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

[Kosseca]

The basic rule during the playoff should be that the official roster for a game (i.e. the players about to play) can't go over the cap. All non-playing player such as healthy scratch or injured player are disregarded from the calculation. Team can change the line up every game, just need to stay on or below the cap.

You would need to come up with some way to define the cap hit of player with bonus or other special cases, and define if you count retention/buyout, but the idea would be that every team on the ice has the same "payroll". That said, it also allow team that want to spend more to leave a bad contract in the pressbox and replace it by a similar, more performing one.

 

[Voight]

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.

As Jeff Marek said "good luck convincing an owner he can't replace his star player when they're out for a significant amount of time"

 

[Ted Hoffman]

In the playoffs: The necessary complexity above is why they scrap the cap for the playoffs (like what would be the pool of $$$ available and how do you account for one team playing only 4 games and another playing up to 28)... but to your question they overlooked an OBVIOUS solution, which is: during the playoffs, you should not be allowed to ice a lineup (or a lineup +2 press box guys, to equate to a typical 22-man roster) that based on AAV sums to more than $82.5M in any game. Remove waivers during playoffs and have a taxi squad (which doesn't count unless added to your active roster) and bam, you have all the flexibility GMs need, PLUS you are still adhering to the basis principle of a cap, you are just calculating it differently.

Honestly, what is wrong with that? And why is it so difficult to figure out?

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.

 

[TheBeard]

I’m enjoying watching Ted acting like he’s having an aneurysm with every post.

 

[bucks_oil]

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

It's a good point (which I did at least partially cover above in the part you didn't quote), but thanks for pointing it out more clearly... there is also an easy fix

I had covered the concept of 'saving' $XM so that you can get the benefit of concentrating those actual dollars saved during the period from TDL to playoffs. I hadn't put the actual numbers beside it and your example is a good illustration that they would also be over the cap - if and only if my rule were drafted poorly (fair point there is more detail required)

However, Team A is a good example of a team that is 'validly' over the cap. But that could be handled by a simple amendment to my rule. Dollars (excluding LTIR) that are accrued until the deadline and validly spent could be used to validly increase your cap for the playoffs. In your example above, that team would be allowed to have a playoff roster of $95M. They earned that right by being $5M under the cap for 4/5th of the season. Those dollars accrued to effectively increase their post-deadline cap validly. But only savings below the cap should earn this reward.

What we are trying to avoid is Team B.

• Carried a cap of $80M in total cap hits for 4/5 of the season, blah blah... all exactly as you wrote it above
• They validly have an available cap for the playoffs of $95M - they earned that part
• In addition, they had $10M on LTIR.
• So in addition to adding $15M in legit adds at the deadline, they ALSO used up their LTIR with another $10M in players
• From TDL to playoffs, they ice a team that is $95M, that's fair... $10M of their cap is "forgiven" on LTIR and those players aren't playing
• Come playoffs, their players are healthy and they now have $105M on the cap.
  • $15M of which was "validly earned" by saving money below the cap.
  • $10M of which was a "temporary forgiveness" under the LTIR rules, allowing them to ice a lineup even when players are injured
• But the players are no longer injured, so why should they still be allowed to make use of that "temporary forgiveness"?

What is wrong with mandating that Team B is also only afforded a playoff cap of $95M? It's an easy calculation to do. Teams could still be rewarded for managing the cap effectively. The basic principle here is that the $15M in extra space was EARNED by being under the cap for 4/5 of the season... and rewarded for it after the deadline. Any team that thinks they are strong enough to compete below the cap could then add at the deadline.

That would still be in keeping with the intent of the salary cap AND the intent of LTIR (which is meant as temporary relief to add replacement players).

 

[pantherbot]

I originally wanted a cap in the playoffs but I see a few problems.

