grievance against Arizona because by refusing to hit the cap floor without injured players on LTIR, there is less money for players in this league. The idea was every team has to spend at least a minimum amount of money on NHL talent to remain competitive, so Arizona took on LTIR and players with less salaries remaining than their cap hit to avoid it. That's cheating the cap just as much as someone who goes over the cap.

The cap ceiling and floor should be based on active roster, including in the playoffs. That way teams like Arizona can't just take every LTIR'ed player to avoid paying healthy NHLers, and teams like Tampa can't sit out Kucherov for the whole regular season only for him to be magically 100% healed on Game 57 of the season.
There will always be bad teams, and owners will always want to not spend real dollars when they’re rebuilding. Pretty much asking for a lockout.


Allowing teams to acquire contracts like that helps aid rebuilds without forcing teams like Arizona to trade all (all) their good young pieces to reset, like how they’re playing better right now than even their manager probably hoped, they’ve got some good pieces there and have acquired a million picks the last few years. I’m not gonna assign previous managers decisions to the current group, they’ve got a good start on a rebuild

Selling contracts allows well run teams to extend their windows and make mistakes without auto dooming themselves (unless they make too many obviously) or keeping their window wide only a couple years. The league more than likely sees that as a good thing, teams being able to put up dominant runs like the Bolts and Hawks, and long competitive windows of the Pens and Caps etc. Sustained success is best for solid fan engagement (caps fans now vs 15 years ago are way more knowledgeable about the game on average)

You take the good with the bad. UFAs already tend to pull more than their worth and it arguably can drive up prices for depth players
 
Last edited:
Another dumb thread about ridding the salary cap.


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?

No
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Daddy Cane
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.

Because you can have cost certainty without parity?
As long as you divide 50% of HRR among the 32 teams there is nothing that says it has to be even.

The teams that contribute the most revenue easily could have a higher cap allowance than the lower. Or any possible permutations of the cap. They specifically made it for parity that’s why all teams have the exact same cap parameters.

Players don’t divide the cap evenly. There is nothing that says that the teams have to divide cap evenly other than parity
 
Do we really want to see teams suck for 10+ year straight? How’s that good for the sport or fans.
What exactly do you think happened to the non-rich teams prior to the Cap? At least then they owned player rights until 29. With the current rules, they’d have them for 3, because who cares about your next 4 1sts when you get McDavid instead at 21?
 
Bad idea and gets even worse by the time Qatar buys the Columbus Blue Jackets, Abu Dhabi buys Arizona and a group from Saudi buys Senators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Because you can have cost certainty without parity?
As long as you divide 50% of HRR among the 32 teams there is nothing that says it has to be even.

The teams that contribute the most revenue easily could have a higher cap allowance than the lower. Or any possible permutations of the cap. They specifically made it for parity that’s why all teams have the exact same cap parameters.

Players don’t divide the cap evenly. There is nothing that says that the teams have to divide cap evenly other than parity
You can’t create a situation where teams have codified higher or lower Caps, the owners are 100% the reason that won’t happen. So the only way this works is to make no Cap, but have unlimited escrow to keep player revenues at 50-57% HRR (wherever it is at right now). Which will drive escrow way way way up, which absolutely hammers the non-stars. Good luck getting the players to agree to that.
 
You can’t create a situation where teams have codified higher or lower Caps, the owners are 100% the reason that won’t happen. So the only way this works is to make no Cap, but have unlimited escrow to keep player revenues at 50-57% HRR (wherever it is at right now). Which will drive escrow way way way up, which absolutely hammers the non-stars. Good luck getting the players to agree to that.

My point was to refute the point that parity was not one of the defining features and selling points of the cap. Gary said it about 1000 times and still talks about it.

I’m not saying it IS the best suggestion for this problem but it absolutely is possible. It may be inconvenient. It may not be the best choice but it is possible. Teams find out about the cap about a week before FA.

