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

[Ted Hoffman]

It is very naive to believe that teams won't try anything and everything within the margins of the rulebook to give them an advantage.

This is true, but it's also true that "let's pretend a guy is hurt and LTIR him so we can add guys, but risk not making the playoffs and end up with a bad seed and tough matchups throughout the playoffs if we want to go on a Cup run, with no home ice advantage in any series, then bring him back and we'll be loaded up and we'll flip the switch and everything will be fine and we'll blow through all those tough teams we now have to face"... isn't how you'd go about winning a Cup if you were really serious about it.

 

[Nemec]

That isn't cheating. Nor is it really a loophole.

If the Vegas medical staff deems Stone cannot play the final week, then that's their decision. They may very well be of the opinion he needs an extra couple days of rest.

This is my point. No doctor who is employed by an NHL team will decide that the player will be ready by game 80, 81, or 82 when the team is over the cap in the regular season due to players they acquired when the first player went on LTIR.

If you were a team doctor, would you jeopardize your relationship with the team by saying the player is ready to play in game 82, and then force the team to do complicated and sometimes impossible lineup modifications?

No you would not. You would say the player will be ready by Game 1 of the playoffs.

This is true, but it's also true that "let's pretend a guy is hurt and LTIR him so we can add guys, but risk not making the playoffs and end up with a bad seed and tough matchups throughout the playoffs if we want to go on a Cup run, with no home ice advantage in any series, then bring him back and we'll be loaded up and we'll flip the switch and everything will be fine and we'll blow through all those tough teams we now have to face"... isn't how you'd go about winning a Cup if you were really serious about it.

Fair point, but this LTIR strategy only makes sense if a team is destined to be in the playoffs anyway. If a team is 5 games out, probably makes more sense to bring the player back sooner, well before the playoffs.

Also I am not saying they are faking injuries altogether. I am saying they are fudging the recovery timeline. There is no way to prove if the player would have been ready by game 82 OR game 1 of the playoffs, so they will always choose game 1 of the playoffs, assuming making the playoffs is not a primary issue.

 

[Thallis]

This is my point. No doctor who is employed by an NHL team will decide that the player will be ready by game 80, 81, or 82 when the team is over the cap in the regular season due to players they acquired when the first player went on LTIR.

If you were a team doctor, would you jeopardize your relationship with the team by saying the player is ready to play in game 82, and then force the team to do complicated and sometimes impossible lineup modifications?

No you would not. You would say the player will be ready by Game 1 of the playoffs.




Fair point, but this LTIR strategy only makes sense if a team is destined to be in the playoffs anyway. If a team is 5 games out, probably makes more sense to bring the player back sooner, well before the playoffs.

Also I am not saying they are faking injuries altogether. I am saying they are fudging the recovery timeline. There is no way to prove if the player would have been ready by game 82 OR game 1 of the playoffs, so they will always choose game 1 of the playoffs, assuming making the playoffs is not a primary issue.

Basically every injured player fudges the recovery timeline to come back sooner than they should once the playoffs start. That was clearly the case with Stone last year. It's what happened 2 years ago when Draisaitl played on a bum leg. It's a consequence of the players caring as much as they do

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Fair point, but this LTIR strategy only makes sense if a team is destined to be in the playoffs anyway. If a team is 5 games out, probably makes more sense to bring the player back sooner, well before the playoffs.

Except ... once a player is on IR, the team can't force him off it. The player can opt to come off by deciding he's fit to play, but the team can't say "you're not fit to play, but we need you to play, so ... get your ass out there." The team has to decide he's fit and the player has to agree he's fit, or the player has to say "I'm fit enough" and the team signs off on the player's attestation.

Also I am not saying they are faking injuries altogether. I am saying they are fudging the recovery timeline.

"He's not faking the injury, he's ... just ... faking whether he's still injured or not. A little. And when it's Regular Season Game 82 or Playoffs Game 1, guys might fudge it to the latter."

