Speculation: Roster Building Thread: New Season Edition

[Mikachu93]

This is 100%. The owners are shortsighted. More cap space = the ability to put a better product out on the ice every night = more winning (if built correctly) = more people want to watch.

My guess is that there are many owners who do understand this but the reality is that a higher cap ceiling would mean the teams in attractive markets (New York, Toronto, Florida/Tampa, LA etc) will be the ones reaping the rewards of extra space and not the small market teams, who just will see it as more money spent trying to keep their own players with a lower chance of bringing in premier talent from the outside.

 

[LOFIN]

The cap itself needs to change. Teams are punished for drafting well and building good teams. Install exceptions into the cap for team's own players. Have them pay with money or draft picks or whatever. Not for anyone signed in FA, but for players the teams have raised as their own.

100%. The most annoying thing in the NHL is the fact that it's so hard to keep a good team together. Conventional wisdom would say to you that the salary cap is there to prevent big teams from snatching everyone in the open market. What it actually does, is punish organizations for building good teams via drafting, trading and some signings by forcing them to throw good players overboard. Case in point, Chicago, Tampa, Colorado.

Some sort of cap relief should be included for players that you have drafted, or have been with the organization for say +5 years.

 

[NYR Viper]

Doesn't the NHL agree to cut the players in on 50% of overall revenue? What goes in to this number? Is it top line, so just the players get half of ticket sales, advertisement money, TV money, gambling money, etc? Or do the owners already take out their anticipated expenses (managment, coaches, trainers, PR people, marketing, etc)?

 

[Fitzy]

100%. The most annoying thing in the NHL is the fact that it's so hard to keep a good team together. Conventional wisdom would say to you that the salary cap is there to prevent big teams from snatching everyone in the open market. What it actually does, is punish organizations for building good teams via drafting, trading and some signings by forcing them to throw good players overboard. Case in point, Chicago, Tampa, Colorado.

Some sort of cap relief should be included for players that you have drafted, or have been with the organization for say +5 years.

As RFA contracts have been increasingly looking like UFA contracts in terms of AAV vs contribution- I feel the same way. Drafting/developing well doesn't do as much for you when you have to pay Adam Fox almost as much as he'd get as a UFA to keep him around at age 22.

There should be some sort of discount for homegrown RFA age players. Maybe make their salaries count less against the cap? But that opens all sorts of room for loopholes unfortunately.

 

[IDvsEGO]

Doesn't the NHL agree to cut the players in on 50% of overall revenue? What goes in to this number? Is it top line, so just the players get half of ticket sales, advertisement money, TV money, gambling money, etc? Or do the owners already take out their anticipated expenses (managment, coaches, trainers, PR people, marketing, etc)?

It’s hockey related revenue so any of the things you mentioned except for gambling money likely.
And owner expenses are to come out of the owner share. They can do whatever they want with it, why teams like rangers and leafs spend a ton on non capped resources and it’s a true advantage.

 

[NYR Viper]

It’s hockey related revenue so any of the things you mentioned except for gambling money likely.
And owner expenses are to come out of the owner share. They can do whatever they want with it, why teams like rangers and leafs spend a ton on non capped resources and it’s a true advantage.

Okay that makes sense. So the owners take 50% and then must cover their own expenses beyond that. I wonder what they actually pocket at the end of the day, maybe half that? Maybe less?

I ask because I routinely see people calling out owners for taking 50% of the share but it appears that's really not the case.

 

[LOFIN]

There should be some sort of discount for homegrown RFA age players. Maybe make their salaries count less against the cap? But that opens all sorts of room for loopholes unfortunately.

I'm not going to pretend I have a solution for this issue, that would be up for other people to think about. But in essence, sportsfans in general like super teams and dynasties. The way NHL salary cap is implemented, basically means that as soon as you become good you have to start dismantling your team. Which is absolutely BS.

Time will tell, we might actually be not that bad off because a lot of the kids have taken a longer time to break out and the salary cap might explode, but that's eventually going to be this team as well. Have to throw a good young player overboard, or find a way to dump a veteran contract. Just have to hope we can win a cup before that. As a fan of the Avs as well, they won exactly at the right time, just before they had to get rid of Kadri, Burakovsky, Kuemper etc.

 

[IDvsEGO]

Okay that makes sense. So the owners take 50% and then must cover their own expenses beyond that. I wonder what they actually pocket at the end of the day, maybe half that? Maybe less?

I ask because I routinely see people calling out owners for taking 50% of the share but it appears that's really not the case.

I mean the owners manipulate the 50% significantly. Owners that have control of the television station, like msg, can manipulate the tv money easily. The station gets all the ad money, and none of that goes into hrr.
There’s also expansion fees and relocation fees which are pure owner profit.

