Roster Building Thread - Part XI (Off-season edition)

[TominNC]

I'd really like to see the NHL implement something where drafted players count less against a team's cap. Seems like a no-brainer for franchises and fans.

But that then leads to teams spending more overall and that's not what the league has negotiated with the players to share revenue.

And what's wrong with parity? Would it really be better if Chicago now built a team around Bedard and won 4 Cups in 5 years?

 

[bhamill]

New Cap

- Teams can exceed ceiling by 10% for a tax. (If Cap is 100 million, you can go over by 10 million)
- Teams can designate 1 "Franchise" player.
- That player needs to be on an 8 year deal. (Max length)
- That players Cap Hit is halved. (50%)

To illustrate how nice and easy this is, if this were in effect right now, the Rangers would have 19 million in cap space. Haha

I'd go further.
Your idea on exceeding by 10% for a tax
Your idea on a franchise player.
Any drafted player over league avg AAV at signing counts against the cap at 70% or even 75%.
Any non drafted REsigned player over league avg AAV at signing counts against the cap at 85%.
The last two can work to get avg players a higher salary. Say the avg AAV is 4mil, for cap purposes its in the team's best interest to give a player 4.25m (adjusted AAV at 85% at 3.6125m) rather than 3.75m...
Keep the floor at unadjusted true AAV.

 

[SA16]

New Cap

- Teams can exceed ceiling by 10% for a tax. (If Cap is 100 million, you can go over by 10 million)
- Teams can designate 1 "Franchise" player.
- That player needs to be on an 8 year deal. (Max length)
- That players Cap Hit is halved. (50%)

To illustrate how nice and easy this is, if this were in effect right now, the Rangers would have 19 million in cap space. Haha

The league doesn't want it and the players don't want it is the issue.

 

[Profet]

I'd go further.
Your idea on exceeding by 10% for a tax
Your idea on a franchise player.
Any drafted player over league avg AAV at signing counts against the cap at 70% or even 75%.
Any non drafted REsigned player over league avg AAV at signing counts against the cap at 85%.
The last two can work to get avg players a higher salary. Say the avg AAV is 4mil, for cap purposes its in the team's best interest to give a player 4.25m (adjusted AAV at 85% at 3.6125m) rather than 3.75m...
Keep the floor at unadjusted true AAV.

You'll see less trades. Which hurts interest in the sport (less headlines).

 

[bhamill]

You'll see less trades. Which hurts interest in the sport (less headlines).

Why would we see fewer trades? Teams that draft well will actually have more space to make trades... Giving MORE wiggle room will give MORE opportunity, no?
You won't see trades for the SAKE of trades, but you'll see more teams making trades to build their teams. At least that's how I see it. Are there no trades in the NBA?

 

[nyr2k2]

I would like to avoid a structure like the NBA, where every article I read I see reference to some new exception or rule or whatever. That system seems so Byzantine and arcane, I don't know how the average fan can even begin to grasp how it works.

However, as complex as the NBA's system is, they have bonkers trades, buyouts, etc. all the time. The NHL should at least consider adding some additional wrinkles to their structure, like home grown player exceptions and stuff like that, to reward teams that draft and develop players well.

 

[NikC]

But that then leads to teams spending more overall and that's not what the league has negotiated with the players to share revenue.

And what's wrong with parity? Would it really be better if Chicago now built a team around Bedard and won 4 Cups in 5 years?

Chi shouldn't have even been eligible to draft 1st OA.

This is a strawman argument. The Rangers under Sather proved that $ alone can't guarantee success much less a cup...

But when teams with generational talent/elite players and find ways to circumvent the cap to supplement their line ups like Chi, TB, did, and i'm sure Pitt did as well. Or "luck out"... like Vegas (pun intended) and be the recipients of the most charmed expansion draft the league has ever seen?

So you want to see teams "do everything right" build from the draft/development and barely be able to supplement to win a cup? and if they do they only have enough to pay their core players and lose everyone else to FA?

As it stands right now, only the teams with elite or near elite cores have the better chance to win a cup. Sure there are exceptions like Florida, but, their success didn't happen by accident, they used a blue chip #1 C in a trade.

 

[Profet]

Why would we see fewer trades? Teams that draft well will actually have more space to make trades... Giving MORE wiggle room will give MORE opportunity, no?
You won't see trades for the SAKE of trades, but you'll see more teams making trades to build their teams. At least that's how I see it. Are there no trades in the NBA?

You're assuming GMs wont spend every dollar of the cap available to them. With most teams using that cap with drafted players, it would cause a deadlock where no one can move drafted players and lose out on the home grown discount.

 

[TominNC]

Chi shouldn't have even been eligible to draft 1st OA.

This is a strawman argument. The Rangers under Sather proved that $ alone can't guarantee success much less a cup...

But when teams with generational talent/elite players and find ways to circumvent the cap to supplement their line ups like Chi, TB, did, and i'm sure Pitt did as well. Or "luck out"... like Vegas (pun intended) and be the recipients of the most charmed expansion draft the league has ever seen?