Which, a number of people in this thread will tell you, is cheating - as if when a player is able to play from any injury can be accurately and objectively be determined with absolute precision, or even precision within a couple days.

 

[GOilers88]

It is very naive to believe that teams won't try anything and everything within the margins of the rulebook to give them an advantage.

Of course they will. But removing your best players for long stretches isn't exactly a winning strategy. Nor do I believe that players are willingly just sitting out when they can play as some big brain move.

People can act like plugging any player into a lineup is immediately going to make that lineup better, but that's not always how it works either.

 

[hairylikebear]

I think you're missing what I mean. Teams get hit with buyout and retention, that takes up cap space in the regular season. If you go into playoffs, do those count against the cap? If not, then that's an advantage for a team, and if it does then you'll need to settle on a method to be fair, that's not going to be easy.

What I was meaning to say is that if healthy scratches aren't going to count against the cap, then it makes no sense for buyouts and retained salary to. If they are both going to count, then the playoffs have a more restrictive cap than the regular season.

What's the core issue? Pretty sure its unfairness in competition due to having injury luck. this basically evens the playing field. Removing the cap at the trade deadline does solve that. Yes a team could stash a player on LTIR and wait until after the deadline, but that team would be bidding against all the other teams that can add players too.

The date of injury is recorded as the date that a doctor declared the player unfit to play according to the paperwork filed with the league. The loophole would be artificially delaying or rushing these dates for any reason other than the player's health and well being.

Even if Vegas is innocent, the loophole exists.

That's how I see it, but it's just a personal opinion.

I don't think your idea addresses your core issue, though. If a player is 'lucky' enough to get injured in training camp with a recovery sometime between the trade deadline and the playoffs, they are basically cap exempt for the year. The injury has to be longer for LTIR to properly stash them, but they also get to play games right up until the playoffs to get in form.

 

[pantherbot]

What I was meaning to say is that if healthy scratches aren't going to count against the cap, then it makes no sense for buyouts and retained salary to. If they are both going to count, then the playoffs have a more restrictive cap than the regular season.

Why would it be more restrictive? If buyouts and retained salary count in the regular season, then they should count in the playoffs too if you want to have competitive balance. Makes no sense why a team that took on buyouts and retained salary should benefit in the playoffs by having more cap. Point is, this complicated if the goal is to make things "fair".

That's how I see it, but it's just a personal opinion.

I don't think your idea addresses your core issue, though. If a player is 'lucky' enough to get injured in training camp with a recovery sometime between the trade deadline and the playoffs, they are basically cap exempt for the year. The injury has to be longer for LTIR to properly stash them, but they also get to play games right up until the playoffs to get in form.

I totally get that, but it would be way more penalizing for a team to not have that player help them get to the playoffs, it would be harder for a team to capitalize on the LTIR as its more difficult to trade for players early vs. at the trade deadline, and those instances are pretty rare. Also, the other teams would be able to "respond" by loading up themselves at the deadline. The point is that the cap or no cap is equal for all teams at all times.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I totally get that, but it would be way more penalizing for a team to not have that player help them get to the playoffs, it would be harder for a team to capitalize on the LTIR as its more difficult to trade for players early vs. at the trade deadline, and those instances are pretty rare. Also, the other teams would be able to "respond" by loading up themselves at the deadline. The point is that the cap or no cap is equal for all teams at all times.

No, they can't load up, because under your rule the cap only applies until the trade deadline. Once it passes, then everyone can "load up" by .... oh, right - anyone they add via trade is ineligible to play with them in the playoffs, so who would trade for guys post-deadline that they can't use? This clearly advantages anyone who can LTIR a guy [and use his cap space to acquire guys] and have him come back after the trade deadline, to the disadvantage of everyone else.

"OK, let's scoot it a week back." Why not 2 weeks? A month? If you're making the cap not apply some period before the trade deadline, then it's pointless to have it at all because you're not fixing anything. You're making everyone play under a system that everyone knows really doesn't mean anything because in the end, they have free license to spend as much as they desire. It might as well be "don't have a cap at all" which, I've said what the owners are going to say about it.

 

[hairylikebear]

Why would it be more restrictive? If buyouts and retained salary count in the regular season, then they should count in the playoffs too if you want to have competitive balance. Makes no sense why a team that took on buyouts and retained salary should benefit in the playoffs by having more cap. Point is, this complicated if the goal is to make things "fair".

In the regular season you accrue cap and can take on larger contracts. Then in the playoffs they can't fit anymore because the full cap counts against every game.

I totally get that, but it would be way more penalizing for a team to not have that player help them get to the playoffs, it would be harder for a team to capitalize on the LTIR as its more difficult to trade for players early vs. at the trade deadline, and those instances are pretty rare. Also, the other teams would be able to "respond" by loading up themselves at the deadline. The point is that the cap or no cap is equal for all teams at all times.

I think the only real way this weakens cap circumvention potential is by chopping a block off the salary cap entirely. A consequence of that may be, through a variety of factors, that it's less attractive to abuse LTIR.

 

[pantherbot]

No, they can't load up, because under your rule the cap only applies until the trade deadline. Once it passes, then everyone can "load up" by .... oh, right - anyone they add via trade is ineligible to play with them in the playoffs, so who would trade for guys post-deadline that they can't use? This clearly advantages anyone who can LTIR a guy [and use his cap space to acquire guys] and have him come back after the trade deadline, to the disadvantage of everyone else.

"OK, let's scoot it a week back." Why not 2 weeks? A month? If you're making the cap not apply some period before the trade deadline, then it's pointless to have it at all because you're not fixing anything. You're making everyone play under a system that everyone knows really doesn't mean anything because in the end, they have free license to spend as much as they desire. It might as well be "don't have a cap at all" which, I've said what the owners are going to say about it.

You know what I mean when I say after the trade deadline. Don't be facetious.

And it wouldn't be a free for all because all the teams need to be cap compliant for the rest of the season and the cap floor would still be in place. So overall league salaries would in sum not exceed the cap, and still meet the goal to split revenues evenly, which is really the goal of the cap system anyways, not competitive parity. There's no free license to spend as much as they desire, wouldn't work.

 

[TheBeard]

Why not just make teams have to be cap compliant for the first round of the playoffs and then uncapped for the remaining three rounds. That way there's no grey area in terms of prolonging an LTIR spot. Make it through the first round without that player or be compliant by game 82 of the regular season. Teams have two options .

 

[pantherbot]

In the regular season you accrue cap and can take on larger contracts. Then in the playoffs they can't fit anymore because the full cap counts against every game.

I think the only real way this weakens cap circumvention potential is by chopping a block off the salary cap entirely. A consequence of that may be, through a variety of factors, that it's less attractive to abuse LTIR.

That first point is a whole other issue. Like others have said already, if a team accrues cap through the season, they should benefit me, then what? You not adjust their playoff cap?

I don't get what you're trying to say with your second point. Removing the cap after the deadline means there is no cap circumvention, because there's no cap. All teams will be on equal footing. Want to have a $100M roster? Go for it, bid against everyone else too. Take in those big contracts? You can do that too, then deal with the consequences afterwards.

The core issue with LTIR is that some teams benefit based on random injury chance while others don't.

 

[TheBeard]

That first point is a whole other issue. Like others have said already, if a team accrues cap through the season, they should benefit me, then what? You not adjust their playoff cap?

I don't get what you're trying to say with your second point. Removing the cap after the deadline means there is no cap circumvention, because there's no cap. All teams will be on equal footing. Want to have a $100M roster? Go for it, bid against everyone else too. Take in those big contracts? You can do that too, then deal with the consequences afterwards.

The core issue with LTIR is that some teams benefit based on random injury chance while others don't.

The problem with that is teams carrying over 100m dollar roster can't just "cut" guys like they can in the NHL to fit under the cap.