There is nothing that says that the teams couldn’t sell cap (Arizona takes on contracts) or that

You couldn’t have the top 5 revenue teams have a 92.5 cap and the bottom have a 72.5 cap. The math works out

The players cap and salaries are not divided equally among the league or teams. Players don’t all just divide their cap equally within the teams. Why should teams divide the money equally?

Parity.
 
The owners:

F5DF3DBD-B08E-4D60-8BA7-2C890C68068F.gif
 
The salary cap was put into place to guarantee cost certainty.

Tying salaries with revenues.

The owners will never relinquish it now that they held out for a full season to get it.

And from the way the OP is worded, I don't see the players parting with destination control either. The proposed screws with both the owners' cost certainty and the players' destination control... that's gunna be a big no from both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
It’s weird that after so many years there are people don’t understand that actual function of the salary cap.

They act like the thing instituted by the owners, that gets/got decided by the owners, to protect the owners, is gonna somehow change.

Sure OP, and tickets should be free. These are things that won’t happen, so why make the argument?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howboutthempanthers
I would like to see it modified. I believe something should be done to tip the scale toward teams being able to keep the players they picked or developed.

Maybe make it so the second contract after their ELC doesn't count against the cap. Have the cap number count toward players you sign as free agents.

Maybe even have that status move with them to encourage the sign and trade scenarios you see in the NBA.

Possibly borrow the franchise tag concept and have that players number not count toward the cap but not do the salary average thing they do.

Something has to change. The idea was to make things fair, but with players coming straight off their ELC and skipping the bridge deals, all it does is make second tier players victims to younger and cheaper so the top tier guys can squeeze even more for themselves.

As far as the NHLPA, they should be on board for this, as it is a labor union where all members cast equal votes. Connor McDavids vote isn't worth more than your average player. The union needs to look out for everyone, not just the big names.
 
I just wish teams would get rewarded for drafting, developing and keeping their cores together. It's great for the fans and teams for identity. Teams should get % cap discounts for salaries for long-term core players. Not sure how you could make it work, but still.

Now to be honest the salary cap appears to have worked wonders for some franchises, when those teams are winning. But a team like Arizona is a train wreck and a farce. The teams who are doing the majority of the revenue sharing, should probably be given something for their troubles, extra buyout maybe.

As a fan of the Wings and Toronto, the unlimited cheque books were nice pre salary cap.
To be honest this is something that would be great to address. Busting up cores you built by good management because they were successful kind of sucks.

The NBA system does an ok job addressing this, it also taxes owners for keeping cores together. Would love to see the NHL try something like this as it both protects the owners and allows flexibility for teams like Tampa to stay together for a couple of years longer.
 
I would like to see it modified. I believe something should be done to tip the scale toward teams being able to keep the players they picked or developed.

Maybe make it so the second contract after their ELC doesn't count against the cap. Have the cap number count toward players you sign as free agents.

Maybe even have that status move with them to encourage the sign and trade scenarios you see in the NBA.

Possibly borrow the franchise tag concept and have that players number not count toward the cap but not do the salary average thing they do.

Something has to change. The idea was to make things fair, but with players coming straight off their ELC and skipping the bridge deals, all it does is make second tier players victims to younger and cheaper so the top tier guys can squeeze even more for themselves.

As far as the NHLPA, they should be on board for this, as it is a labor union where all members cast equal votes. Connor McDavids vote isn't worth more than your average player. The union needs to look out for everyone, not just the big names.

The PA is probably going to look at how they can get the most positions with the highest guaranteed minimum contract. Loss of cost certainty puts franchises back into potential contraction and that doesn't help the PA by losing 23 positions with each shuttering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
To be honest this is something that would be great to address. Busting up cores you built by good management because they were successful kind of sucks.

The NBA system does an ok job addressing this, it also taxes owners for keeping cores together. Would love to see the NHL try something like this as it both protects the owners and allows flexibility for teams like Tampa to stay together for a couple of years longer.

Has Tampa not kept it's core together now while using the current system?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad