NHL should remove the salary cap

[Tripledeke333]

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

The issue is that to succeed market dynamics force teams through “boom and bust” cycles where they have to “go for it” and sign stupid contracts (and trade prospects) during their window and then have to spend years tanking when the window closes.

It certainly would be awful to be a Chicago Blackhawks fan now, knowing that the team is going to be horrendous for 5 years minimum.

While the cap is supposed to increase parity, in some ways it has the opposite affect, as it creates teams that tank for long periods of time.

I don’t support a full elimination of the cap but some sort of “franchise tag”, “luxury tax” or other alleviation system would be beneficial.

 

[Tripledeke333]

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

Tampa has done a good job, but it is a lot easier to keep your core together when you are located in a tax free, nice weather state on the east coast of the USA.

 

[Siludin]

Oof,
Wonder why the NBA, MLB and NFL don’t do that.

Don't got the cojones.

Edit: cojones, but also cajones for the cojones.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Don't got the cojones.

Edit: cojones, but also cajones for the cojones.

Or possibly because not a feasible plan.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

The cap is fine.

If I could make a change, it would be to allow teams to place players on LTSAR (Long-Term Suck-Ass Reserve) where the teams must continue to pay players their contracts, but their contracts would no longer count against the Cap (and of course these players are done for the season, unless traded). To do this, a team would also have to pay a tax equal to 50% of the player's Cap hit for that season and every season the player remains on LTSAR, which money would then be distributed to the other 31 teams, and those 31 other teams can use the money to increase their own Cap in that season.

Basically, a team can move a player off its Cap by paying a "stupid tax" for having made the contract in the first place. The team can either deal the player, or keep paying the stupid tax every season until the player's contract finally expires. The other teams benefit by receiving cash and increases in their own Cap space; might be a small amount for just one player, but might be significant in the aggregate if a lot of teams end up paying the stupid tax to get rid of albatross contracts.

The richer teams with little brains who stuck themselves with bad contracts would thus end up subsidizing the poorer teams with bigger brains that avoided bad contracts.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Just read the first paragraph. But no.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The cap is fine.

If I could make a change, it would be to allow teams to place players on LTSAR (Long-Term Suck-Ass Reserve) where the teams must continue to pay players their contracts, but their contracts would no longer count against the Cap (and of course these players are done for the season, unless traded). To do this, a team would also have to pay a tax equal to 50% of the player's Cap hit for that season and every season the player remains on LTSAR, which money would then be distributed to the other 31 teams, and those 31 other teams can use the money to increase their own Cap in that season.

Basically, a team can move a player off its Cap by paying a "stupid tax" for having made the contract in the first place. The team can either deal the player, or keep paying the stupid tax every season until the player's contract finally expires. The other teams benefit by receiving cash and increases in their own Cap space; might be a small amount for just one player, but might be significant in the aggregate if a lot of teams end up paying the stupid tax to get rid of albatross contracts.

The richer teams with little brains who stuck themselves with bad contracts would thus end up subsidizing the poorer teams with bigger brains that avoided bad contracts.

This still costs the players via escrow. Not to mention, it clearly identifies players deemed to be on LTSAR and the NHLPA isn't about to allow players to be stigmatized like that.

What are the players getting in exchange for this besides "not a goddamn thing at all?"

 

[SUX2BU]

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?

 

[CamPopplestone]

Regardless if it would be better, it's a moot point. I don't think many fans understand just how hard the owners fought for a salary cap when it was introduced. I don't see them wanting it gone. We're already seeing average salaries of players explode the past few years. With no cap, it would skyrocket and they don't want that.

 

[Bandit]

Hard to believe all the billionaire owners didn’t consult “LemonSauceD” before they imposed the cap.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

I don’t think it’s as favorable for the big market teams as their fans think. The decade before the cap was dominated by Dallas, Detroit, New Jersey and Colorado, not New York, Montreal and Toronto. The biggest difference makers were retained by the teams that drafted them. The big market advantage only kicked in for those tier 2 UFA’s that weren’t going to lead a team to a cup anyway. And yeah, that still put a hurting on the mid market/mid standings teams which wasn’t great for the league’s financial health overall. The cap forced those big market teams to be patient and do real rebuilds which is the only reason they’re in a position to complain about the cap.

NYR and Toronto always had the highest payrolls.
And Dallas is the 5the largest city in the country. And NJ represents the NYC metro. Every city you mentioned, besides Denver, is top 10 in the nation in population.

The 2nd half of your post hits the nail on the head. The league thrives when all teams thrive, which they can and do in a salary cap world. 20 years ago only 10-15 teams could realistically compete, so it's hard for a league to thrive when half the franchises can barely turn a profit.

