Vegas about to circumvent cap again? UPD: Mark Stone back practicing.

[WhataKnight]

This debate has been going at various intensities for years now and neither the NHLPA and NHL owners’ legal teams nor tens of thousands of mixed sane attempts and angry rebukes have managed to crack this nut with a reasonable, cogent method of restricting an cash-laden owner behind an injured roster from trying to win a “nuclear balls race.”

The funny this about it is that I’m either all for more teams doing this - as it encourages competitiveness - or getting a reasonable fix in place that doesn’t involve a lockout.

Remember when the Rangers stacked their teams and other franchises like the Sabres, Senators, Nords and Islanders had to just sit back and tell their fans to “trust the plan”? I’d rather have an owner that says “f*** it, we’re all in” and drags other franchises forward into doing the same.

 

[BB88]

Also like 80% of back pain/injuries are considered idiopathic (unexplainable), can’t find a reason for pain

Which mean pack pain is the easiest trick to use to your advantage and people are getting sick days based on pack pain without having any real back issues, people are getting out of service because of non excisting back pain

So no it doesn’t take a whole lot to get doctors determine someone can’t play today.

Any one of us here could get a doctors diagnosis for back pain and sick day without having any pain in the back.

 

[Voight]

How do you not see an issue with that in context to the cap??

If the teams medical personnel don't think Stone is ready to play Game 82 but think hs fine a few days later, that is their medical opinion. Maybe a different set of doctors/physicians would disagree, neither would be wrong.

 

[McFlyingV]

I liked the idea I read on here that players must be activated off LTIR for game 82 to be eligible for playoffs. Don't have to play game 82 if they're "not healthy enough(lol)" but must be activated and thus must be cap compliant.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why would players be against preventing teams from circumventing the cap? I can see maybe just the Tampa/Vegas players being against, why would anyone else in the league? How does it negatively effect them, by stopping teams from circumventing the cap?

Why would players sign off on a rule that possibly prohibits any one of them from playing in a playoff game not for disciplinary reasons [which is already allowed and for understandable reasons], but for purely "financial" reasons that don't take the first dollar out of their pockets or give them even one additional dollar?

Why would they do that when there's a very real possibility that any one of them is on a team that made perfectly legal moves during the regular season within the confines salary cap system that, come the playoffs, are retroactively decided to be "against the salary cap" because it "puts the team over the salary cap for the playoffs" even if the team was never even up to the cap ceiling during the regular season and was completely cap compliant until the moment the wall clock flipped from "Regular Season" to "Playoffs?"

Why would they sign off on having a very certain, very important right (the ability to play in a playoff game when available and selected by the coach) taken away after they permissibly exercised other rights available to them under the CBA (ability to sign with any team at a mutually agreeable salary and term within the confines of the salary cap system, and the ability to exercise a NTC/NMC to move or not move to another team) to be on whatever team they happened to land on, only to find out "because you did that, and that was 100% legal at the time, it really wasn't legal at all weeks later?"

You keep positing this as "well, it's only 1 or 2 teams." Any player in the league could land on one of those 2 teams. Any player in the league could have a team that does it themselves. Any player in the league could be on a team that makes moves, stays within the cap, and suddenly gets slapped down as "yeah, well, you did that and you were cheating" and punished just like the alleged cheating teams everyone is crying about. The NHLPA is never agreeing to a rule that treats everyone as cheaters and purports to punish the real cheaters, which also punishes the real non-cheaters.

 

[MuckOG]

Might be technically legal, but still smells to high heaven. At the very least, this is a loophole that the League needs to close as it violates the very spirit of what the salary cap is supposed to be.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't think a rule requiring them to play game 82 is necessary, just have a cap for the playoffs too. No problem, you can replace an injured player in the regular season, but when it comes to the playoffs, you have to choose between players if healthy, and have your roster fit a cap number. No team should have a roster that would have a $115 mil cap in the playoffs.

I'm going to keep posting this very simple example every time someone offers a trite "just have a cap for the playoffs" idea until people realize how brutally bad their "just have the cap apply in the playoffs" idea really is. Or, until HF runs out of bandwidth. Whichever comes first.

