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

[rsteen]

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.

You can sign prospects on your reserve list after the deadline, can't you? To ELCs obviously so it shouldn't make a huge difference to escrow, but it could have a small effect.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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?

If someone isn't playing well, they can still play. They just suck when they play. If you really hate that they're sucking ass, you have the choice to waive them and send them to the minors, provided they don't have a NMC that prohibits it - and, you still retain the player's rights for if you want him later on.

If someone is injured to the point they need to go on IR, they can't play. You cannot waive them or otherwise assign them outside the NHL simply because they're injured; the only way you can lose the player's playing rights is via trade provided they don't have a NTC/NMC that prohibits it.

If a player sucks ass, he has the potential to not suck ass at any time and make positive contributions to the team. If a player is hurt and unable to play, he can't just decide "I'm completely fit to play" on a moment's notice; he can't contribute at all until he's fit to play again and medically cleared to do so.

The ability to use LTIR for cap purposes recognizes that in the first instance, the team still has control of whether and where the player is playing and can make whatever moves it wants while still retaining the player's playing rights. In the second, it has no control over whether a player is playing and cannot compel the player to start playing again anyway, and teams should not be forced to relinquish a player's playing rights for reasons beyond its control.

 

[pantherbot]

You can sign prospects on your reserve list after the deadline, can't you? To ELCs obviously so it shouldn't make a huge difference to escrow, but it could have a small effect.

There's a minor impact, but there's an impact now too, don't think it'd be any different with cap or no cap post deadline?

No cap post-deadline just feels like the simplest solution and the NHL is already letting teams go over the cap anyways with LTIR. It's just moving the date around. Allows for more contracts to be moved which helps all teams and gives more trade action, no more weird loopholes, teams with strong financials can get some benefit, but it doesn't get too crazy because they'll have to get back to cap next season. For players, it could mean more teams willing to spend up to the hard cap knowing they'll be able to offload a contract if needed.

 

[TheBeard]

I just want someone to honestly answer my hypothetical question: IF, last year, Vegas needed to win game 82 to make it into the playoffs, would Mark Stone have played?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

This is a great idea. Let me see if I can think of a possible flaw with this.

1. Team A talks to Team B about a trade involving Player X making $ million on the cap who's willing and interested to go to Team B. B can't trade for X "as is" or under whatever terms are proposed, because he doesn't fit under their cap.

A and X agree to waive X and "send him to the minors." Because other teams are cap-strapped and also unable to pick up X "as is" he clears waivers and is "sent to the minors" and is then traded to B. Or, there's an "informal" agreement among teams to not claim players so assigned on waivers so that he clears and is "sent to the minors."

B then waits until after the deadline, and recalls X without fear of recall waivers (which is no longer a thing).


2. Team A has a roster of players and is nearly capped out. It wishes to acquire Players R and S, who won't fit under the cap but would fit if players T, U and V weren't on the roster.

Team A and players T, U and V agree to let T, U and V be "sent to the minors" to help A acquire R and S, and other teams either can't claim T, U and V because of cap constraints or because of some informal agreement among the team.

Post-deadline, T and U and V are freely recalled without cap considerations even though all of R, S, T, U and V would not have fit pre-deadline.


If you're totally fine with this, you should coordinate with all of the other virulently hardline, the cap applies in the playoffs, no one goes over the cap, no exceptions folks throughout this thread and see if you can get any of them to buy in to this - cause I'm willing to drop a really healthy chunk of money you won't.

 

[rsteen]

There's a minor impact, but there's an impact now too, don't think it'd be any different with cap or no cap post deadline?

A team does need to have enough cap space to fit the guy in at the end of the season, otherwise they can't put him on the NHL roster and will put him in the AHL on an ATO.

 

[4thline]

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.

If they want to close the "loophole" the split tier does it without too much complication, it's just a question of priorities. Basically the injury analogue to the Redden rule added in 2013. Getting 100% relief for players no longer good enough for your team seemed reasonable- until it wasn't and the CBA includes a max-buriable amount. If enough owners don't like the flexibility gained by wholesale salary removal they can and will act to cap it- as they have in the past. Do they care in this case? I doubt it.

Can you give your explanation for the bold?

 

[THE Green Man]

They should just make it so that the 20 players dressed in the playoffs has to still be cap compliant. Otherwise someone high paid is forced to sit in the press box. It would still be roughly 3M less than what you would normally run throughout a season.

