Replace Salary Cap with Luxury Cap?

[ShaneinTpa]

I know why the hard cap was put into play and the different reasons were well covered in this thread. However the luxury tax proposal is just circumvention at its finest and serves to much better protect equity over equality .

Let’s face it, were it not for poor drafting and/or bad trades, teams would not so readily succumb to the pressure of bad contracts. And we would not be once again attempting to change the rules to suit the circumstances that follow

I believe it’s time that this league began the process of rewarding teams for better player scrutiny, instead of placating some GM’s who often appear like they could not find their ass with both hands.

In the current CBA, teams are given the opportunity to sign their own free agents to an additional 8th year. Besides the fact that doesn’t always work, it promotes the longer contracts, many of which should never have been offered in the first place. And, those same contracts are largely responsible for leading to the discussion in this thread.

The hard salary cap for all the good it does at times punishes teams that draft well. If teams were given a form of cap bonus for re-signing their own RFA (e.g. $500K) and perhaps more for re-signing them again once they reach UFA status, (e.g. $1M) they would not be forced to lose as many players that were products of their own development to teams that cannot seemingly “grow their own.” Transversely, if a team signs a free agent, they would be charged a similar recapture cap hit (e.g. $500K).

Does the NHL PA like this? That would remain to be seen because there are some who would see this as limiting the opportunity for players to move to different teams. It would however force all organizations to be equally effective in their jobs or to fall behind. It would also promote more hockey trades because people would be less apt to give up their draft picks. In the end, fans would also win because it’s a lot easier to support a team that isn’t forced to constantly change its identity.

 

[ShaneinTpa]

Teams would still have to pay the player's salary, so they're still being penalized for the mistake - plus they now have to pay the replacement player as well

Gotcha, so read my later thread and tell me what you think of that

 

[Deegee]

Does anyone think this could work in the NHL instead of the current hard cap?

No.

I wish fans of large market teams would stop suggesting this. It's so tiring.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

A salary cap is fine, but teams should be allowed to waive players and eliminate their salary from their cap

You mean, like they can do now once the player clears waivers and is assigned outside the NHL? (Unless the cap hit is over $925k, in which case the excess over that counts - which is stupid and mostly punitive to teams IMO and possibly what you're alluding to, but I'll let you clarify this.)

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

i have always been a fan of the idea of soft cap and revenue sharing for teams under it but the GMs and Owners have voted it down several times. Maybe it will become a thing in 2 or 3 lockouts from now but i doubt it.

 

[Neutrinos]

You mean, like they can do now once the player clears waivers and is assigned outside the NHL? (Unless the cap hit is over $925k, in which case the excess over that counts - which is stupid and mostly punitive to teams IMO and possibly what you're alluding to, but I'll let you clarify this.)

Oilers release Lucic. His salary is removed from their cap. The Oilers still pay him his yearly salary and bonuses.

 

[fsanford]

Here's your million dollar idea right here:

You have a soft cap at say 82 mil and a "hard" cap at 88 or 90mil.

You are allowed to exceed the soft cap, however doing so will cost you your first round pick for the year. This will remove the pick entirely from the draft, so if 5 teams go over the cap then there's only 26 picks in the first round. This will benefit teams that stay under the cap, as now late first players become early seconds.

Exceeding the soft cap 3 years in a row will cost you your 1st and 2nd round picks.

NHL saved. Boom.

I like this, a bit more punitive as it should be.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Oilers release Lucic. His salary is removed from their cap. The Oilers still pay him his yearly salary and bonuses.

If they release him, why would they keep paying him?

 

[Neutrinos]

If they release him, why would they keep paying him?

Because they have to honour the contract

 

[BlueBaron]

"Let's ignore the stated goals of the NHL and go back to a system that favors big market teams" a fan of a big market team.

Yup I'm all for it. Let's do it.

Gary will say no though. Op is not getting that even though small markets will get kickbacks they still won't be able to put forward 150 million rosters like Toronto and NYR can. It's great for us but you think Melnyk is going to spend his luxury tax check or pocket it? Sucks to be Ottawa right? This is why it fails.

 

[Shrimper]

Would be better if NHL was more like NBA. Like if you hear Crosby and MacKinnon are discussing to start a superteam like Kyrie and Durant

Thankfully the NHL isn't more like the NBA and is a lot more parity driven and enjoyable as a league.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Because they have to honour the contract

They have to? Really?