But at some point, people are going to start realizing wait, maybe that really, really simple idea I have ... isn't as simple as I thought. Or, they're going to admit they really don't give a shit about trying to account for reasonable situations, they're just pissed and demand fairness in a way they think is suitable, even if it's grossly unfair to others who've done nothing wrong, because ... f*** your rules and your CBA and any idea the players have to agree to changes, we gotta protect the public!

Example: Cap = $85 million.

Team A:
* Carries $80 million in total cap hits for 4/5ths of the season.
* At the 4/5ths mark, when the trade deadline occurs, has been charged 80 x 4/5 = $64 million
* Can spend up to $21 million the rest of the way and still be cap compliant
* Permissibly - and without LTIR - makes trades and adds $15 million in cap dollars.
* Now carries $95 million in cap dollars from the trade deadline to the end of the season
* Gets charged 95 x 1/5 = $19 million for that last 1/5th of the season
* Ends the season having spent $83 million, so $2 million less than what was allowed under the cap

Your rule for the cap in the playoffs: that team - which had a roster that was completely valid in Game 82, which ran with a roster that was completely cap compliant the entire season, under the rules of how the salary cap is calculated had $2 million to spare - is non-compliant for the playoffs and must cut $10 million.

 

[Winged Wheel Willy]

This discussion is laughable.

When players go on ltir the league gets involved. They dont just pull injuries outta their anus. I'm sure that if Stone could be playing the last 2 regular season games, Vegas would find a way to keep him out a several days longer. But guess what?! Your favorite team would too, if they had made the trades that VGK has and if they had the balls to pay up.

So stop being bitches!

Our second youngest franchise is highly aggressive, willing to strike to deliver jewelry and I'm here for it.

 

[Sammy Kat]

The must activate a player for game 82 to be playoff eligible idea is not a big deal.
Lets say a player is making 8.2 mil,activate him for last game costs 100k.
Any team even super top end cap spent can come up with 100k easily.

I really have no problems with teams that can spend pulling the LTIP scam.
To me this evens up the top earning teams having to give cash to the cash poor teams who have their own scams to stay minimum cap compliant.

When the trade for players contracts when their careers are over so you can add them to your cap to reach the floor but collect insurance instead gets fixed then they can fix the LTIR scam at the same time.

If something needs fixing first for me it is the tax situations.
Right now players are all flooding to tax haven places and most having good weather also a bonus.
Being able to save a lot of cap because of the state you are in is a huge advantage.

 

[Fogelhund]

I'm going to keep posting this very simple example every time someone offers a trite "just have a cap for the playoffs" idea until people realize how brutally bad their "just have the cap apply in the playoffs" idea really is. Or, until HF runs out of bandwidth. Whichever comes first.

But at some point, people are going to start realizing wait, maybe that really, really simple idea I have ... isn't as simple as I thought. Or, they're going to admit they really don't give a shit about trying to account for reasonable situations, they're just pissed and demand fairness in a way they think is suitable, even if it's grossly unfair to others who've done nothing wrong, because ... f*** your rules and your CBA and any idea the players have to agree to changes, we gotta protect the public!

The math work around for this isn't hard.

Another idea that I've seen suggested having two levels of LTIR.

1. Injured player coming back, you are allowed an additional minimum level salary space, to call up a replacement, until the injured player is back.
2. Season long LTIR, where they won't come back, you get fully relief.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The must activate a player for game 82 to be playoff eligible idea is not a big deal.
Lets say a player is making 8.2 mil,activate him for last game costs 100k.
Any team even super top end cap spent can come up with 100k easily.

Let's say a player really isn't going to be healthy for Round 1, Game 1 of the playoffs, but might be healthy come Round 1, Game 5. Your idea says

(1) The player can't play at all because for reasons outside of his control, he was not healthy enough to play but that in and of itself makes him ineligible to play for the playoffs; or
(2) The player must risk his health and safety, regardless of protections granted to him in the CBA to not be compelled to return to play until he is fit to do so.

I know this is going to sound like a broken record, but ... explain how you're going to get the NHLPA to sign off on this.

When the trade for players contracts when their careers are over so you can add them to your cap to reach the floor but collect insurance instead gets fixed then they can fix the LTIR scam at the same time.

I have ... bad news for you. That's never getting fixed either.

If something needs fixing first for me it is the tax situations.