- Too complex to account for different cap accruals. Too complicated to have teams with different cap hits and explain to fans why certain players can play or not.
- Game time roster decisions should be done by the coach and not the GM. The coach shouldn't have to think about what cap is associated for which player.
- Punishes teams with legit injuries like the Avs with Landeskog.

Just get rid of the cap after the trade deadline. There's already no cap during playoffs. Easiest to implement.

 

[4thline]

That said, what idea from HFBoards makes sense which the legal minds negotiating CBAs missed?

If enough owners cared to stop it they'd simply institute something comparable to the Redden rule for non-season ending injuries.
Non-season ending LTIR creates pre-negotiated and indexed "amount x" of relief
Season ending LTIR creates Full relief.

The overall mechanism stays the same, same ACSL and calculation process- just with a change to the SRP input per player that's expected to return

As with the Redden rule, they'd have to decide which they value more- retaining the flexibility for themselves or taking it away from their competition.

 

[WhataKnight]

If enough owners cared to stop it they'd simply institute something comparable to the Redden rule for non-season ending injuries.
Non-season ending LTIR creates pre-negotiated and indexed "amount x" of relief
Season ending LTIR creates Full relief.

The overall mechanism stays the same, same ACSL and calculation process- just with a change to the SRP input per player that's expected to return

As with the Redden rule, they'd have to decide which they value more- retaining the flexibility for themselves or taking it away from their competition.

I’m not opposed to that, or even a combo of this with a soft cap; maybe even with a ranking system. Something such as a hypothetical in which non-season-ending LTIR can only free up to x% of the total cap hit.

I’d still like to see a limited amount of access to this left open, however - one that lets all owners of playoff-bound teams put their money where their mouths are while giving GMs of non-playoff bound teams another chance to swing a trade that could turn a franchise around while robbing a contender blind.

 

[PaulD]

Overtime today. Host made a good point . "Leafs have the highest pay roll above cap in the NHL". They circumvent the cap with LTIR all season long. The bums they bring in with the salary they save is due to sub par management.
"Vegas just takes better advantage of the circumventing the cap"
And leaf nation whine the loudest. ha!

 

[Vegas07]

The front office values 1st round picks less than maybe any front office I’ve ever seen. That’s one reason the team has made several deals.

The team has traded almost all of them and based on history the remaining two could easily get traded.

In the offseason the front office has given away popular players for very little in return.

So there are some major downsides to what the team has done. It’s not like the team makes great trades, win cups and suffers no consequences.

 

[PaulD]

Anyone complaining about Vegas using the cap may I suggest play back on Kelly McCrimmon interview. He explains it better than anyone I have heard yet.

 

[I am toxic]

I just don't understand how the question mark in the thread title is still there.

Like, it never should have been there to begin with, but can't typos in thread titles be edited?

 

[WhataKnight]

I just don't understand how the question mark in the thread title is still there.

Like, it never should have been there to begin with, but can't typos in thread titles be edited?

How about we make a deal - if Mark Stone comes back either in round 1, or comes back later showing not one visible sign of rust or still being mid-recovery, remove the question mark.

Caveat: all teams over the cap (of which there are currently four) get mentioned in the title as well - because fairness.

 

[I am toxic]

How about we make a deal - if Mark Stone comes back either in round 1, or comes back later showing not one visible sign of rust or still being mid-recovery, remove the question mark.

Caveat: all teams over the cap (of which there are currently four) get mentioned in the title as well - because fairness.

No deal.

Question mark has to go.

 

[WhataKnight]

No deal.

Question mark has to go.

Cool.

I counter with no deal anyways, because there is nothing to circumvent in the playoffs.

Title’s a jilted misnomer, technically.

 

[WhataKnight]

If I were a fan of (insert struggling team here), I’d consider directing some ire at the billionaire owner approaching management like a kid going to a playground fight thinking giving the bully a Kinder Joy and doing their homework for a week will spare them having to resist catching a black eye.