 

[pantherbot]

The problem with that is teams carrying over 100m dollar roster can't just "cut" guys like they can in the NHL to fit under the cap.

Right, so teams either won't do that or they'll be forced to sell to be cap compliant the next season.

 

[TheBeard]

Right, so teams either won't do that or they'll be forced to sell to be cap compliant the next season.

It would end up like the NBA and, honestly, that may be the end of hockey for me.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You know what I mean when I say after the trade deadline. Don't be facetious.

I know what you wrote, and that's been pretty clear throughout.

* You want to stop game-playing with LTIR for the postseason, but realize you can't do it with a postseason cap because it's way more complicated than you first realized. [Which, I tried to tell you, but ... well, you had to figure it out yourself.] So,
* You want the cap to go away after the trade deadline, so that teams can spend as much as they want and then we don't have to worry about teams playing games with the cap in the playoffs [] .... which, they're still going to be cap-constrained before the deadline, so it's not like anyone is going out and loading up with $30 million in salaries if they didn't have the cap space before ... unless
* Teams now shift from "playing games with LTIR" before the playoffs to "playing games with LTIR" before the trade deadline - which, now that under your plan there's no cap after the trade deadline, they just need to shove guys on LTIR, load up the roster, pass the deadline, then bring guys back off LTIR and onto the roster [which has no limit after the trade deadline] where they don't have to worry about "do we have cap space for it?" - which means
* You've now granted a free pass to everyone who had injuries they could push on to LTIR to go get more players, at the expense of everyone who didn't have injuries to be able to load up ... which is exactly the opposite of what you set out to do originally.

So if "no cap after the trade deadline" isn't clear, perhaps you need to explain it better.

And it wouldn't be a free for all because all the teams need to be cap compliant for the rest of the season and the cap floor would still be in place.

So, when you say "get rid of the cap" you just mean "get rid of the Upper Limit."

Which ... if you're going to let teams exceed the Upper Limit, why worry about whether or not teams fall under the Lower Limit, especially when you turn around and argue

So overall league salaries would in sum not exceed the cap, and still meet the goal to split revenues evenly, which is really the goal of the cap system anyways, not competitive parity. There's no free license to spend as much as they desire, wouldn't work.

If everything is still going to come out in the end evenly and competitive parity isn't a concern, why does it matter who spends what? You want to give license to teams to spend all they want after a certain point [which you keep saying is "after the trade deadline, which ... see my earlier post]; why can't some team choose to spend as little as it wants?

You can't say "there's no free license to spend as much as they desire" and yet tout a system where at some point, teams can in fact spend as much as they want because the cap no longer exists. It's logically impossible. Either you have a cap [which requires a floor], or you don't have a cap [which means everyone can spend what they want ... in which case, imposing a floor props up spending above what it might be otherwise, pushing up the eventual average above what it would be otherwise].

 

[hairylikebear]

That first point is a whole other issue. Like others have said already, if a team accrues cap through the season, they should benefit me, then what? You not adjust their playoff cap?

My first point was answering your question, why would a playoff cap be more restrictive than a regular season cap in a specific hypothetical scenario. I understand that teams can plan around the more restrictive playoff cap, that wasn't the discussion.

I don't get what you're trying to say with your second point. Removing the cap after the deadline means there is no cap circumvention, because there's no cap. All teams will be on equal footing. Want to have a $100M roster? Go for it, bid against everyone else too. Take in those big contracts? You can do that too, then deal with the consequences afterwards.

The core issue with LTIR is that some teams benefit based on random injury chance while others don't.

Eliminating the cap (partially) is certainly a way to address cap circumvention, but we're circling back to my original notion that your idea is nuclear.

I also simply don't agree with that core issue. I don't think teams experiencing varying degrees of injury inconvenience is an issue worth anyone's time. (I'm also going to assume you meant benefit from the timing of the injury, but correct me if you are referring to something else)

 

[pantherbot]

I know what you wrote, and that's been pretty clear throughout.