Good lord, it's like a greatest hits collection of "terrible ideas that 'solve' a problem but don't really solve anything, that are never going to see the first drop of ink on a paper proposing to amend the CBA."

 

[pb1300]

I liked the idea I read on here that players must be activated off LTIR for game 82 to be eligible for playoffs. Don't have to play game 82 if they're "not healthy enough(lol)" but must be activated and thus must be cap compliant.

That is fine.

I would not mind also that the cap is available in the playoffs. You can have a roster over the cap limit, but the team on the ice for that game has to be compliant with the cap.

So Vegas can be over the cap, but the team on the ice for that game must be under.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The math work around for this isn't hard.

Yeah ... yeah it is. I mean, I only laid out a really easy example and your idea says "that team is violating the cap for the playoffs" and I can trivially construct it so that even in your idea, a team couldn't dress even 18+2 without still being in violation of the cap.

Another idea that I've seen suggested having two levels of LTIR.

1. Injured player coming back, you are allowed an additional minimum level salary space, to call up a replacement, until the injured player is back.
2. Season long LTIR, where they won't come back, you get fully relief.

You might as well add 7 more, because I don't see teams signing off on even a split level of LTIR where one way you get full relief and the other you don't given the reason LTIR exists for the salary cap in the first place.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

That is fine.

I would not mind also that the cap is available in the playoffs. You can have a roster over the cap limit, but the team on the ice for that game has to be compliant with the cap.

So Vegas can be over the cap, but the team on the ice for that game must be under.

The NHLPA is never voting to approve a system where players who are healthy and otherwise eligible to play in the playoffs are prohibited from it for purely "financial" reasons.

 

[HeisenBaez]

Vegas will eventually have to pay the pied piper but until then, let Vegas enjoy their run. But when this run is over for Vegas, they are going to be bad for a long time.

 

[hairylikebear]

Vegas will eventually have to pay the pied piper but until then, let Vegas enjoy their run. But when this run is over for Vegas, they are going to be bad for a long time.

Imagine Vegas wins the next Connor lottery.

 

[pb1300]

The NHLPA is never voting to approve a system where players who are healthy and otherwise eligible to play in the playoffs are prohibited from it for purely "financial" reasons.

Let them be paid. If a team wants to use LTIR to add players to their roster, then let them pay the consequences in the playoffs. The players who sit, get their salaries paid, but the team on the ice still needs to fit under the cap.

I doubt the league had this in mind when it was added. The rule can stay, the loophole needs to be closed though.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Let them be paid.

I'm just going to stop you right here. The moment you open that door the NHLPA is going to say "oh, thank you - we want extra money for that on top of our regular season paychecks" and the owners ARE NEVER going to agree to pay the players for being in the playoffs.

That said, even if for some freakish reason the two sides agreed to that, making this change doesn't "fix" anything. [It probably creates more problems depending on what "let them be paid in the playoffs" ends up being.] And, it still doesn't fix that this "fix" creates 2 sets of rules for the cap depending on when in the season we're at so that a player can be perfectly legal to play in one and prohibited from playing in the other, and the NHLPA is never agreeing to a rule that does this.

 

[Sammy Kat]

Let's say a player really isn't going to be healthy for Round 1, Game 1 of the playoffs, but might be healthy come Round 1, Game 5. Your idea says

(1) The player can't play at all because for reasons outside of his control, he was not healthy enough to play but that in and of itself makes him ineligible to play for the playoffs; or
(2) The player must risk his health and safety, regardless of protections granted to him in the CBA to not be compelled to return to play until he is fit to do so.

I know this is going to sound like a broken record, but ... explain how you're going to get the NHLPA to sign off on this.



I have ... bad news for you. That's never getting fixed either.

Good lord, it's like a greatest hits collection of "terrible ideas that 'solve' a problem but don't really solve anything, that are never going to see the first drop of ink on a paper proposing to amend the CBA."

What are you talking about?
My idea says it is no big deal either way,activated or not.
The player does not have to be playing the last game should a new rule say he must be activated,just on the active roster.
Nobody is making him do anything,no idea where my post gave you the idea he must play.

I also said if you must fix something make it the tax stuff,I see no demands anywhere expecting it to happen.

I agree nothing will change but you don't have to look for things that are not there just so you can post over and over the same stuff.