 

[Fitzy]

I'm not going to pretend I have a solution for this issue, that would be up for other people to think about. But in essence, sportsfans in general like super teams and dynasties. The way NHL salary cap is implemented, basically means that as soon as you become good you have to start dismantling your team. Which is absolutely BS.

Time will tell, we might actually be not that bad off because a lot of the kids have taken a longer time to break out and the salary cap might explode, but that's eventually going to be this team as well. Have to throw a good young player overboard, or find a way to dump a veteran contract. Just have to hope we can win a cup before that. As a fan of the Avs as well, they won exactly at the right time, just before they had to get rid of Kadri, Burakovsky, Kuemper etc.

I loathe the European model where the biggest cities get all the best players. I think there's a middle ground between what we have here with attempted parity and the Premier League where only 6 teams have won a championship the past 30 years.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

My guess is that there are many owners who do understand this but the reality is that a higher cap ceiling would mean the teams in attractive markets (New York, Toronto, Florida/Tampa, LA etc) will be the ones reaping the rewards of extra space and not the small market teams, who just will see it as more money spent trying to keep their own players with a lower chance of bringing in premier talent from the outside.

The reality of the situation is that bigger markets will always have a competitive advantage over the smaller ones, cap or not. They could devise a system that allows teams to pay more into revenue sharing if they want to get lower caps on homegrown players, which would then benefit the smaller markets. This would also benefit smaller market teams and help them keep their own guys.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Abolish the cap and abolish the weighted draft lottery, everyone gets equal odds.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Abolish the cap and abolish the weighted draft lottery, everyone gets equal odds.

I'm ok with the weighted lottery, but make the draft a snake draft. You win the cup, you get rewarded. You wanna trade picks as a contender? Your second just became essentially a late first and worth more. Would encourage more trading. People like trades - this entire enterprise here is built on that concept.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

100%. The most annoying thing in the NHL is the fact that it's so hard to keep a good team together. Conventional wisdom would say to you that the salary cap is there to prevent big teams from snatching everyone in the open market. What it actually does, is punish organizations for building good teams via drafting, trading and some signings by forcing them to throw good players overboard. Case in point, Chicago, Tampa, Colorado.

Some sort of cap relief should be included for players that you have drafted, or have been with the organization for say +5 years.

The NHL wants this though. This is a feature, not a bug. The league wants parity at any cost.

 

[bhamill]

Just for clarification. I don't have anything against Trocheck. He's a good player. Not great. But good. And im of the strong belief that this team won't win a Cup until Laf and Kakko are the guys and the sooner they are they better. And I want the same thing everyone else wants: winning. But as I said, I don't believe it's going to happen until our two cornerstone picks are the guys leading the way. I kind of hope I'm wrong. But until they're the ones the team leans on and guys like Zib, Panarin, and Kreids are looked at as support, I don't think it's going to happen. I look around the league and at history. That's how it works nearly all the time. Doesn't make Zib, Panarin, etc any less important. Look at Chicago. As good as Hossa was he was support for Kane and Toews.

I see Laf and Kakko RIGHT NOW, as support for Panarin, Zib, Kreider. In three years or so hopefully Othmann, Krav, et al will be support for Laf and Kakko. This is how you build a perennial contender and win multiple cups, and it is absolutely not detrimental to Laf or Kakko. It's instilling a winning culture and team mindset.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

The NHL wants this though. This is a feature, not a bug. The league wants parity at any cost.

The cap was never about parity, it was about the owners saving money. Parity was the front to get it.

The teams that make money and that are attractive to players are the ones that win. The Coyotes are going to disband before they every win a championship.

 

[TominNC]

The League needs a cap. The League represents 32 franchises and wants competitive games. Beside, many of us are old enough to remember the precap Rangers, always picking up expensive older players who won nothing with us, the "Fat Cats". Unlimited money guarantees nothing.

It's in the League's best interest to have player movement and not have everyone lock up all their players. A snake draft is a horrible idea. The weaker teams need youth to build with. I agree on having a lottery to discourage blatant tanking.

What I might agree with is some discount towards the cap for signing some of your own draftees. But even that should be limited. The Rangers are no worse off that other teams given the covid related difficulties. A boost in the cap will help. It's not supposed to be easy to just keep everyone. But that's the job of the pros. Personally I think fans spend too much time worrying about financial issues multiple years out.

 

[chosen]

My guess is that there are many owners who do understand this but the reality is that a higher cap ceiling would mean the teams in attractive markets (New York, Toronto, Florida/Tampa, LA etc) will be the ones reaping the rewards of extra space and not the small market teams, who just will see it as more money spent trying to keep their own players with a lower chance of bringing in premier talent from the outside.

Raising the cap doesn't put a better product on the ice. The personnel doesn't change. Just the salaries change.

It probably will hurt parity, though, like you said.

The fellow you're responding to spent most of last season telling us what a terrible team the Rangers are, so....