 

[Kalus]

The basic rule during the playoff should be that the official roster for a game (i.e. the players about to play) can't go over the cap. All non-playing player such as healthy scratch or injured player are disregarded from the calculation. Team can change the line up every game, just need to stay on or below the cap.

You would need to come up with some way to define the cap hit of player with bonus or other special cases, and define if you count retention/buyout, but the idea would be that every team on the ice has the same "payroll". That said, it also allow team that want to spend more to leave a bad contract in the pressbox and replace it by a similar, more performing one.

I’ve never understood why it doesn’t work this way. It seems so logical.

 

[nturn06]

I won’t disagree.

That said, what idea from HFBoards makes sense which the legal minds negotiating CBAs missed?

It may be that the problem lies more with the “Pegulas” of the league not putting enough into effective management than with the “Foleys”/“Viniks” needing a reprimand for doing what they can within bounds agreed upon by league, owners, and NHLPA, as stated within the CBA.

I truly would sooner see a more entertaining league where half a dozen or more different teams do this every spring than a lockout. The passive ownership and management does NOT have to be passive, and it isn’t Vegas’ fault nor Tampa Bay’s that a mechanism agreed to by all the above parties isn’t being utilized by a gun-shy ownership & management group.

The biggest issue nowadays is that there are every year few players which are too injured to play game 82 but conveniently they are ready to go 2-3 days later.

I believe that the fix is easy: any player which is not on active roster for game 82, missex xx games in the playoffs (xx could be 2,4, 7, whatever looks best, just pick a number and write it in the CBA).

Note that if a player is really ready to go for game 1, and not just waiting for the cap to dissapear, the team can activate him for game 82 even if he does not play.

 

[PaulD]

The front office values 1st round picks less than maybe any front office I’ve ever seen. That’s one reason the team has made several deals.

The team has traded almost all of them and based on history the remaining two could easily get traded.

In the offseason the front office has given away popular players for very little in return.

So there are some major downsides to what the team has done. It’s not like the team makes great trades, win cups and suffers no consequences.

lol
•contended 5 of the 6 years they have been in league.
•been to the finals twice
•won a Stanley Cup .....with relative ease
•brought back great players the the first rounders they traded
•turned Fluery into Eichel cap wise
•in on every big time free agent
•contender as we speak

"consequences" ?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Overtime today. Host made a good point . "Leafs have the highest pay roll above cap in the NHL". They circumvent the cap with LTIR all season long. The bums they bring in with the salary they save is due to sub par management.
"Vegas just takes better advantage of the circumventing the cap"
And leaf nation whine the loudest. ha!

That's different, goddamnit, because ... look, it's just different.

And that's why I point out the hypocrisy between people who say "there shouldn't be a cap, teams should be able to spend whatever they want on player salaries" and then Vegas does that within the cap, and people scream BUT NOT LIKE THAT!

And I'm sure if there was no cap, Vegas would spend tens of millions of dollars more, and some of the same people who think there shouldn't be a cap would suddenly want some kind of a cap so Vegas couldn't do that.

It's why I might be compiling a list of the "best" [and worst] ideas to "fix" the NHL.

I’ve never understood why it doesn’t work this way. It seems so logical.

Because it's not nearly as logical as you want to believe it is - but, every time I or someone else attempts to explain all the faults in the logic, yet another person pops up with

The biggest issue nowadays is that there are every year few players which are too injured to play game 82 but conveniently they are ready to go 2-3 days later.

I believe that the fix is easy: any player which is not on active roster for game 82, missex xx games in the playoffs (xx could be 2,4, 7, whatever looks best, just pick a number and write it in the CBA).

Note that if a player is really ready to go for game 1, and not just waiting for the cap to dissapear, the team can activate him for game 82 even if he does not play.

It's like trying to kill the Hydra from Greek mythology.