I'm pretty sure you're missing something here.

 

[Neutrinos]

They have to? Really?

I'm pretty sure you're missing something here.

Lucic's contract is guaranteed, so, yes, even if released they would still have to pay him his salary

I'm simply saying that it should no longer count against their cap

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Lucic's contract is guaranteed, so, yes, even if released they would still have to pay him his salary

I'm simply saying that it should no longer count against their cap

If it's guaranteed, then they can't just release him because they feel like it. "Release" of a player requires a strict set of criteria to be satisfied [which I won't get into; read the SPC for details] and him clearing unconditional waivers to terminate the contract and the rights contained in it that enjoin both sides. If he's released, the team has no further obligation to the player and the player no further obligation to the team; it's not "the team can cut the guy loose, but they have all kinds of contractual rights to him and he has none to them." It especially makes no sense to pin the Oilers for the full contract and all the salary due while he's free to sign with anyone else for whatever he can get and double-dip, especially when the Oilers don't get any use of his future services.

If you were to argue, "the Oilers should be charged with the difference between what he would have made and what he makes with someone else" then maybe I could buy it - but then see my comment above about what "release" means. Put another way: if you try floating that idea past the owners, they'll shoot it down before you can finish the thought.

 

[Neutrinos]

If it's guaranteed, then they can't just release him because they feel like it. "Release" of a player requires a strict set of criteria to be satisfied [which I won't get into; read the SPC for details] and him clearing unconditional waivers to terminate the contract and the rights contained in it that enjoin both sides. If he's released, the team has no further obligation to the player and the player no further obligation to the team; it's not "the team can cut the guy loose, but they have all kinds of contractual rights to him and he has none to them." It especially makes no sense to pin the Oilers for the full contract and all the salary due while he's free to sign with anyone else for whatever he can get and double-dip, especially when the Oilers don't get any use of his future services.

If you were to argue, "the Oilers should be charged with the difference between what he would have made and what he makes with someone else" then maybe I could buy it - but then see my comment above about what "release" means. Put another way: if you try floating that idea past the owners, they'll shoot it down before you can finish the thought.

I'm saying that teams should be allowed to release a player and not have their salary count against the cap

It's a suggestion

If you don't like the suggestion, fine. But there's nothing to argue about

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Ok, fine - it's a suggestion. Never going to happen, I prefer to deal with suggestions that have a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but go ahead and dream away.

 

[mouser]

Lucic's contract is guaranteed, so, yes, even if released they would still have to pay him his salary

I'm simply saying that it should no longer count against their cap

So in other words Lucic get paid, then Edmonton pays another player to replace him since they have the cap room.

End result, all the other players in the NHL forfeit a % of their paycheck vis escrow so Edmonton can remove Lucic from their cap.

The players are already upset with escrow. Why would they think it’s a good idea to allow that?

What you’re basically proposing is unlimited Compliance Buyouts. Not a good thing for the league or players.

 

[Neutrinos]

So in other words Lucic get paid, then Edmonton pays another player to replace him since they have the cap room.

End result, all the other players in the NHL forfeit a % of their paycheck vis escrow so Edmonton can remove Lucic from their cap.

The players are already upset with escrow. Why would they think it’s a good idea to allow that?

What you’re basically proposing is unlimited Compliance Buyouts. Not a good thing for the league or players.

Provided he signed on with another team, Lucic would actually make more money each year

Oilers pay Lucic 6 million a year. He then signs with another team for 1 million, so he's now making 7 million a year

 

[mouser]

I know why the hard cap was put into play and the different reasons were well covered in this thread. However the luxury tax proposal is just circumvention at its finest and serves to much better protect equity over equality .

Let’s face it, were it not for poor drafting and/or bad trades, teams would not so readily succumb to the pressure of bad contracts. And we would not be once again attempting to change the rules to suit the circumstances that follow

I believe it’s time that this league began the process of rewarding teams for better player scrutiny, instead of placating some GM’s who often appear like they could not find their ass with both hands.

In the current CBA, teams are given the opportunity to sign their own free agents to an additional 8th year. Besides the fact that doesn’t always work, it promotes the longer contracts, many of which should never have been offered in the first place. And, those same contracts are largely responsible for leading to the discussion in this thread.

