NHL should remove the salary cap

[Very Stable Genius]

Set a soft cap, Luxury tax the shit out of those who go over, and redistribute the money to poorer teams.

 

[Channelcat]

No. And it's not happening ever.

 

[SML2]

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

Have they not pulled off some sketchball maneuvers along the way?

 

[All Mod Cons]

Two tiered system.

Promotion and relegation between Division 1 and 2

Different salary cap floors and ceilings in each division.

Teams that want to spend can do so in Div 1. The poor teams can hang out in Div 2 until they're ready to increase their spending.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I am a fan of a team that employs Chuck Fletcher. So I am going to have to say no to this.

 

[Love]

The salary cap cultivates a league where the best general manager wins. If you’re smart, savvy, and disciplined you will be rewarded. Having no cap rewards the richest owner.

I would rather have a league where competence is rewarded not wealth.

 

[Rsswmu]

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

They have creatively used a loophole we all agree should be patched and had to let go of their entire third line after winning a cup.

Both of these actions weren’t because they made bad signings. They were punishment for good management. This is the biggest flaw in the system and it would be great to address it.

 

[Habs 4 Life]

The salary cap is fine, maybe just have it 10 to 15 million higher with salaries going up.

 

[Peasy]

Lol no. Live with the shitty contracts you sign. The cap has been around for 15+ years and moron GMs still don't know how to manage it. That's on them signing 4th liners for 4M a year

I think it has more to do with GM's personally not feeling the consequences of their own actions.

If a player is demanding 7/8 years, eventually a GM just might give it to them because why not? By the time the contract is up, its likely that GM won't even be employed by that team, and if they let them walk then it hurts their team currently. GM's dont have to worry about signing these awful contracts because the NHL just recycles positions over and over again.

Look at Chuck Fletcher. This dude has accomplished nothing, yet somehow still has a GM job and has just completely destroyed Philly.

Look at the contracts Lou signs, man doesnt give af about 5+ years from now.

Owners would have to put their foot down about these trash contracts but that will likely never happen.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Two tiered system.

Promotion and relegation between Division 1 and 2

Different salary cap floors and ceilings in each division.

Teams that want to spend can do so in Div 1. The poor teams can hang out in Div 2 until they're ready to increase their spending.

No. Just no.

 

[Gustave]

It’s weird that after so many years there are people don’t understand that actual function of the salary cap.

It's because they weren't around pre-strike. They have no idea what it was like to be a fan back in the day. The revenue sharing is a necessity, not a problem. 6 teams that would spend, 24 that would just throw in the towel. I'm not going back that's for sure.

 

[All Mod Cons]

No. Just no.

Yes. If teams like Arizona can't be f***ed, let's not have them drag down the whole league. Get them in a lower league until they can be arsed.

 

[BLNY]

I think we get one of these once a month. Maybe more?

 

[cowboy82nd]

Yes. If teams like Arizona can't be f***ed, let's not have them drag down the whole league. Get them in a lower league until they can be arsed.

If Arizona goes to a "lower league". who do they play? Who is going to replace Arizona in the NHL? This is NOT like soccer, you don't have multiple teams waiting in the wings to get a chance to play with the big boys.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Every time someone proposes a change to the cap for some franchise exemption or discounted cap hit for "home-grown" players - and I've seen these ideas on a fairly regular basis since the salary cap came around in 2005 - I ask a really simple question:

Why would the players agree to it?

Because every one of those ideas will increase the amount spent on players, which increases the likelihood [certainty] they're getting paid more than their 50/50 share of HRR, which means they all pay even more back to the owners via escrow. It would also be a benefit that

* In the "franchise player" idea, only accrues to a small number of players - all on teams who'd spend to the cap anyway​

* In the "hometown discount" idea, would accrue to some larger number of players but would instantly disappear once a player was traded from his drafting team to another team, something especially pre-UFA the player can't control. Being traded under this idea would also instantly constrain the player's ability to earn the same salary elsewhere, thus putting up obstacles to the movement of players.​

​

Either way, it means that $ paid to players would exceed $ accrued under the cap. If teams on average spent to the midpoint, then players wouldn't have escrow; teams frequently spend over that - a number of teams this year are at or near the cap - and that means the players have to pay back via escrow. Paying the players more than gets accrued under the cap only aggravates that situation.

