Salary Cap: The three things ruining the NHL (Especially Canadian Teams)

[thewave]

Seeing Canada win made me think to myself, why is it that Canadian teams struggle to win? How long can we go without a cup before a course correction is made?

These are the things I identified.

1. The Cap vs Canada's higher taxes. Some sort of resolution must be made at the govt level for pro athletes. It needs a pro sport competitive fairness lobby to ensure that leagues which allow betting have a level playing field.

2. The NMC should not exist. No teams should be bound to a player. It does not make sense and a limited NMC generally should suffice. This obviously again affects cap if you are stuck with a non performing player.

3. The buyout should be a one and done final option with no cap penalty. 1 a year at the very least, why are teams bound to this crazy concept.

Made it a poll to see how others feel.


[[[If you borrow this for your tv segment wave at the camera or something]]]

Click to read more...

 

[seanlinden]

1. There are other teams that have a similar tax burden to Canada -- and there are lots of creative ways / structures that get put in place to reduce the effect of the tax burden. Asking politicians to "give a break" to millionaire pro athletes is political suicide.

2. Every team has the right to say "No NMC"... it's the idiot GMs who agree to these full no-move clauses so willingly.

3. An option to buyout without cap penalty would pretty much only help Toronto, maybe Montreal... but hurt the smaller markets as other big american teams will get that benefit too.

 

[thewave]

1. There are other teams that have a similar tax burden to Canada -- and there are lots of creative ways / structures that get put in place to reduce the effect of the tax burden. Asking politicians to "give a break" to millionaire pro athletes is political suicide.

2. Every team has the right to say "No NMC"... it's the idiot GMs who agree to these full no-move clauses so willingly.

3. An option to buyout without cap penalty would pretty much only help Toronto, maybe Montreal... but hurt the smaller markets as other big american teams will get that benefit too.

1. It should be simple and balanced. The measures in place are inadequate considering no Canadian team has won for decades.

2. So a team that hires a bad GM can be handcuffed for almost a decade by someone like Dubas? This is a must to me. You need to save the owners from themselves to better the league and promote trade.

3. Smaller markets would have more players made available to them as new players hit the markets that maybe we're not good at 5m but great at 1m

 

[Menzinger]

No team is ever forced to give a NMC so I don't buy the idea the teams need to be saved from themselves. Simply don't give them out if you don't want to deal with the consequences.

That said I would like.tbe league to find a way to address the taxation gap. We've had GMs flat out admit it's an advantage for some teams..I'm not sure what a technical solution is in the cba though.

I always thought it would be a fun idea to allow teams to have 1 compliance buyout Everytime the CBA ends. Problem is poorer teams would soon complain that the wealthier teams are using it as covert cap circumventing. I also don't see the PA getting behind the idea of making buyouts easier

 

[Raymondo316]

I miss the days when you could dump big contracts in the AHL to get rid of their cap hit.

 

[thewave]

No team is ever forced to give a NMC so I don't buy the idea the teams need to be saved from themselves. Simply don't give them out if you don't want to deal with the consequences.

That said I would like.tbe league to find a way to address the taxation gap. We've had GMs flat out admit it's an advantage for some teams..I'm not sure what a technical solution is in the cba though.

I always thought it would be a fun idea to allow teams to have 1 compliance buyout Everytime the CBA ends. Problem is poorer teams would soon complain that the wealthier teams are using it as covert cap circumventing. I also don't see the PA getting behind the idea of making buyouts easier

They are forced because player agent will say team B will give the same dollar figure but also add NMC. It'll become the norm and is essentially the norm. I wish you would think that over how easy it would be to get a NMC simple back and forth bargaining.

Taxation is an absolute must fix. It is absolutely unfair and likely needs the state and other sports to unify against.

Sometimes poorer teams need it to save themselves. Maybe they need 5 buyout per CBA not 1 or 2. There has to be a buyout that does not effect cap.

It frees up a good player that is maybe not worth 10m but is a steal for a poor team at 3m. Ends the hostility of having a bad contract and negativity around the team and league. Win for all

I miss the days when you could dump big contracts in the AHL to get rid of their cap hit.