 

[IDvsEGO]

Abolish the cap and abolish the weighted draft lottery, everyone gets equal odds.

That’s terrible. The point of a draft lotto is to help teams that were bad not be bad. Worse teams need more to get better.
It does create seasons like this where teams are fighting for the 1oa.
But the proposal I saw was , the team that has the most points once they’re eliminated from playoff contention should have the first pick.
So if you’re eliminated early, but you’ve traded off so many pieces you can’t win, you might lose out on 1oa to a team eliminated weeks later due to a really impactful injury.
It also keeps end of season games meaningful for almost all teams.

 

[chosen]

100%. The most annoying thing in the NHL is the fact that it's so hard to keep a good team together. Conventional wisdom would say to you that the salary cap is there to prevent big teams from snatching everyone in the open market. What it actually does, is punish organizations for building good teams via drafting, trading and some signings by forcing them to throw good players overboard. Case in point, Chicago, Tampa, Colorado.

Some sort of cap relief should be included for players that you have drafted, or have been with the organization for say +5 years.

I don't want the NHL becoming like the NBA, where before the season starts you know that 90% of the teams have no chance of winning and where superstars gang up to create the best teams.

In hockey, teams can eventually win if they manage well and get lucky. There are a lot of teams in the NBA that have a near zero chance of winning for a decade.

 

[frozenrubber]

Okay that makes sense. So the owners take 50% and then must cover their own expenses beyond that. I wonder what they actually pocket at the end of the day, maybe half that? Maybe less?

I ask because I routinely see people calling out owners for taking 50% of the share but it appears that's really not the case.

I mean the owners manipulate the 50% significantly. Owners that have control of the television station, like msg, can manipulate the tv money easily. The station gets all the ad money, and none of that goes into hrr.
There’s also expansion fees and relocation fees which are pure owner profit.

The chicanery and bullshit accounting owners pull is significant. The Blackhawks during all their cup years showed the team as losing money. They insisted they needed to move money from other Wirtz companies, but in reality, those other entities are indeed Blackhawks income

 

[TheBloodyNine]

The League needs a cap. The League represents 32 franchises and wants competitive games. Beside, many of us are old enough to remember the precap Rangers, always picking up expensive older players who won nothing with us, the "Fat Cats". Unlimited money guarantees nothing.

It's in the League's best interest to have player movement and not have everyone lock up all their players. A snake draft is a horrible idea. The weaker teams need youth to build with. I agree on having a lottery to discourage blatant tanking.

What I might agree with is some discount towards the cap for signing some of your own draftees. But even that should be limited. The Rangers are no worse off that other teams given the covid related difficulties. A boost in the cap will help. It's not supposed to be easy to just keep everyone. But that's the job of the pros. Personally I think fans spend too much time worrying about financial issues multiple years out.

The weaker teams would still be getting the best picks in the best round. They would also more likely have picks traded to them knowing they are higher in whatever round they are. The best teams in this league find guys in the later rounds anyway, if they can't do that then they aren't going anywhere meaningful. See: Edmonton.

 

[EdJovanovski]

That’s terrible. The point of a draft lotto is to help teams that were bad not be bad. Worse teams need more to get better.
It does create seasons like this where teams are fighting for the 1oa.
But the proposal I saw was , the team that has the most points once they’re eliminated from playoff contention should have the first pick.
So if you’re eliminated early, but you’ve traded off so many pieces you can’t win, you might lose out on 1oa to a team eliminated weeks later due to a really impactful injury.
It also keeps end of season games meaningful for almost all teams.

I don't only oppose it for ideological reasons of fairness & being against forced parity, but I also oppose it because I think it prevents the growth of the sport and it ruins peoples lives. Kids work their ass off their entire life, parents sacrifice everything they have to put a kid through high level hockey; all to be drafted by whatever incompetent management is at the bottom of the league and have their development often times ruined. Imagine how much more popular hockey would be if McDavid were drafted by a competent team. Imagine LA drafted him right after winning the cup, hockey would literally be 50% bigger sport than it is. Go on the street of any American city and show them a pic of McDavid, most people will have no idea who he is. Gretzky going to LA is what put hockey on the map in mainstream America. But we'll never have things like that happen again in this upside down salary cap world. Imagine all the "busts" who wouldn't have been busts. Who knows what Yakupov would've become if he were drafted by LA, Chicago, one of the better run teams of that era.

Rewarding failure is morally reprehensible, there's no way a team should be rewarded for being last place and basically be penalized for just barely missing the playoffs. You should never be better off for doing worse in any facet of life

 

[RangerBoy]

 

[EdJovanovski]

An utter abomination
But wouldn't expect anything less from "the guy who uses his napkin as a tie"

 

[DanielBrassard]

Would have preferred keeping Vesey on the 3rd line. It's not a significant difference however so eh. But I liked that line against Anaheim.