I know people jump all over these ideas because they're fun, exciting, whatever. At least try to spend 5 minutes thinking about how the idea impacts both the players and the owners, and then ask yourself: why would they agree to it? That should shoot down a number of these ideas that keep coming up with semi-regularity.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

How? Who are the super stars in Europe waiting to sign should the salary cap be removed?

Or by "teams", do you mean only the handful of rich teams, who would significantly decrease the quality of all other teams by grabbing their best players?

That didn’t even happen in the pre-cap era

 

[Jumptheshark]

Oh look this thread again

 

[GeeoffBrown]

The OP is weird because no matter what system you use, there will be bad teams. Not only that, but poorer teams have a chance to be bad for way more than 10 years

 

[easton117]

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.

With RFA rules they kind of do already though.

What has hampered some teams is the second contracts being dished out like candy to players who don’t have any leverage whatsoever.

That’s on the GM’s. And probably some owners telling them they don’t want a potential ticket seller sitting in the rafters when the next season starts.

 

[JetKing]

I guess some people have either forgotten or weren't old enough yet to remember what the league was like before 2005 when some teams were nothing more than training camps for players, before signing a big contract with a rich team. Those teams that were not rich at all were basically in perpetual rebuild as they kept trading their talent for picks and prospects. Pretty sure the cap is here to stay.

 

[Mez]

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.

No cap means some teams will suck forever because of location/money. And some teams will dominate for ever....no thanks.

 

[Mr Positive]

I like the salary cap, and I say that as a fan of a team that is negatively impacted by it.

It adds a dimension of difficulty to winning the cup. It makes the armchair GM appeal of the sport more interesting as well.

Also, it saves teams from themselves often. In the pre cap days, the nice thing was that you could have those super teams that we don't see anymore (arguably it is a good thing that we don't have them but whatever), but very often there were rich teams that tried to buy their way to being that, and was a very ugly thing. I'm thinking Toronto and to a bigger extent, the Rangers.

Hockey seems to lend itself very well to a salary cap. It forces a focus on youth and slow building, and it avoids having teams being stuck in absolute obscurity with no hope. I don't think hockey could really supplant the NBA, or NFL in terms of casual fan awareness so I don't think the NHL could do well in an environment where there are only a few teams who excel.

 

[All Mod Cons]

If Arizona goes to a "lower league". who do they play? Who is going to replace Arizona in the NHL? This is NOT like soccer, you don't have multiple teams waiting in the wings to get a chance to play with the big boys.

Other broke teams like the Sens, Panthers, Blue Jackets, etc.

The NHL, for the most part is dying on it's arse. Broke as f*** teams sponging of about 8 teams that pay for the league to exist.

Allow those teams that can and want to spend more to drag you out of poverty.

The other benefit of a two tiered system is you'll actually get fans cheering on their team to win. Only in North America do half the fanbases cheer for loses every year.

 

[All Mod Cons]

I like the salary cap, and I say that as a fan of a team that is negatively impacted by it.

It adds a dimension of difficulty to winning the cup. It makes the armchair GM appeal of the sport more interesting as well.

Also, it saves teams from themselves often. In the pre cap days, the nice thing was that you could have those super teams that we don't see anymore (arguably it is a good thing that we don't have them but whatever), but very often there were rich teams that tried to buy their way to being that, and was a very ugly thing. I'm thinking Toronto and to a bigger extent, the Rangers.

Hockey seems to lend itself very well to a salary cap. It forces a focus on youth and slow building, and it avoids having teams being stuck in absolute obscurity with no hope. I don't think hockey could really supplant the NBA, or NFL in terms of casual fan awareness so I don't think the NHL could do well in an environment where there are only a few teams who excel.

It forces teams to actively tank while season(s). It drives down the quality of the league's product.

Like, was there a point of Chicago, Columbus, San Jose, Anaheim or Arizona in entering a tram this year?

What's the point in them and for their fans this year?

 

[cowboy82nd]

Other broke teams like the Sens, Panthers, Blue Jackets, etc.

The NHL, for the most part is dying on it's arse. Broke as f*** teams sponging of about 8 teams that pay for the league to exist.

Allow those teams that can and want to spend more to drag you out of poverty.

The other benefit of a two tiered system is you'll actually get fans cheering on their team to win. Only in North America do half the fanbases cheer for loses every year.

They cheer for losses for the draft, not the cap.