* You want to stop game-playing with LTIR for the postseason, but realize you can't do it with a postseason cap because it's way more complicated than you first realized. [Which, I tried to tell you, but ... well, you had to figure it out yourself.] So,
* You want the cap to go away after the trade deadline, so that teams can spend as much as they want and then we don't have to worry about teams playing games with the cap in the playoffs [] .... which, they're still going to be cap-constrained before the deadline, so it's not like anyone is going out and loading up with $30 million in salaries if they didn't have the cap space before ... unless
* Teams now shift from "playing games with LTIR" before the playoffs to "playing games with LTIR" before the trade deadline - which, now that under your plan there's no cap after the trade deadline, they just need to shove guys on LTIR, load up the roster, pass the deadline, then bring guys back off LTIR and onto the roster [which has no limit after the trade deadline] where they don't have to worry about "do we have cap space for it?" - which means
* You've now granted a free pass to everyone who had injuries they could push on to LTIR to go get more players, at the expense of everyone who didn't have injuries to be able to load up ... which is exactly the opposite of what you set out to do originally.

So if "no cap after the trade deadline" isn't clear, perhaps you need to explain it better.

This isn't that complicated. No cap after the trade deadline. All trades go through the NHL for compliance with cap. So any trades or contract signings some short period of time (say 12 hours) before the deadline expires, the NHL will allow those trades to exceed the cap.

In your LTIR example, there's only a slight benefit to trying for the loophole. The LTIR team could theoretically trade for a player earlier, but they would also be bidding against all the other teams that will have their cap restrictions lifted post-deadline. Maybe the LTIR team offers a more to acquire said player earlier, if so good for them, I have no problem with that, they still had to outbid the other teams.

So, when you say "get rid of the cap" you just mean "get rid of the Upper Limit."

Which ... if you're going to let teams exceed the Upper Limit, why worry about whether or not teams fall under the Lower Limit, especially when you turn around and argue

If everything is still going to come out in the end evenly and competitive parity isn't a concern, why does it matter who spends what? You want to give license to teams to spend all they want after a certain point [which you keep saying is "after the trade deadline, which ... see my earlier post]; why can't some team choose to spend as little as it wants?

You can't say "there's no free license to spend as much as they desire" and yet tout a system where at some point, teams can in fact spend as much as they want because the cap no longer exists. It's logically impossible. Either you have a cap [which requires a floor], or you don't have a cap [which means everyone can spend what they want ... in which case, imposing a floor props up spending above what it might be otherwise, pushing up the eventual average above what it would be otherwise].

You still need the floor in place so teams aren't wholesale selling players and to still enforce some cap limitations. Removing the upper limit just gives teams more freedom to maneuver. Average league salaries for teams are already above the average, not sure what your point is here.

And no there's no free license to spend because teams will still be restricted by the cap next season and most contracts have already been signed by the deadline. The pool of players available for trade and their contracts are already set, it's not like a team can just go out and sign someone to a one-year $15M contract, unless that player was in some weird injury situation and held out until the deadline. If so then good for them, again no problem with this as all other teams can do this too.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This isn't that complicated. No cap after the trade deadline. All trades go through the NHL for compliance with cap. So any trades or contract signings some short period of time (say 12 hours) before the deadline expires, the NHL will allow those trades to exceed the cap.

This is where your plan falls apart.

1. When you say "no cap after the trade deadline" you really mean "no cap some 'short' period of time before the deadline".

2. 12 hours is 3am Eastern. GMs are not going to be sitting up until 3am to hurriedly cram through trades, even if you reference they could be "bidding against all the other teams that will have their cap restrictions lifted post-deadline". Calls to players have to be made notifying them of trades; league personnel have to verify contractual protections for players, agents have to be involved, trade calls have to be held with all the parties involved. And any subsequent trade involving those players, prospects or picks can't be done until that trade call is done and everyone is in agreement, just in case something goes awry. No GM calls up another GM, proposes a trade, and everything is done in 15 minutes.