 

[Vegas07]

lol
•contended 5 of the 6 years they have been in league.
•been to the finals twice
•won a Stanley Cup .....with relative ease
•brought back great players the the first rounders they traded
•turned Fluery into Eichel cap wise
•in on every big time free agent
•contender as we speak

"consequences" ?

Wow someone is reaching. Contender as we speak as the 8th seed in the conference just struggling to make the playoffs? I guess every playoff team is a contender then.

Using that standard I guess a bunch of teams are contenders so your claim that the team almost always contends isn’t much of an impressive claim. Or maybe it is if you’re jealous because your team and front office sucks.

The team hasn’t even had the cap room in recent years to be “in on every big time free agent” so that’s another lie.

The team constantly loses big players in the offseason like a HOF goalie coming off his best season winning the Vezina, the best goal scorer on the team, the best defender on the team, and a guy that was an all around solid player in the first 6 years off the team. The team is obviously going to lose players this offseason and even the leading goal scorer might leave despite being one of the key players.

And if you think there is no downside to the future of the team after trading not only previous first round picks, but also the first round picks of 2025 and 2026, then lol.

 

[Vegas07]

The biggest issue nowadays is that there are every year few players which are too injured to play game 82 but conveniently they are ready to go 2-3 days later.

I believe that the fix is easy: any player which is not on active roster for game 82, missex xx games in the playoffs (xx could be 2,4, 7, whatever looks best, just pick a number and write it in the CBA).

Note that if a player is really ready to go for game 1, and not just waiting for the cap to dissapear, the team can activate him for game 82 even if he does not play.

It’s not really that convenient if the player is rushed back and still injured though.

Even if Stone came back in game 2 or 3, people would still say there was obvious cheating and accuse the team of just trying to hide it by keeping him out of game 1.

So if Stone plays in game 1, it’s obvious cheating. If Stone doesn’t play in game 1, the team could still be accused of obvious cheating, and people will say the team does this every year even though it hasn’t happened with the team before. People even say it’s obvious cheating if the team misses the playoffs and the player doesn’t come back until the next season.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It’s not really that convenient if the player is rushed back and still injured though.

Even if Stone came back in game 2 or 3, people would still say there was obvious cheating and accuse the team of just trying to hide it by keeping him out of game 1.

So if Stone plays in game 1, it’s obvious cheating. If Stone doesn’t play in game 1, the team could still be accused of obvious cheating, and people will say the team does this every year even though it hasn’t happened with the team before. People even say it’s obvious cheating if the team misses the playoffs and the player doesn’t come back until the next season.

[mic drop]

 

[McFlyingV]

It’s not really that convenient if the player is rushed back and still injured though.

Even if Stone came back in game 2 or 3, people would still say there was obvious cheating and accuse the team of just trying to hide it by keeping him out of game 1.

So if Stone plays in game 1, it’s obvious cheating. If Stone doesn’t play in game 1, the team could still be accused of obvious cheating, and people will say the team does this every year even though it hasn’t happened with the team before. People even say it’s obvious cheating if the team misses the playoffs and the player doesn’t come back until the next season.

People might say the bolded, but it's also the most believable option outside of him just missing the entire first round of the playoffs. The reason, however, that people might state the bolded is because the alternative scenario isn't possible. Mark Stone cannot be activated in the regular season because Vegas wouldn't be cap compliant.

 

[TheBeard]

It’s not really that convenient if the player is rushed back and still injured though.

Even if Stone came back in game 2 or 3, people would still say there was obvious cheating and accuse the team of just trying to hide it by keeping him out of game 1.

So if Stone plays in game 1, it’s obvious cheating. If Stone doesn’t play in game 1, the team could still be accused of obvious cheating, and people will say the team does this every year even though it hasn’t happened with the team before. People even say it’s obvious cheating if the team misses the playoffs and the player doesn’t come back until the next season.

What would be the point of rushing him back if he's not 100%? Doing so only says Vegas can't win without having 10 million dollars worth of additional players.