Absolutely. That is an option too potentially. NMC blocks you from moving players to AHL as well.

 

[MarMarSab3]

Easy answer

GARY FREAKING BETTMAN

 

[thewave]

Easy answer

GARY FREAKING BETTMAN

Gary Bet99man probably hates Canada with a passion after all the years of hate directed towards him. A new face that is Canadian is probably due in all fairness.

 

[ULF_55]

Permit a buyout amount equal to the HRR you provide to the league, maximum of $X.

Maybe someone can derive the formula / calculation.

Voted Yes - Point 3, as it is closest to my thoughts, but not exactly.


How about 6% of a team's HRR can be allocated to buy-outs.

I think that is about the same amount of HRR that the league takes for Revenue sharing.
Stipulation that this amount cannot be used to reduce the team's 6.055% allocated for Revenue Sharing.

Bought out player cannot play for that same team for 2 calendar years.

 

[thewave]

Permit a buyout amount equal to the HRR you provide to the league, maximum of $X.

Maybe someone can derive the formula / calculation.

Voted Yes - Point 3, as it is closest to my thoughts, but not exactly.

That's actually a good idea. I hope somehow some of these ideas work there way into the conversation in the NHL (not likely) but they need some solutions. There are obvious issues.

 

[Avilaj07]

I would like to see a mix of the NFL and MLB when it comes to contracts and the salary cap.

Introduce a luxury tax system like the MLB does while still keeping a soft cap and cap floor. Having a system like this will also allow for a lot more movement for players while also raising more money for the league via revenue sharing etc etc.

Introduce non-guarenteed contracts like the NFL. I understand at the end of the day, it is the GM who is responsible for offering the contract, but at the same time, the player should be held accountable as well and if you're not performing up to your contract, then the team should be able to release the player.

 

[ULF_55]

I would like to see a mix of the NFL and MLB when it comes to contracts and the salary cap.

Introduce a luxury tax system like the MLB does while still keeping a soft cap and cap floor. Having a system like this will also allow for a lot more movement for players while also raising more money for the league via revenue sharing etc etc.

Introduce non-guarenteed contracts like the NFL. I understand at the end of the day, it is the GM who is responsible for offering the contract, but at the same time, the player should be held accountable as well and if you're not performing up to your contract, then the team should be able to release the player.

A whole bunch of everything.
To start, contracts are not really fully guaranteed in the NHL, as you can terminate a contract with a buy-out, or with cause.

1. Luxury Tax
2. Semi-guaranteed contracts -- kind of like annuities guaranteed X-years at Y-amount. Then a reduced guaranteed amount.
3. Higher AHL buriable amounts based on years of service. Example Kyle Clifford, permit him to have a $3mm NHL contract, and due to years of service a % buriable in the AHL. Let's use the full pension criteria, 10 years of service, 820 games for 100%, and prorated based on games played. Kyle has 753 games, so $3mm * (753/820) = $2.75mm buriable.
4. Easier mutually agreed termination. Not sure on the rules except waiver requirements. Perhaps mutually agreed termination, without waiver rules. Example Seth Jones would like to move along but knows his contract is an issue. If he was willing to terminate his contract without compensation to become a UFA, maybe he would? Would the Hawks though? Hawks likely do not want to retain for another 5 years? Maybe allow a 10% buyout? ???
5. In relation to 4 above, player petitions his team to put him on waivers and let the player decide whether to go to a team that claims him, or to terminate his contract.

 

[Mr_Fun]

Seeing Canada win made me think to myself, why is it that Canadian teams struggle to win? How long can we go without a cup before a course correction is made?

These are the things I identified.

1. The Cap vs Canada's higher taxes. Some sort of resolution must be made at the govt level for pro athletes. It needs a pro sport competitive fairness lobby to ensure that leagues which allow betting have a level playing field.

2. The NMC should not exist. No teams should be bound to a player. It does not make sense and a limited NMC generally should suffice. This obviously again affects cap if you are stuck with a non performing player.

3. The buyout should be a one and done final option with no cap penalty. 1 a year at the very least, why are teams bound to this crazy concept.

Made it a poll to see how others feel.