So you want to see teams "do everything right" build from the draft/development and barely be able to supplement to win a cup? and if they do they only have enough to pay their core players and lose everyone else to FA?

As it stands right now, only the teams with elite or near elite cores have the better chance to win a cup. Sure there are exceptions like Florida, but, their success didn't happen by accident, they used a blue chip #1 C in a trade.

I’m saying that in the pre-cap league dominant team were more prevalent. The cap keeps team from hoarding players and creates movement and the ability for more teams to eventually win a cup. Spending endlessly isn’t the way.

 

[GAGLine]

I would like to avoid a structure like the NBA, where every article I read I see reference to some new exception or rule or whatever. That system seems so Byzantine and arcane, I don't know how the average fan can even begin to grasp how it works.

However, as complex as the NBA's system is, they have bonkers trades, buyouts, etc. all the time. The NHL should at least consider adding some additional wrinkles to their structure, like home grown player exceptions and stuff like that, to reward teams that draft and develop players well.

The problem is the 50/50 split. They can't do anything that would upset that balance.

I think they could build some additional flexibility into the system, though. Teams should be able to use unused cap space to pay off future cap penalties.

Say the cap is 100 mil and team A trades player 1 to team B with 2 mil retention. Player 1 has one additional year left on his contract. At the end of the year, team A ends up with 3 mil in unused cap space. Let them use that cap space to pay off the retention for the following year.

They can do the same thing with buyout and recapture penalties. Cap penalties due to circumvention/breaking rules would be excluded.

Teams should also be able to trade cap space/cap penalties. They essentially trade cap space already when they use a 3rd team to retain. There would need to be a limit on how much cap space a team could acquire through trade. Say, 10%, but then get rid of or severely limit LTIR. The term of cap space trades would have to be limited as well. Maybe a max of 3 years.

This would facilitate more trades. Teams that aren't spending to the cap could trade their unused cap space to teams looking to add at the deadline. It would also help teams pay off buyouts and retained transactions quicker. And none of these things would change the amount of money going to either side.

 

[Synergy27]

People always bring up MLB, which, like I said, also sucks. There are other options.

I really don't know much about the NFL's system. I know it's a hard cap, but I don't feel like teams have to hitch their wagon to like five good players and then count beans in the NFL.

The NBA has a really good system. It has allowed for a ton of interesting player movement and has also mostly prevented f***ery. The term "super team" gets thrown around but that's mostly a meme. Look at Team USA's roster for the upcoming Olympics. That's a super team. It has never existed in the NBA. The one legit example of an NBA franchise just buying an entire team is the KD/Kyrie/Harden Nets and they failed miserably. Since the Warriors Era ended, success in the NBA has mostly been built on homegrown talent, but contenders and up-comers also have the freedom to augment their rosters.

And yes, the Warriors Era was boring. That was the greatest team ever versus prime LeBron who was an automatic ticket to the Finals. It didn't happen because of the cap system, it happened because it just happened and nothing really could have been done to prevent it.

NFL contracts aren’t guaranteed. They include guaranteed portions, but can be terminated at any time.

Trouba? Cut. Sign. Me. Up.

It’s brutal but who can honestly question the biggest sports business in the country?

I don’t see the players signing on for that. They aren’t going to want to reduce their value when they hit the market.

In my system, we’d be able to pay Igor $15M if we wanted without destroying our chances to compete. Edmonton would be able to pay McDavid $20M to convince him to stay in Siberia.

It would add to the overall player pie I think.

 

[Synergy27]

I don’t see the players signing on for that. They aren’t going to want to reduce their value when they hit the market.

In my system, we’d be able to pay Igor $15M if we wanted without destroying our chances to compete. Edmonton would be able to pay McDavid $20M to convince him to stay in Siberia.

It would add to the overall player pie I think.

 

[Synergy27]

Honestly, the best possible system would be to make teams do a fantasy draft at the beginning of the year. Set a cap and auction off each player. Let someone pay $18M each to McDavid, Makar and Igor and then fill out the rest of the roster with scrubs and see what happens.

Max engagement and entertainment for fans.

Max incentive for players to earn their paycheck.

Max player movement and intrigue.

It would also make the current divisional setup way less boring because even if you end up with the same team v team playoff matchups like we do now, the teams would be drastically different from year to year.

Chaos pipe dream but that’s my ideal setup.

 

[RangerBoy]

The NHL cap system is perfect. Hard cap. However, teams are allowed to use long-term injured reserve. They should keep it. No contract renegotiation. I would like to see changes with the no trade/no movement clauses. There are too many clauses in the NHL. It's ridiculous. Every player reaching 7 years accrued or 27 years old should not get a clause. All of those players hide behind their clauses. Also, try to tighten up the contract length terms if possible. 7 years for a free agent/8 years to re-sign your own player are too long.

 

[TominNC]

Honestly, the best possible system would be to make teams do a fantasy draft at the beginning of the year. Set a cap and auction off each player. Let someone pay $18M each to McDavid, Makar and Igor and then fill out the rest of the roster with scrubs and see what happens.

Max engagement and entertainment for fans.

Max incentive for players to earn their paycheck.

Max player movement and intrigue.