 

[tucker3434]

NYR and Toronto always had the highest payrolls.
And Dallas is the 5the largest city in the country. And NJ represents the NYC metro. Every city you mentioned, besides Denver, is top 10 in the nation in population.

The 2nd half of your post hits the nail on the head. The league thrives when all teams thrive, which they can and do in a salary cap world. 20 years ago only 10-15 teams could realistically compete, so it's hard for a league to thrive when half the franchises can barely turn a profit.

I probably should’ve used richest rather than big market. Atlanta is a top 10 metro area in the US. That didn’t translate to revenue or being a big spender on July 1. None of those 90’s early 00’s teams could realistically compete with Toronto’s money. But they were successful on the ice because drafting and good management. That’s always going to be true unless the league does something crazy like making UFA age 18 and max term 1 year.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

cap caters to teams that barely make any money anyways. teams that actually make profit cant use it to their advantage. too many teams in the league anyways, Id be fine with some dying

 

[VivaLasVegas]

This still costs the players via escrow. Not to mention, it clearly identifies players deemed to be on LTSAR and the NHLPA isn't about to allow players to be stigmatized like that.

What are the players getting in exchange for this besides "not a goddamn thing at all?"

As long as the players are getting paid (or with these players, overpaid) on their contracts, they shouldn't get paid any more, and who really cares what a very small minority of players think? Players are employees, hired chattel like cattle, not bosses or owners. Bad employees get fired, but these guys would merely be shuffled off to the storage locker until they are traded or their contracts expire.

 

[SK13]

The single shittiest opinion in hockey

 

[Ted Hoffman]

As long as the players are getting paid (or with these players, overpaid) on their contracts, they shouldn't get paid any more, and who really cares what a very small minority of players think?

All the players, who could be subject to it. Also: all the players who'd see teams spend that extra cap space, meaning the extra spending comes out of their pockets via escrow.

As long as the 50/50 split exists - and no, the owners are not giving that up; if anything, they'd probably like to inch it back to 49% like the NFL has - every idea that purports to "create more cap space" by its very nature allows for additional spending, which directly impacts all the players because they all have to pay for it to get their collective share back to 50/50. The owners don't bear any of the cost of that; the players bear it all. That, along with other things I and others have pointed out, is why every idea that "increases spending" is going to be DOA with the players. They collectively gain nothing from it.

I'm sure offering the idea and commenting that they're "hired chattel like cattle" and talking about them being "shuffled off to the storage locker" would be really endearing to them when it's brought up in CBA negotiations, though. What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Sniper99]

having the cap is just fine, get a GM who knows how to work the cap,

 

[TampaBayLightning]

I agree! I also think the team that wins the Cup should get first pick in the draft.

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

These threads nearly always make for a good guessing game - is the OP a Leafs or Rangers fan?

Clearly the Coyotes they swim in money since they have a better % of seat occupied

 

[OilersFanatics505]

NHL is a budget league compared to the other top sports. They don’t need a cap because of how much money they draw, even their shitty franchises.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

All the players, who could be subject to it. Also: all the players who'd see teams spend that extra cap space, meaning the extra spending comes out of their pockets via escrow.

As long as the 50/50 split exists - and no, the owners are not giving that up; if anything, they'd probably like to inch it back to 49% like the NFL has - every idea that purports to "create more cap space" by its very nature allows for additional spending, which directly impacts all the players because they all have to pay for it to get their collective share back to 50/50. The owners don't bear any of the cost of that; the players bear it all. That, along with other things I and others have pointed out, is why every idea that "increases spending" is going to be DOA with the players. They collectively gain nothing from it.

I'm sure offering the idea and commenting that they're "hired chattel like cattle" and talking about them being "shuffled off to the storage locker" would be really endearing to them when it's brought up in CBA negotiations, though. What's the worst that could happen?

Okay, points well taken, and only noting that the NHL would of course hire highly paid counsel who would use more flattering terms ..... even if they mean the same thing. The "shuffled off to the storage locker" would become a "professional sabbatical", etc.

 

[Leafs87]

Zero owner would ever be on board for this.

I disagree. I’d imagine the ones decking would outweighs the ones agreeing, but zero is definitely an oxymoron

 

[Voight]

If anything shitty GMs will keep their jobs even longer without a cap.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I disagree. I’d imagine the ones decking would outweighs the ones agreeing, but zero is definitely an oxymoron

This is going to surprise some people, but the owners who most wanted a salary cap were the ones whose teams generate a shitload of revenue - because they knew if there was a mechanism to control spending, they could finally realize operating profits with their teams, which then meant money flowed into their pockets instead of the players' pockets.

They're also the ones who'll fight getting rid of a salary cap the most.

 

[Drij]

Do we really want to see teams suck for 10+ year straight? How’s that good for the sport or fans.

I mean teams sucked for 20+ years back when there was no salary cap so...