 

[pantherbot]

This is a great idea. Let me see if I can think of a possible flaw with this.

1. Team A talks to Team B about a trade involving Player X making $ million on the cap who's willing and interested to go to Team B. B can't trade for X "as is" or under whatever terms are proposed, because he doesn't fit under their cap.

A and X agree to waive X and "send him to the minors." Because other teams are cap-strapped and also unable to pick up X "as is" he clears waivers and is "sent to the minors" and is then traded to B. Or, there's an "informal" agreement among teams to not claim players so assigned on waivers so that he clears and is "sent to the minors."

B then waits until after the deadline, and recalls X without fear of recall waivers (which is no longer a thing).


2. Team A has a roster of players and is nearly capped out. It wishes to acquire Players R and S, who won't fit under the cap but would fit if players T, U and V weren't on the roster.

Team A and players T, U and V agree to let T, U and V be "sent to the minors" to help A acquire R and S, and other teams either can't claim T, U and V because of cap constraints or because of some informal agreement among the team.

Post-deadline, T and U and V are freely recalled without cap considerations even though all of R, S, T, U and V would not have fit pre-deadline.


If you're totally fine with this, you should coordinate with all of the other virulently hardline, the cap applies in the playoffs, no one goes over the cap, no exceptions folks throughout this thread and see if you can get any of them to buy in to this - cause I'm willing to drop a really healthy chunk of money you won't.

Don't see why those would be an issue. Teams would still have to be cap compliant until after trade deadline, and all teams can do the same thing. Those players would have to go through waivers and could easily get claimed. Plus only minor players would get sent down, doubt but name players would agree to it and teams only get cap relief for about $1M when sending to the minors.

A team does need to have enough cap space to fit the guy in at the end of the season, otherwise they can't put him on the NHL roster and will put him in the AHL on an ATO.

Yeah and that's fine, but I mean in terms of overall player salaries for HRR split, not really a big deal IMO.

 

[japurple01]

Its not cap circumvention if its done according to the rules.

Get mad at the GM of your favorite team for not being as cutthroat and creative as Vegas.

TL;DR Cry Moar

Not entirely true. Vancouver was penalized for cap circumvention retroactively and hit with a 3 million dollar penalty for the Luongo contract that kicked in after Florida gave him a job with the team so he would retire and not collect his full contract amount rather than go on LTIR.

When Vancouver gave him the contract it was according to the rules, but Gary can change the rules and punish you for playing by the rules if he wants to.

 

[TheBeard]

LTIR, especially with big name players, isn't really all that helpful during the regular season if you still have to make moves to be cap compliant. I've just yet to see a team over the the last few seasons that managed to be hit with the "severe" injury bug at the same time every year.

 

[Voight]

LTIR, especially with big name players, isn't really all that helpful during the regular season if you still have to make moves to be cap compliant. I've just yet to see a team over the the last few seasons that managed to be hit with the "severe" injury bug at the same time every year.

Stone's body has broken down the last few years, hes become injury prone.

Besides, hockey players usually play through many injuries. Sometimes tho, its too much (especially for guys at the end of their prime like Stone)

 

[TheBeard]

Stone's body has broken down the last few years, hes become injury prone.

Besides, hockey players usually play through many injuries. Sometimes tho, its too much (especially for guys at the end of their prime like Stone)

Until playoffs, when he’s indestructible.

 

[Vegas07]

LTIR, especially with big name players, isn't really all that helpful during the regular season if you still have to make moves to be cap compliant. I've just yet to see a team over the the last few seasons that managed to be hit with the "severe" injury bug at the same time every year.

The team has been hit with the severe injury bug all season just like in 2022.

 

[TheBeard]

The team has been hit with the severe injury bug all season just like in 2022.

They have. No doubt. But that doesn’t make what I said any less true.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Don't see why those would be an issue. Teams would still have to be cap compliant until after trade deadline, and all teams can do the same thing. Those players would have to go through waivers and could easily get claimed. Plus only minor players would get sent down, doubt but name players would agree to it and teams only get cap relief for about $1M when sending to the minors.

OK, so go sell that to everyone who wants to change how the cap works and get back to me and let me know how many of them are agreeable to this.