It would also make the current divisional setup way less boring because even if you end up with the same team v team playoff matchups like we do now, the teams would be drastically different from year to year.

Chaos pipe dream but that’s my ideal setup.

No thanks

 

[frozenrubber]

For tweaking around the edges, I'd love:

- 5 year max contract length
- Arbitration - only one side can win, not allowing the mediator to split the difference

 

[AntNYR]

The problem is the 50/50 split. They can't do anything that would upset that balance.

I think they could build some additional flexibility into the system, though.

I wonder if adding cap space during the season would work. I think this would also require a hard deadline to signing players and maybe some tinkering with cap floor.

As an example let's say that the NHL requires all players to be signed by the new year, and starting january adds an extra 10% to the cap. This would allow teams more flexibility on trades, while also holding to the 50/50 split. Only downsides I see are a tiny hit to the small market teams competetiveness, and inability to sign rookies late in the season.

 

[bhamill]

You're assuming GMs wont spend every dollar of the cap available to them. With most teams using that cap with drafted players, it would cause a deadlock where no one can move drafted players and lose out on the home grown discount.

And you are assuming they WILL immediately spend every dollar available to them.
Regardless, as I already said, it gives more wiggle room, more OPTIONS. IF a GM still hancuffs himself then we are exactly where we are now… where there ARE trades, but not like there used to be. Not many headline generating ones.
To sum up, more options dont guarantee a GM will figure it out and do better, but at worst, we end up pretty much as we are now.

 

[Machinehead]

But that then leads to teams spending more overall and that's not what the league has negotiated with the players to share revenue.

And what's wrong with parity? Would it really be better if Chicago now built a team around Bedard and won 4 Cups in 5 years?

Parity comes in different forms.

Season-to-season parity is good. Nobody wants to see the same group of contenders over and over and there should be a reasonable path for bad teams to become good.

In-season parity sucks. I don't like the feeling that anybody can beat anybody else. I want the seeds to matter, home ice to matter, the regular season to matter, and the best teams all year to meet late in the playoffs.

In the cap era, the NHL tends to have low season-to-season parity, and high in-season parity, which is hard to pull off and f***ing sucks wind.

 

[Machinehead]

I would like to avoid a structure like the NBA, where every article I read I see reference to some new exception or rule or whatever. That system seems so Byzantine and arcane, I don't know how the average fan can even begin to grasp how it works.

However, as complex as the NBA's system is, they have bonkers trades, buyouts, etc. all the time. The NHL should at least consider adding some additional wrinkles to their structure, like home grown player exceptions and stuff like that, to reward teams that draft and develop players well.

I do agree that the NBA is kinda f***ing crazy and makes it hard to armchair GM.

Although, the last few years, I do really like the product.

There has to be happy median whereby the NHL can add some of those wrinkles, and also keep it easy to understand.

I get that the league (i.e. owners) doesn't want it. I agree with that. The notion that the players don't want it smells like NHL propaganda to me. It's a salary cap. Salary. Cap. It's what it sounds like. Show me any worker in this country that wants a limit on their salary. The players swallowed it because we were gonna lose another season in 2013.

 

[UnSandvich]

I do agree that the NBA is kinda f***ing crazy and makes it hard to armchair GM.

Although, the last few years, I do really like the product.

There has to be happy median whereby the NHL can add some of those wrinkles, and also keep it easy to understand.

I get that the league (i.e. owners) doesn't want it. I agree with that. The notion that the players don't want it smells like NHL propaganda to me. It's a salary cap. Salary. Cap. It's what it sounds like. Show me any worker in this country that wants a limit on their salary. The players swallowed it because we were gonna lose another season in 2013.

Eh, look around enough and you'll eventually see management bootlickers arguing that the players want it

 

[Machinehead]

Eh, look around enough and you'll eventually see management bootlickers arguing that the players want it

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

This is such a boring topic of conversation. Can we go back to crapping on Trouba

 

[TominNC]

Parity comes in different forms.

Season-to-season parity is good. Nobody wants to see the same group of contenders over and over and there should be a reasonable path for bad teams to become good.

In-season parity sucks. I don't like the feeling that anybody can beat anybody else. I want the seeds to matter, home ice to matter, the regular season to matter, and the best teams all year to meet late in the playoffs.

In the cap era, the NHL tends to have low season-to-season parity, and high in-season parity, which is hard to pull off and f***ing sucks wind.

3 of the top 5 teams in points were among the final 4.

 

[Machinehead]

3 of the top 5 teams in points were among the final 4.

Yeah, this was a pretty good year. Probably the two best teams played each other in the Stanley Cup Final. Unfortunately, it's not always like that.

Vegas is low-key really not that good. In 2021, legit one of the worst teams in the league went to the SCF. 2019 was the most Mickey Mouse tournament in sports history. Hell, 2018 and 2017 had weak champions too -- what a dark timeline. 2017 was a shot away from a Senators/Predators Final. There would have been no survivors.

I'm not saying the cap caused all of these things, but they're examples of how I find the randomness kind of boring. Hockey is the only major sport where a team as bad as the 2021 Habs makes it that far.