[[[If you borrow this for your tv segment wave at the camera or something]]]

Yeah, this is just silly (the concept, not your opinion). I think this just hurts teams, TBH. No team should be stifled for 8 years (or more) because their GM (or more likely previous GM) was an idiot and made bad long term deals. There should be a way out of this with a buyout that doesn't make your pay into perpetuity (see Garth Snow contract).

 

[robertmac43]

You got to keep the NMC. A lot of these guys have families and that security is huge to them, I get it.

TBH I think all 3 points could be solved with one simple addition to the league, a luxury tax.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Seeing Canada win made me think to myself, why is it that Canadian teams struggle to win? How long can we go without a cup before a course correction is made?

These are the things I identified.

1. The Cap vs Canada's higher taxes. Some sort of resolution must be made at the govt level for pro athletes. It needs a pro sport competitive fairness lobby to ensure that leagues which allow betting have a level playing field.

2. The NMC should not exist. No teams should be bound to a player. It does not make sense and a limited NMC generally should suffice. This obviously again affects cap if you are stuck with a non performing player.

3. The buyout should be a one and done final option with no cap penalty. 1 a year at the very least, why are teams bound to this crazy concept.

Made it a poll to see how others feel.


[[[If you borrow this for your tv segment wave at the camera or something]]]

Not horrible.

1. I think this is going to be addressed in the next CBA. I also think the league should have a luxury tax 10-12 above the max and for every dollar you go above you pay 0.25-0.50 into the pension fund or something.

I know the cap is for 'parity' but I also know that the last 10 years of Cup Finals have featured less than half the league's teams, and 2 sets of multiple winners, so...

2. The NMC should be available - At a cost of 1 mil salary per year. Were gonna give you 11, but you want an NMC so it's 10. Limited and team list NMC/NTC also cost something, and maybe only exceptional or of age players qualify.

3. Agree in full but not every team can eat a hit. Sure the Leafs can give someone 5 mil to f*** off, Carolina couldn't, let them break it down.

 

[thewave]

You got to keep the NMC. A lot of these guys have families and that security is huge to them, I get it.

TBH I think all 3 points could be solved with one simple addition to the league, a luxury tax.

The luxury tax would have to be weighted for taxes though. The player themselves need to be paid more while in a certain town. Then some players would flock to high tax, sign and demand a trade with their new overpay.

Do EXECS not have families?
Politicians? Sales people?
Specialists?
Professionals?
Musicians?
Actors?

The amount of money being earned exceeds that of most the above people who have harder jobs. It is absolutely silly to think that being a well paid pro athlete should come without sacrifice.

They have the means to fly back to family whenever they need. Their spouses know what they are getting into.

Families is a non excuse.

 

[thewave]

The more I look at this. We need a tax treat for athletes over 1m between States, Provinces and Countries.

1m Salary or more = 40% tax harmonized over all North America.

North American Sports fairness taxation Act/Bill

If done at the level it's done for good for everyone

 

[MSZ]

Get rid of salary cap altogether.

They already have the revenue sharing system in place, so those struggling teams will still get their money and without the cap floor, they don't have to spend the extra money just to meet the floor requirement.

 

[seanlinden]

1. It should be simple and balanced. The measures in place are inadequate considering no Canadian team has won for decades.

2. So a team that hires a bad GM can be handcuffed for almost a decade by someone like Dubas? This is a must to me. You need to save the owners from themselves to better the league and promote trade.

3. Smaller markets would have more players made available to them as new players hit the markets that maybe we're not good at 5m but great at 1m

1. Says who? Why should a NHL player making millions of dollars pay less tax than somebody making less, but who perhaps does a less interesting job?

2. Yes, GMs have the power to "handcuff" their teams going forward... just like if Treliving decided to say, trade Matthew Knies and Easton Cowan for Erik Karlsson.

That being said, from a league perspective, "promoting trade" isn't really a priority. Look at the NBA where people hate these super teams and complete lack of loyalty.

3. The consequence of having a system with "free buyouts" is that any good player, maybe on the edge of his prime, would be snatched up by a big dollar team for a grossly inflated price, with that team knowing they'll buy him out in a year or two. That reduces the number of quality players available to the entire league.