Oh, wait:

The only way to fix it is to apply the cap to the playoff team also. No team can start game with a team that makes more than the cap. The teams can spend as much as they like but the team that hits the ice must be under the cap.....

They probably could treat post season cap overages like player performance bonuses. Team pays for them in the next year.

Excess should count against next year cap, you play a 7 million over come playoff time,
ok next season your cap is 7 less, deal with it.

You either bench some element, or pay the price next year

1) Any player that is not activated off LTIR by game 82 is ineligible to play in the playoffs. You're expecting him back ? Make the necessary roster adjustments. You're not expecting him back ? Cool, take that cap relief and add a few players that equal or are near equal his salary so that you have a fair chance.

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.

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.

And that's just the people I haven't blocked because they keep repeating the same thing over and over and rejecting any and all criticism like if they say it a 113th time, it will somehow finally be true.

This idea may not be universally liked. Looks like you've got a lot of work to do.

Vancouver was penalized for cap circumvention retroactively and hit with a 3 million dollar penalty for the Luongo contract that kicked in after Florida gave him a job with the team so he would retire and not collect his full contract amount rather than go on LTIR.

That wasn't a penalty for cap circumvention, per se. It was forcing the cap savings realized in the earlier years to be paid back.

Which, that took 2 tries because the first try would have resulted in something far more punitive under the guise of "we're fixing a problem."

When Vancouver gave him the contract it was according to the rules, but Gary can change the rules and punish you for playing by the rules if he wants to.

All 30 owners voted for that change and the NHLPA agreed to it as well. It wasn't Gary Bettman deciding it unilaterally and telling everyone else to go f*** themselves if they didn't like it.

 

[WhataKnight]

Until playoffs, when he’s indestructible.

First few games of the playoffs last year, he was clearly not 100% though.

The following isn’t a rebuttal to you, though - just “thinkin’ about the Rube Goldberg machine, and where the responsibility lies.”

The owners and NHLPA had legal teams that should have seen the potential for this and didn’t put strictures in place to deny it. Given this, why can’t it be the owners’ responsibility to their fanbases to simply sack up? If we’re willing to watch bottom teams game the system by stripping a roster down to the studs (Buffalo, SJ, Edmonton, Pittsburgh), what teams like Vegas, Tampa, Chicago (‘15) just looks like the other side of the equation to me. It established a market where the viability of a roster’s chance to sink enough to improve the odds of ‘securing a pick that becomes Celebrini’ outstrips the option of ‘keeping a Hertl.’

For all we type in here about this……I’d sooner see a fanbase communicate a particular quote from the movie “Training Day” -

“See what those teams over there are doing? Do THAT. ‘This shit is CHESS; not checkers!’”

 

[TheBeard]

First few games of the playoffs last year, he was clearly not 100% though.

The following isn’t a rebuttal to you, though - just “thinkin’ about the Rube Goldberg machine, and where the responsibility lies.”

The owners and NHLPA had legal teams that should have seen the potential for this and didn’t put strictures in place to deny it. Given this, why can’t it be the owners’ responsibility to their fanbases to simply sack up? If we’re willing to watch bottom teams game the system by stripping a roster down to the studs (Buffalo, SJ, Edmonton, Pittsburgh), what teams like Vegas, Tampa, Chicago (‘15) just looks like the other side of the equation to me. It established a market where the viability of a roster’s chance to sink enough to improve the odds of ‘securing a pick that becomes Celebrini’ outstrips the option of ‘keeping a Hertl.’

For all we type in here about this……I’d sooner see a fanbase communicate a particular quote from the movie “Training Day” -

“See what those teams over there are doing? Do THAT. ‘This shit is CHESS; not checkers!’”

The problem with this system in terms of LTIR and the playoffs is that the grey area is simply too large to ignore.

 

[PaulD]

It's not a problem when it's the same for every team.
GMs said it was brought up at the meetings in Florida. They spent less than 5 minutes on it and moved on.

 

[pantherbot]

OK, so go sell that to everyone who wants to change how the cap works and get back to me and let me know how many of them are agreeable to this.

Oh, wait:








And that's just the people I haven't blocked because they keep repeating the same thing over and over and rejecting any and all criticism like if they say it a 113th time, it will somehow finally be true.

This idea may not be universally liked. Looks like you've got a lot of work to do.



That wasn't a penalty for cap circumvention, per se. It was forcing the cap savings realized in the earlier years to be paid back.

