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

[TominNC]

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.

Just difference of opinion. I have know reason to watch if I know the result, like the NBA.

 

[kovazub94]

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.

I’d go around this problem another way. I’d introduce 1 or 2 franchise status contracts and or some other version of a luxury tax that would be exempt from 50/50 calculation and directly “assigned” to the team willing to pay for it and so reduces this team share of revenue. Teams would be able to go over the cap by let’s say 20% of such contract if a player had previously been under contract with his team for 4-5 years and that status is not tradable.

 

[kovazub94]

Just difference of opinion. I have know reason to watch if I know the result, like the NBA.

Nothing against parity in my view either but I don’t like the fact that SC winners don’t even get a good chance to defend their title because of cap. There should be some flexibility there.

 

[RangerBoy]

Nothing against parity in my view either but I don’t like the fact that SC winners don’t even get a good chance to defend their title because of cap. There should be some flexibility there.

Why?

KC traded Sneed to Tennessee because they couldn't afford him. It's a business. The Chiefs have Mahomes but they have a very smart GM Brett Veech who knows what he is doing. They prepared for Sneed's exit in prior drafts. That's what smart teams do.

 

[GAGLine]

I’d go around this problem another way. I’d introduce 1 or 2 franchise status contracts and or some other version of a luxury tax that would be exempt from 50/50 calculation and directly “assigned” to the team willing to pay for it and so reduces this team share of revenue. Teams would be able to go over the cap by let’s say 20% of such contract if a player had previously been under contract with his team for 4-5 years and that status is not tradable.

That would result in owners paying more than 50%. It's not going to happen. They fought tooth and nail to get the number down to 50%.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

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

They would for the first year then everyone's salaries go up and the gap fills again. No matter what you do, teams that wanna compete will be at the top of the cap, and they'll still wish they had more because with another 19 mill to kick around, then now Lafreniere wants and 8x11 deal instead of maybe an 8x8. It won't help anything really, every new player contract signed will be more money but it won't help us get a cup because everyone will have that extra money not just us. A team like Toronto that has Taveres coming off the books and Matthews and Nylander locked up would absolutely cook us in free agency.

 

[Barnaby]

I think there needs to be a happy medium. The NHL cap is so harsh that you have no choice but to dismantle a Cup winning team almost immediately. It also seriously limits the trade market as only a handful of teams have the flexibility to make trades at any given time.

I think the Cap should be reworked to prioritize smart management, exactly as you say. There should be incentives for drafting and trading well, and disincentives for signing free agents. Something like drafted players counting for only x% of their AAV, whereas FA count for the whole AAV.

I want to give the small market teams a chance without completely hamstringing entertainment value.

I would like to see more flexibility, but I don’t have the answer for it.

However your idea doesn’t work either. Speaking of competitive balance, I don’t see how that works when you even further incentivize tanking. Now McDavid/Drai or McKinnon/Makar/Rantanen aren’t just coming to you on ELC’s, but will also count for pennies on the dollar towards your cap for the duration of their careers? We are now rewarding those teams for 15 years because they went in the cellar for the right years? That doesn’t sound quite right either. I’d think we’d have fewer issues with the cap without the Covid issue… and prob without the Trouba deal. I also don’t think the players association will have any desire to de incentivize free agency.

 

[Barnaby]

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.

Would add to the overall player pie? Well, there you have it. Owners decline. The agreement is the 50/50 split.

 

[Barnaby]

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.

Player salaries will rise, and everyone will be where they are now within a couple years.

You don’t think the Rangers would have just signed more players if they had another 10-20 million in cap? Many teams would. Now that 4 million defenseman is making 6 or 7 million and it solves nothing.

 

[egelband]

Would add to the overall player pie? Well, there you have it. Owners decline. The agreement is the 50/50 split.

I don’t think @Synergy27 is arguing the owners would roll over and accept it. It’s just a desire. Frankly, I find it ludicrous that the players only get 50%.

 

[Barnaby]

I don’t think @Synergy27 is arguing the owners would roll over and accept it. It’s just a desire. Frankly, I find it ludicrous that the players only get 50%.

Yea, I don’t have any idea what a “fair” percentage would be, because I have zero idea what the financials look like. I’m certainly more inclined to see the players do better considering they are the product. I just don’t willingly see the owners moving off that number after the PA agreed to it.

I think we are only having this discussion, because we couldn’t move Trouba and that’s limiting our ability to sign free agents or make trades.

I don’t like all the crazy NBA rules, or the non guaranteed NFL salaries.

