Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVI: Artemi, where art thou? In NY.

[Leetch3]

How does this help the league?

who cares about the league we want to make it better for us lol

 

[mas0764]

It shouldn't cost teams anything against the cap to keep their own players.

I’ve said many times, the league needs some way to exceed the cap to re-sign your own, and also to clear off bad contracts from the cap. Pay the value in full but erase the cap hit, something like that.

The Rangers are actually in great shape moving forward though, if they can get through the next year or so, because they will have $24m coming off the cap at the same time the TV deal gets renegotiated and the cap goes up $20 million.

We will have tons of space to lock up a core that is just becoming elite together. We should compete forever.

 

[Machinehead]

New salaries. All existing contracts would take a huge hit when they are paying 25% escrow or whatever instead of 12.

If we adjusted the cap, some of these things could also be adjusted.

 

[SA16]

If we adjusted the cap, some of these things could also be adjusted.

No they can’t. You can’t have both a 50/50 split and have adjustments to escrow. The 50/50 split will never go away that was one of the major issues in the past.

 

[Machinehead]

New salaries. All existing contracts would take a huge hit when they are paying 25% escrow or whatever instead of 12.

I personally don’t think having an exception player type thing is a bad idea but the players already hate escrow and this does the opposite of solving that issue for them.

Escrow is theft but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[Kupo]

who cares about the league we want to make it better for us lol

That’s what it sounds like to me. I like the idea of the franchise tag, but 99% of what I’m hearing wouldn’t be an issue if teams managed their cap better.

 

[Kupo]

If we adjusted the cap, some of these things could also be adjusted.

Teams should be penalized for their long term signings that backfire.

If Shatty, Staal, Smith, and even Hank weren’t on the books with their albatross contracts, then we wouldn’t have an issue retaining CK.

But that irrelevant considering I don’t think signing CK to the contract he’ll command would be a good investment for us. Especially since we have Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and Buch.

You just don’t want to see Kreider moved and you’re bitching about the Cap because of it.

 

[SA16]

Exemptions would also destroy player movement. You’d never see good players become FA because their own team can offer a ton more without having to worry about cap implications. You wouldn’t see good players traded because they likely have large contracts not counting on their original teams cap that won’t work with a new team now that they need to count on their cap. All trades would turn into older player with near expiring contracts on a bad team for draft picks since draft pick value would massively increase due to the players not having cap hits.

 

[Synergy27]

I’ve said many times, the league needs some way to exceed the cap to re-sign your own, and also to clear off bad contracts from the cap. Pay the value in full but erase the cap hit, something like that.

The Rangers are actually in great shape moving forward though, if they can get through the next year or so, because they will have $24m coming off the cap at the same time the TV deal gets renegotiated and the cap goes up $20 million.

We will have tons of space to lock up a core that is just becoming elite together. We should compete forever.

I agree with this. The cap shouldn’t apply, or it should apply differently, to players you drafted yourself. The window in which you can benefit from a great draft pick at a low salary is very small, and this isn’t the NFL where players are regularly stars right away. Don’t penalize teams for good drafting, but penalize the shit out of them for getting crazy in FA.

 

[duhmetreE]

They need to limit RFAs to some extent. Only allowed 10% cap hit as RFAs or something along those lines

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't have an issue with the system the way it is aside from the tax free states having an easier time keeping good players.

The cap is what it is, its up to you not to f*** it up.

Also extend ELC's to 5 years.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

We shouldn't have to trade Kreider. We invested a decade into Kreider. He's our player.

Well they don't have to trade him. There are other ways to get around the cap.

In terms of immediate roster impact, a Kreider trade has the greatest negative effect. It also happens to be the most likely outcome, though it doesn't have to be.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

I'm trying to imagine how much more I would hate the Penguins if Crosby and Malkin didn't count against the cap for the last decade.

 

[NYR Viper]

The only thing that should adjust is tax, both federal and state should be allowed to adjust the salary cap per team.

The idea of having your home grown players not count against the cap make no sense. It would just revert back to big market teams paying their home grown all stars insane amounts of money and poaching other teams players who can’t afford similar contracts.

Also, what’s defined as home grown? Is Fox? What about Hajek? Must the player be drafted by that team or just play his first game for that team? What would happen is more Fox situations where young players decide not to sign only to become free agents and pick large market teams so that they can make more money than otherwise available.

This team has made more than a couple of poor decisions and they are paying for them. That’s the way it should work. Girardi, Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk. An aging Hank who is no longer that perennial all star player. These things will need to be dealt with either via a fortuitous trade, buyout or just time.

Also, let’s not act like the team only signed Panarin. They also acquired a RD in Trouba who they knew wanted a good amount of money long term. Those two together are going to be ~$19m.

This system has been in place for a while, the team knew the rules of the game and made their decisions. Just because it has turned out poorly doesn’t mean they can just request the rules to be changed.

