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

[Nineteen67]

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]]]

California has won 3 Cups in 18 yrs. Taxes can’t be the problem.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

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]]]

I'm not on board with any of these.

1. Is outside the box thinking. And I mean waaaaay outside the box. Most teams and leagues operate under a principle of transparency anyway. So all public knowledge regarding gambling bets is generally under full disclosure for the bettor. Taxes and gambling don't have anything in common other than taking the average citizen for a ride. It's not up to the league to manage players and teams finances and I doubt they would want the league doing it anyway.

2. Once upon a time a NMC was used as a reward for a star player at the end of his career. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the league gets one as soon as they are eligible. As much as I can understand why a Leafs fan would want them abolished it's not up to the league to prevent teams from shooting themselves in the foot.

3. Compliance buyouts reward inept managers. It's not up to the league to prevent teams from shooting themselves in the foot.

The only one that has any chops is the first one.

That's the only one that is dictated under third party. The other two are fully under a team's control. Too bad taxes are unavoidable and life ain't fair.

These guys are all in the platinum card club anyway so they receive favourable treatment and tax havens us poor working slobs know nothing about.

 

[seanlinden]

That’s just part of the business. The player is still getting millions. I would be ok with a limited trade clause I guess so the players can have a bit of a say but these no move ones really bother me.

"The business" is what players (as a collective) and the league (as a collective) determine it to be. Collectively, they've determined that once a guy has put in an amount of "service" in the league, or has reached an age where he might have kids, that he should be able to negotiate movement protection into his contract.

Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with no-move clauses as well, as I think it would be unreasonable for the guy that signs in Tampa for $9m (turning down Winnipeg at $11m) to be traded to Winnipeg a week later for a 1st round pick. However, I do think players owe the team sort of a 'bare minimum of performance' that they wouldnt want to be rid of him for nothing.

That being said, I think it's on GMs, not the league, to regulate how and when they're giving out the full no-Moves.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Ofcourse there will be difficulties. But once the system is set in place, it won’t be as difficult as first time around.

I am suggesting if teams are willing to pay the income tax for players, then teams like TB, Vegas… will no longer have the tax advantage.
Which should make it fair for all teams.
But doubt that would happen

lol, you have no idea on taxes obviously.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You could disregard individual players residence, as the goal isn't to arrive at a 100% to the cent formula, but to equalize the huge discrepancies.

lol no you couldn’t, Matthews saves millions because of that.