Which, that took 2 tries because the first try would have resulted in something far more punitive under the guise of "we're fixing a problem."


All 30 owners voted for that change and the NHLPA agreed to it as well. It wasn't Gary Bettman deciding it unilaterally and telling everyone else to go f*** themselves if they didn't like it.

Oh I get no plan would get everyone in agreement. And I doubt the league would go with no cap after the trade deadline, just saying I think it makes the most sense with actual benefits for both teams and players

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's not a problem when it's the same fir every team.
GMs said it was brought up at the meetings in Florida. They spent less than 5 minutes on it and moved on.

Yeah, well, the GMs don't know anything, they're out of touch, they're why the league sucks ass and nothing changes.

Oh I get no plan would get everyone in agreement. And I doubt the league would go with no cap after the trade deadline, just saying I think it makes the most sense with actual benefits for both teams and players

It's one of the better ideas I've seen, but only because the bar is that low. I still don't know that it's a great idea, though, and I'd have to spend time thinking about it more and what it means all around. My gut says "the owners still don't go for it" for no other reason than "they don't want to open the door to getting rid of the cap at all" but at least there's a vaguely plausible path to sell it, unlike some of the other ideas lobbed that are dead to one or both sides before whoever is proposing the idea finishes their thought.

 

[PaulD]

Leave it to Lou and the Leafs to start the controversy

 

[SmytheKing]

If someone isn't playing well, they can still play. They just suck when they play. If you really hate that they're sucking ass, you have the choice to waive them and send them to the minors, provided they don't have a NMC that prohibits it - and, you still retain the player's rights for if you want him later on.

If someone is injured to the point they need to go on IR, they can't play. You cannot waive them or otherwise assign them outside the NHL simply because they're injured; the only way you can lose the player's playing rights is via trade provided they don't have a NTC/NMC that prohibits it.

If a player sucks ass, he has the potential to not suck ass at any time and make positive contributions to the team. If a player is hurt and unable to play, he can't just decide "I'm completely fit to play" on a moment's notice; he can't contribute at all until he's fit to play again and medically cleared to do so.

The ability to use LTIR for cap purposes recognizes that in the first instance, the team still has control of whether and where the player is playing and can make whatever moves it wants while still retaining the player's playing rights. In the second, it has no control over whether a player is playing and cannot compel the player to start playing again anyway, and teams should not be forced to relinquish a player's playing rights for reasons beyond its control.

Who said anything about relinquishing rights and things like that? I said injuries happen and there's a cap. Why do you arbitrarily give a team several million dollars in cap space because a player got injured? Just because? You've got a minor league team with guys on two way contracts. You've got guys in the press box. Call them up or let them play to fill that slot. He's not as good? Sorry to hear that. Good luck.

There isn't a real reason to have LTIR in the first place. Or, at the very least, do it like the NFL. You put them on a PUP list and they're shut down for the year. You don't want to see how it goes with his minor league replacement? Ok well shut him down for the year and deal with the ramifications next season.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Who said anything about relinquishing rights and things like that? I said injuries happen and there's a cap. Why do you arbitrarily give a team several million dollars in cap space because a player got injured? Just because? You've got a minor league team with guys on two way contracts. You've got guys in the press box. Call them up or let them play to fill that slot. He's not as good? Sorry to hear that. Good luck.

There isn't a real reason to have LTIR in the first place. Or, at the very least, do it like the NFL. You put them on a PUP list and they're shut down for the year. You don't want to see how it goes with his minor league replacement? Ok well shut him down for the year and deal with the ramifications next season.

Your post is entirely "I don't like the explanation you gave because I want to believe what I think is true without exception, so I'm rejecting any criticism of it and thus I'm 100% correct."

 

[SmytheKing]

Your post is entirely "I don't like the explanation you gave because I want to believe what I think is true without exception, so I'm rejecting any criticism of it and thus I'm 100% correct."

You're right. Because you answered a question I wasn't asking. I mentioned a player not playing well as an arbitrary thing and you felt the need to write several paragraphs explaining the differences and options available to teams and contrast that with LTIR...missing the point entirely that it's an arbitrary reason to give cap space.

Again...to reiterate...LTIR is a silly thing in the first place and there are already options available to teams to replace someone who is injured that don't involve giving them several million dollars in cap space. I hope that makes it more clear.