We got it the first dozen times you posted.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What are you talking about?
My idea says it is no big deal either way,activated or not.
The player does not have to be playing the last game should a new rule say he must be activated,just on the active roster.

Your idea was:

he must activate a player for game 82 to be playoff eligible idea is not a big deal.

To activate a player off IR and put him on the Active Roster, a team physician must attest that the player is healthy enough to return to play. And, the player has to agree he is healthy enough to return to play. If the player is not healthy enough to return to play, he cannot be activated off IR and put on the Active Roster.

Exhibit 25 of the CBA - the form that has to be signed off on - also contains this message in a box at the bottom:

Message to Player:
You have the right to seek a second opinion from a physician of your choice regarding your Club Physician’s determination of your fitness to play.

You want to ignore that protection for the player and compel him to be put back on the Active Roster regardless of his fitness to play, and regardless of his belief in whether he's fit to play or not, because that will fit within the rule you want to put into place. And, you want teams to compel physicians to sign off on a form that says the player is fit to play when they may know the player is not fit to play, just so it helps you put a rule into place.

And, you want the NHLPA to sign off on all of that.

I'm honestly shocked lawyers don't charge 3x, 4x, 5x what they do given how they have to get involved in dealing with people who have "brilliant, simple" solutions like this.

 

[NYR94]

 

[SmytheKing]

It's actually odd to me that LTIR is a thing. Injuries are a part of the game right? Every team has a minor league team right? If Mark Stone (or anyone else) gets a long term injury, well deal with it. Call someone up. Why are you allowed to go over the salary cap because someone is injured but not because someone isn't playing well? Why the special consideration because a muscle got torn?

I mean, sorry your guy went down but that's the nature of a physical sport.

 

[pantherbot]

Been thinking about this and instead of instituting the cap in the playoffs...why not just remove the cap after the trade deadline? Still keeps the revenue sharing 50/50 so league and players stay happy with that, nobody could potentially miss playoffs due to cap/LTIR, nobody is punished for being injured and no need to do all this funny business, and teams with a financial advantage can use it, which I think is more than fair.

 

[Voight]

This debate has been going at various intensities for years now and neither the NHLPA and NHL owners’ legal teams nor tens of thousands of mixed sane attempts and angry rebukes have managed to crack this nut with a reasonable, cogent method of restricting an cash-laden owner behind an injured roster from trying to win a “nuclear balls race.”

The funny this about it is that I’m either all for more teams doing this - as it encourages competitiveness - or getting a reasonable fix in place that doesn’t involve a lockout.

Remember when the Rangers stacked their teams and other franchises like the Sabres, Senators, Nords and Islanders had to just sit back and tell their fans to “trust the plan”? I’d rather have an owner that says “f*** it, we’re all in” and drags other franchises forward into doing the same.

It won't change unless an influential owner like Jeremy Jacobs complains or pushes the league to do something come CBA negotiation time.

I'm just going to stop you right here. The moment you open that door the NHLPA is going to say "oh, thank you - we want extra money for that on top of our regular season paychecks" and the owners ARE NEVER going to agree to pay the players for being in the playoffs.

That said, even if for some freakish reason the two sides agreed to that, making this change doesn't "fix" anything. [It probably creates more problems depending on what "let them be paid in the playoffs" ends up being.] And, it still doesn't fix that this "fix" creates 2 sets of rules for the cap depending on when in the season we're at so that a player can be perfectly legal to play in one and prohibited from playing in the other, and the NHLPA is never agreeing to a rule that does this.

It'll also be an accounting nightmare given half of the leagues teams do not make the playoffs

 

[blue_n_copper]

I disagree that this is a "loophole" in the rules. It is clearly something that is not supposed to happen and there are rules in place about independent medical examinations that are clearly there to prevent it from happening. It keeps happening though indicating that the rules are not doing what they are supposed to do. I don't think forcing teams to be cap compliant in the playoffs would work. I think that if a player is on LTIR at the end of the season and that player's team is "over the cap" because they acquired another player while the injured player was on LTIR, then only one of those two players should be eligible to play in the playoffs.

I put over the cap in quotes because once a player is on LTIR and the team acquires a player to replace him who would otherwise put them over the cap, that team is no longer under the cap but is governed by a different system, commonly referred to as "money in, money out," where cap space does not accrue over the season.