So ... 12 hours is unrealistic, for all this trading you imagine is going to occur sans cap. Why not make it ... say, 24 hours? And if you OK 24 hours, why not 48 hours? 3 days A week? The fact is, the moment you say "I'm willing to let a cap not exist prior to [any point in time you choose]" you open the door to the cap not existing at all. Which, as I've explained 112,003 times previously, the owners are never allowing that door to get pried open even the tiniest bit because it then becomes leverage for "... so let's get rid of the cap entirely" which they are NEVER doing.

In your LTIR example, there's only a slight benefit to trying for the loophole. The LTIR team could theoretically trade for a player earlier, but they would also be bidding against all the other teams that will have their cap restrictions lifted post-deadline. Maybe the LTIR team offers a more to acquire said player earlier, if so good for them, I have no problem with that, they still had to outbid the other teams.

You've "solved" the "problem" of teams stashing players on LTIR and having them back for the playoffs - which is the "problem" you set out to fix - by ... eliminating the cap, so that everyone can spend as much as they want on a team come playoff time.

I'm not eliminating the cap completely, just ... some 'short' period of time before the trade deadline. And, then teams - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say high-revenue teams - can use their financial might to spend as much as they want on players at the expense of other teams - again, out on a limb, saying these will be the low-revenue teams - which will tilt the competitive balance of the league.

I gotta applaud you here, I didn't see "I'm going to take the backdoor route to 'get rid of the cap so high-revenue teams can use their money' coming. But I'm still going to tell you, it's never happening.

You still need the floor in place so teams aren't wholesale selling players and to still enforce some cap limitations. Removing the upper limit just gives teams more freedom to maneuver. Average league salaries for teams are already above the average, not sure what your point is here.

Teams can wholesale buy, why can't they wholesale sell? It would give teams even more freedom to maneuver. Where average league salaries are is irrelevant; what's relevant is how much flexibility you want teams to have to make moves. As soon as you open the door to "make whatever moves you want, they're all legal because there's no cap" it is inconsistent to then say "whoa whoa whoa, not all the moves you want to make - we gotta have some integrity in this process."

And no there's no free license to spend because teams will still be restricted by the cap next season and most contracts have already been signed by the deadline. The pool of players available for trade and their contracts are already set, it's not like a team can just go out and sign someone to a one-year $15M contract, unless that player was in some weird injury situation and held out until the deadline. If so then good for them, again no problem with this as all other teams can do this too.

There is a free license to spend, though. You're just trying to thread the eye of the needle from 1000 miles and say "but the cap goes back into effect next season" and the very first question the NHLPA will have is "if you're OK with the cap going away before the trade deadline, why can't we just get rid of it completely?" I'm going to let you read back through my prior comments and see if you can figure out what the owners response is going to be to that.

I'm going to say this to you and everyone else trying to come up with a "solution" to whatever "problem" you think exists: Go back to the start, try to figure out what problem you're trying to solve, and work on a solution from there that (1) actually fixes the problem, (2) doesn't create new problems that you then have to solve [or come up with solutions to those problems], (3) isn't as complex as a Rube Goldberg machine, and (4) would seriously be considered by both the NHL and the NHLPA - which means do not say "well, owners would like to spend more" or "well, the NHLPA is concerned about players being able to win a Cup" because neither of those are true.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

"Anybody here see a problem with LTIR? Anybody? Nobody? Are you sure? Last call! Well, then moving on to the next agenda item ....."

NHL ‘in a good place,’ Bettman says; GM meetings conclude | NHL.com

Commissioner has no concerns about use of LTIR; schedule for 4 Nations Face-Off outlined

www.nhl.com

 

[Czechboy]

I see this thread is now into BOLD CAPS.. time to leave.lol

 

[pantherbot]

This is where your plan falls apart.

1. When you say "no cap after the trade deadline" you really mean "no cap some 'short' period of time before the deadline".