I think the right move is a hard cap (at whatever number they figure out). However, I’d like to see contracts limited to five years, and some flexibility with moving or buying out contracts. Of course, the devils advocate will ask why we are protecting the owners from themselves. I would also like to see the end of the NTC / NMC since they’ve grown into normalcy. Not just your 2-3 best players. Maybe some type of agreement where the NTC is limited to a 10 or 15 team list.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

My solution, no more ntc, if you sign a contact, that contract is with the nhl and whoever pays it is up to the gm that aquires him. The idea that someone gets paid 100 mil to play a sport and then won't go where they're wanted is absurd to me. I find more justification in giving the clause to a min contract guy who can't afford to be buying or renting in certain cities.

 

[IDvsEGO]

My solution, no more ntc, if you sign a contact, that contract is with the nhl and whoever pays it is up to the gm that aquires him. The idea that someone gets paid 100 mil to play a sport and then won't go where they're wanted is absurd to me. I find more justification in giving the clause to a min contract guy who can't afford to be buying or renting in certain cities.

Yeah. That’s absolutely a terrible idea.
Every single sport allows players some contractual level of control for movement.
Players may voluntarily eat money, specifically for that level of control.
This idea that somehow if you pay someone enough money then they should happily accept whatever location they play for is also stupid. Money does no good when you live in a place you can’t stand.

People need to realize that athletes are people who want a degree of control over their lives.

 

[RangersFan1994]

 

[GAGLine]

My solution, no more ntc, if you sign a contact, that contract is with the nhl and whoever pays it is up to the gm that aquires him. The idea that someone gets paid 100 mil to play a sport and then won't go where they're wanted is absurd to me. I find more justification in giving the clause to a min contract guy who can't afford to be buying or renting in certain cities.

The NHL can't just take those clauses away. Anything they do has to be agreed upon by the NHLPA. So, what are you giving the players to get them to agree to that?

 

[kovazub94]

That would result in owners paying more than 50%. It's not going to happen. They fought tooth and nail to get the number down to 50%.

Yeah, for the owners it will be a choice, not a requirement.

 

[Synergy27]

Yeah. That’s absolutely a terrible idea.
Every single sport allows players some contractual level of control for movement.
Players may voluntarily eat money, specifically for that level of control.
This idea that somehow if you pay someone enough money then they should happily accept whatever location they play for is also stupid. Money does no good when you live in a place you can’t stand.

People need to realize that athletes are people who want a degree of control over their lives.

When you are talking about a sports league that is trying to create parity, you run into some serious issues pretty quickly unless you only have teams in desirable places.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[kovazub94]

Why?

KC traded Sneed to Tennessee because they couldn't afford him. It's a business. The Chiefs have Mahomes but they have a very smart GM Brett Veech who knows what he is doing. They prepared for Sneed's exit in prior drafts. That's what smart teams do.

I don’t follow other sports much.

I care for the Rangers and hockey. I think Shesterkin is a superstar who should get paid $12.5m by the Rangers because he’s good for the NHL and I also think the franchise should have an ability to still build a competitive team around him.

Whatever, I’m not going to decry the existing labor agreement and Bettman’s days at the helm will be counting down soon anyway, so I want to see what the next commissioner will do.

 

[GAGLine]

Yeah, for the owners it will be a choice, not a requirement.

The competitive advantage it would provide would make it a requirement.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Just fix the state tax gap based on the 41 games played in the teams home state and go from there.

 

[kovazub94]

The competitive advantage it would provide would make it a requirement.

Not all owners care. Otherwise even in the existing environment we’d see all of them spend to the max cap and it’s not the case

 

[GAGLine]

Not all owners care. Otherwise even in the existing environment we’d see all of them spend to the max cap and it’s not the case

Of course they care. They wouldn't have gone through 2 lockouts if they didn't. The majority won't vote for something that allows owners to spend more than 50% of revenue.

 

[Machinehead]

Why?

KC traded Sneed to Tennessee because they couldn't afford him. It's a business. The Chiefs have Mahomes but they have a very smart GM Brett Veech who knows what he is doing. They prepared for Sneed's exit in prior drafts. That's what smart teams do.

The NFL is a sport where you shed salary as it gets older to replace them with young cheaper talent.

The NHL is a sport where you just shed talent and can't replace it because the cap isn't even keeping up with inflation.

It's not a valid comparison.

 

[Ruggs225]

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.

Football contracts arent guaranteed, and can be re-structred which is huge.

Also they arent AAV but what the player is paid in the year + bonus money.

I always thought that if the NHL made that one change of actually using the real money paid rather than AAV it would help teams keep their cores together.

You would be able to plan for different cap hits on different years which would be huge.

 

[McRanger92]

I see we've reached the bargaining phase