The hard salary cap for all the good it does at times punishes teams that draft well. If teams were given a form of cap bonus for re-signing their own RFA (e.g. $500K) and perhaps more for re-signing them again once they reach UFA status, (e.g. $1M) they would not be forced to lose as many players that were products of their own development to teams that cannot seemingly “grow their own.” Transversely, if a team signs a free agent, they would be charged a similar recapture cap hit (e.g. $500K).

Does the NHL PA like this? That would remain to be seen because there are some who would see this as limiting the opportunity for players to move to different teams. It would however force all organizations to be equally effective in their jobs or to fall behind. It would also promote more hockey trades because people would be less apt to give up their draft picks. In the end, fans would also win because it’s a lot easier to support a team that isn’t forced to constantly change its identity.

Drafting well is its own reward, not a “punishment”. Drafting poorly is the real punishment.

Was Pittsburgh really “drafting well” by getting Crosby and Malkin #1 and #2? Was Chicago really drafting well by getting Kane and Toews #1 and #3?

And no the PA wouldn’t be that happy about it because it treats players differently based on which team they were drafted by or traded to—something outside the player control.

 

[mouser]

Provided he signed on with another team, Lucic would actually make more money each year

Oilers pay Lucic 6 million a year. He then signs with another team for 1 million, so he's now making 7 million a year

You skipped over my part explaining how the players who aren’t Lucic lose money.

 

[me2]

Provided he signed on with another team, Lucic would actually make more money each year

Oilers pay Lucic 6 million a year. He then signs with another team for 1 million, so he's now making 7 million a year

1. Rich teams will drive up the prices for UFAs knowing they can make it disappear if it if it goes bad
2. Rich teams can use contract length for cap evasion, how about instead of 3 x $6m, we give you 7 x $4, you leave after 3 we keep paying you.
3. Rich teams will rob poor teams of picks and prospects by taking their bad contracts and burying them consequence free.

If Edmonton wants to make Lucic go away use a normal buyout. Next time don't pay in signing bonuses.

 

[Razz]

Given all the major contracts are all signing bonuses, I don't see how the league has all that much leverage come the next cba to keep the hard cap. The players have negated the lockout impact.

The hard salary cap sticking around is not a given.

 

[Neutrinos]

1. Rich teams will drive up the prices for UFAs knowing they can make it disappear if it if it goes bad
2. Rich teams can use contract length for cap evasion, how about instead of 3 x $6m, we give you 7 x $4, you leave after 3 we keep paying you.
3. Rich teams will rob poor teams of picks and prospects by taking their bad contracts and burying them consequence free.

If Edmonton wants to make Lucic go away use a normal buyout. Next time don't pay in signing bonuses.

1. There's still a salary cap. A team like Toronto wouldn't be able to pay Marner 15 million a season just because they're rich. They can only spend to the cap
2. Why would a player agree to that? If the team chooses not to release them, then what?
3. As it stands right now, poor teams rob rich teams of picks and prospects by taking their bad contracts

 

[DCHabitant]

Here's your million dollar idea right here:

You have a soft cap at say 82 mil and a "hard" cap at 88 or 90mil.

You are allowed to exceed the soft cap, however doing so will cost you your first round pick for the year. This will remove the pick entirely from the draft, so if 5 teams go over the cap then there's only 26 picks in the first round. This will benefit teams that stay under the cap, as now late first players become early seconds.

Exceeding the soft cap 3 years in a row will cost you your 1st and 2nd round picks.

NHL saved. Boom.

That's.....pretty interesting actually.

 

[dratbunnies]

1. There's still a salary cap. A team like Toronto wouldn't be able to pay Marner 15 million a season just because they're rich. They can only spend to the cap
2. Why would a player agree to that? If the team chooses not to release them, then what?
3. As it stands right now, poor teams rob rich teams of picks and prospects by taking their bad contracts

1. There is still a salary cap, but it removes almost all the risk of signing players for big market teams. Not sure if Perry still has anything left in the tank? No problem! Sign him to something that would be reasonable if he _did_ have something left in the tank. If he doesn't, just buy him out/release him and no harm done. Same thing every year to pick up all the reward with basically none of the risk (or at least, much less risk than a small market team would face).
2. Fair enough, it still seems possible, but I do see your point.
3. There is nothing stopping rich teams from robbing poor teams of their bad contracts. That was absolutely the leafs schtick a few years back, wasn't it?