2. 12 hours is 3am Eastern. GMs are not going to be sitting up until 3am to hurriedly cram through trades, even if you reference they could be "bidding against all the other teams that will have their cap restrictions lifted post-deadline". Calls to players have to be made notifying them of trades; league personnel have to verify contractual protections for players, agents have to be involved, trade calls have to be held with all the parties involved. And any subsequent trade involving those players, prospects or picks can't be done until that trade call is done and everyone is in agreement, just in case something goes awry. No GM calls up another GM, proposes a trade, and everything is done in 15 minutes.

So ... 12 hours is unrealistic, for all this trading you imagine is going to occur sans cap. Why not make it ... say, 24 hours? And if you OK 24 hours, why not 48 hours? 3 days A week? The fact is, the moment you say "I'm willing to let a cap not exist prior to [any point in time you choose]" you open the door to the cap not existing at all. Which, as I've explained 112,003 times previously, the owners are never allowing that door to get pried open even the tiniest bit because it then becomes leverage for "... so let's get rid of the cap entirely" which they are NEVER doing.


You've "solved" the "problem" of teams stashing players on LTIR and having them back for the playoffs - which is the "problem" you set out to fix - by ... eliminating the cap, so that everyone can spend as much as they want on a team come playoff time.

I'm not eliminating the cap completely, just ... some 'short' period of time before the trade deadline. And, then teams - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say high-revenue teams - can use their financial might to spend as much as they want on players at the expense of other teams - again, out on a limb, saying these will be the low-revenue teams - which will tilt the competitive balance of the league.

I gotta applaud you here, I didn't see "I'm going to take the backdoor route to 'get rid of the cap so high-revenue teams can use their money' coming. But I'm still going to tell you, it's never happening.

Teams can wholesale buy, why can't they wholesale sell? It would give teams even more freedom to maneuver. Where average league salaries are is irrelevant; what's relevant is how much flexibility you want teams to have to make moves. As soon as you open the door to "make whatever moves you want, they're all legal because there's no cap" it is inconsistent to then say "whoa whoa whoa, not all the moves you want to make - we gotta have some integrity in this process."

There is a free license to spend, though. You're just trying to thread the eye of the needle from 1000 miles and say "but the cap goes back into effect next season" and the very first question the NHLPA will have is "if you're OK with the cap going away before the trade deadline, why can't we just get rid of it completely?" I'm going to let you read back through my prior comments and see if you can figure out what the owners response is going to be to that.

I'm going to say this to you and everyone else trying to come up with a "solution" to whatever "problem" you think exists: Go back to the start, try to figure out what problem you're trying to solve, and work on a solution from there that (1) actually fixes the problem, (2) doesn't create new problems that you then have to solve [or come up with solutions to those problems], (3) isn't as complex as a Rube Goldberg machine, and (4) would seriously be considered by both the NHL and the NHLPA - which means do not say "well, owners would like to spend more" or "well, the NHLPA is concerned about players being able to win a Cup" because neither of those are true.

The cap already doesn't exist during the playoffs, so your point is invalid. The owners already allow a period of the season that doesn't have a cap. There's no reason they wouldn't be ok with no cap post trade deadline, its effectively the same thing, you're just moving up the date. So no, there's no free license to spend. The cap is still enforced the next season and you're not adding more contracts by the deadline, the overall cap on total league salaries is still in place.

Yes, some teams can use their financial advantages to rent more players, there's nothing wrong with that and it actually wouldn't be as much of a problem as you think since most salaries for the bigger stars are paid in bonuses, so the actual dollars out by the trade deadline are much less than the actual AAVs. If anything, it gives poorer teams would have a chance at a star rental after a richer team has paid the bonus.

Yes give teams some more reasons to maneuver, there's nothing inconsistent with allowing that and still keeping a salary floor. Nothing says you can't have a floor with no cap, that's just an arbitrary statement you're making.

 

[pantherbot]

My first point was answering your question, why would a playoff cap be more restrictive than a regular season cap in a specific hypothetical scenario. I understand that teams can plan around the more restrictive playoff cap, that wasn't the discussion.