 

[duhmetreE]

Escrow is theft but that's an entirely different discussion.

No. If the league is not getting 50%, they need to be compensated.

This was agreed upon, if they dont like it, they could re-address it in the talks coming up. In the end there's similar outcomes.

If they don't like paying fat escrow points, the cap will stagnate until the new TV deal comes or there's massive growth

 

[Doriva]

The NFL has a franchise tag which allows teams to retain key players.

Soccer's system is entirely based on the initial cost to bring players in but their salary doesn't really matter.

And they each have their own problems but I think exceptional players or a UFA cap are both viable in the NHL.

As somebody who works in English football I can tell you salary does in fact matter and I really don't understand the comparison in the slightest. Players and agents have a ridiculously unbalanced amount of power over teams, the FFP experiment has failed and transfer fees/wages are having a real harsh effect on second-tier leagues.

In your proposed system, as in soccer, the teams with the richest ownership would dominate the game. The rich teams would blow their own drafted talent away with huge salaries and lure away players from poorer teams with lucrative deals maximising the non-homegrown cap space, which the poorer teams couldn't match even without a cap.

 

[Machinehead]

Teams should be penalized for their long term signings that backfire.

If Shatty, Staal, Smith, and even Hank weren’t on the books with their albatross contracts, then we wouldn’t have an issue retaining CK.

But that irrelevant considering I don’t think signing CK to the contract he’ll command would be a good investment for us. Especially since we have Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and Buch.

You just don’t want to see Kreider moved and you’re *****ing about the Cap because of it.

Bullshit because I've been bitching about the cap for years.

This is about way more than Kreider. This is about our team when our core players aren't on ELC's or gift contacts.

 

[duhmetreE]

Hard cap is fine. 50/50 is fine. Escrow is fine.

They need to limit the young players. If the idea is parity, then teams need to be able to afford their young talent for longer. Going to 14% cap after their ELC is bad IMO. A longer ELC would help but I dont think they will go for it. I'd just restrict the 2nd contract to 3-4 year deals, 8-10% max.

 

[Machinehead]

As somebody who works in English football I can tell you salary does in fact matter and I really don't understand the comparison in the slightest. Players and agents have a ridiculously unbalanced amount of power over teams, the FFP experiment has failed and transfer fees/wages are having a real harsh effect on second-tier leagues.

In your proposed system, as in soccer, the teams with the richest ownership would dominate the game. The rich teams would blow their own drafted talent away with huge salaries and lure away players from poorer teams with lucrative deals maximising the non-homegrown cap space, which the poorer teams couldn't match even without a cap.

There has to be something better than what the NHL does currently. The product is boring.

 

[Machinehead]

Hard cap is fine. 50/50 is fine. Escrow is fine.

They need to limit the young players. If the idea is parity, then teams need to be able to afford their young talent for longer. Going to 14% cap after their ELC is bad IMO. A longer ELC would help but I dont think they will go for it. I'd just restrict the 2nd contract to 3-4 year deals, 8-10% max.

Guys in the prime of their career who haven't already made a living on the game should be getting the most money.

They need to limit guys getting paid for what they did ten years ago if they want to limit salary.

 

[duhmetreE]

There has to be something better than what the NHL does currently. The product is boring.

The only other would be no cap but luxury taxes.

 

[Machinehead]

The only other would be no cap but luxury taxes.

It's worked in baseball. There's parity but there's also really good teams that emerge every year.

 

[Mikos87]

Send a player to the AHL doesn't bury all of their salary. It only covers part of it, which is adjusted every year. I think it currently only covers around $1MM on the contract.

I know.

Names is at 4. Manning is at 2.2. You bury $975K.

You clear 2.8M in that scenario

 

[True Blue]

Probably a nothing player like he's always been. He was scoring on 1/4 shots with the Rangers.

Strome took his game to a different level under Quinn. Not just in the tangible points but in the way he played the game. He has always had the talent. There is no denying that. Could be he is another player from whom Quinn extracted his potential from. Maybe not. But it is certainly worth a see.

As for Staal, come one. You know full well that the elder statesman in the room deserves respect. Full stop. The best would be if they can speak and his playing time the amount of games he gets dressed for) gets reduced.

 

[Tawnos]

No they can’t. You can’t have both a 50/50 split and have adjustments to escrow. The 50/50 split will never go away that was one of the major issues in the past.

Sure you can. The biggest reason escrow is so high is because teams on average spend over the midpoint, which is supposed to represent the 50% mark. The cap acts as a magnet. If you reduced the amount that the cap is above the midpoint, you also end up reducing how much teams spend over the midpoint. That would, in turn, reduce how much the players end up giving up in escrow.

That being said, an exceptional status contract will never work. In order to accommodate it and maintain cost certainty, you’d have to reduce the cap further... which really defeats the purpose. I mean, what’s the difference between an $80m cap and a $70m cap with an available exceptional status contract?