Eliminating the cap (partially) is certainly a way to address cap circumvention, but we're circling back to my original notion that your idea is nuclear.

I also simply don't agree with that core issue. I don't think teams experiencing varying degrees of injury inconvenience is an issue worth anyone's time. (I'm also going to assume you meant benefit from the timing of the injury, but correct me if you are referring to something else)

It all depends on how the cap accruals through the season would be taken into account. Point is, putting in a cap in the playoffs, you have to account for cap accruals, retained salaries, buyouts, there's too many things to account for and that need agreement on.

Removing cap post deadline really isn't that radical. There's already no cap for the playoffs. I also think removing the cap gives other benefits aside from evening the playing field and addressing the LTIR issue.

Yes, I do think the main issue with LTIR/playoffs is the random benefit from timing of an injury. What do you think is the core issue then? If you say its about some team managing when a player comes back from injury, that'll never get solved.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The cap already doesn't exist during the playoffs, so your point is invalid.

It's not invalid, it just doesn't fit with what you're trying to achieve.

The owners already allow a period of the season that doesn't have a cap.

The cap allows teams to build a team within the cap, allowing for injuries. You want to remove the "allowance for injuries" part and make it uncapped. But only after a certain point. Which is still before the point where teams lock who's eligible for their playoff rosters. Which still allows for an unnatural shift in competitive balance.

Which defeats the point you originally set out to fix. Which I'm going to point out to you until you finally realize it.

There's no reason they wouldn't be ok with no cap post trade deadline

Stop. There is a vast difference between "you don't have a cap for the playoffs" which was still constrained by all actions prior to the playoffs, and "you don't have a cap starting some 'short' period before the trade deadline" which completely overturns competitive balance, that thing you complained about previously. Which, I'm going to say again: if it's "only" a "short" period of time before the trade deadline, why not scoot it back ... a little more? And then a little more from there? And some more after that? And then why have a cap at all?

I would have more respect for your position if you just admitted "yeah, sorry about thinking playoff competitive fairness was a concern, I don't give a shit about that now, I'm all for teams loading it up as much as they can for the playoffs." At least your position would be consistent throughout. Instead, you're trying to waffle through two inconsistent positions.

The cap is still enforced the next season and you're not adding more contracts by the deadline, the overall cap on total league salaries is still in place.

*sigh* Go back and read my comment on the NHLPA's first question.

Yes, some teams can use their financial advantages to rent more players, there's nothing wrong with that and it actually wouldn't be as much of a problem as you think since most salaries for the bigger stars are paid in bonuses, so the actual dollars out by the trade deadline are much less than the actual AAVs. If anything, it gives poorer teams would have a chance at a star rental after a richer team has paid the bonus.

It doesn't - no high-revenue team is dumping a high cap hit, low salary team on a small-revenue franchise unless the player is playing that much like shit. Which, (1) there's not that many guys out there in the situation of "really high bonus, really low salary," (2) there's even fewer out there playing like shit, (2) if a high-revenue team has someone in that boat, they've got the resources to pay that remaining low salary, so they'll just do it, (4) if the player isn't playing like shit but high high-revenue team is shopping him, any other high-revenue team can also bid [and will probably have the resources to do it].

Low-revenue teams will "have a chance" in the same way I have a chance to fly to Saturn. That's especially true when you take into account NTCs.

Yes give teams some more reasons to maneuver, there's nothing inconsistent with allowing that and still keeping a salary floor. Nothing says you can't have a floor with no cap, that's just an arbitrary statement you're making.

No more arbitrary than your idea that "we can get rid of the cap, but we have to keep the floor."

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You're not going to realize this no matter how many times I try to explain this, but you are never getting the owners to sign off on not having a cap for any part of the regular season, no matter when you decide to set a deadline for the cap to be lifted. And, you've veered way away from the problem you intended to fix to ... "fixing" a non-problem with a non-solution.

Someone else is going to have to explain it to you so it finally clicks, or you're going to have to figure it out yourself.