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

[tarheelhockey]

The NHL could stop what Vegas did if it chose to. Instead it chooses not to.

No, the NHL can not simply “choose” to rewrite the CBA. Changes have to be negotiated with the NHLPA, and in this situation the NHLPA is getting free money from the loophole.

 

[Curufinwe]

Like I said, wrote paragraphs on this subject in this thread. If you aren’t just being a contrarian and actually care about my thoughts on the subject, look it up. It’ll address the “rule” Vegas is using which is in fact just a loophole the NHL in its incompetence accidentally left in the CBA. Or do you think the CBA was written to stash “injured” players to the start of the playoffs so they can load up to the max and to an amount higher than their competition.

It’s not a loophole. The CBA was explicitly written to not have a cap in the playoffs so that teams who went far in the playoffs and suffered lots of injuries wouldn’t end up in a situation where they could not ice 18 skaters because of the cap.

Friedman and Marek have explained this many times on their podcast.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It’s not a loophole. The CBA was explicitly written to not have a cap in the playoffs so that teams who went far in the playoffs and suffered lots of injuries wouldn’t end up in a situation where they could not ice 18 skaters because of the cap.

Friedman and Marek have explained this many times on their podcast.

Right, but the intention was not that LTIR would be exploited to allow teams to deliberately roll out a team wildly over the cap after acquiring high-impact players who wouldn’t otherwise have been allowed to play.

 

[TheBeard]

It’s not a loophole. The CBA was explicitly written to not have a cap in the playoffs so that teams who went far in the playoffs and suffered lots of injuries wouldn’t end up in a situation where they could not ice 18 skaters because of the cap.

Friedman and Marek have explained this many times on their podcast.

I still agree with the idea of an uncapped postseason, HOWEVER, I do believe teams should only be able to ice a game day roster similar to what the regular season cap is. If that means having 25 million dollars worth of inactive players in the press box then so be it, so long as the roster on the ice each game is within the confines of what is allowed cap-wise (or within a certain percentage over).

This would prevent any concerns over not being able to ice a complete roster, especially since rosters are expanded for the playoffs with the inclusion of Black Aces.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

Stones career doesn't have much runway left due to his back, he could barely get around the ice last night.

So he'll be LTIR next February due to his back. Got it.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

No, the NHL can not simply “choose” to rewrite the CBA. Changes have to be negotiated with the NHLPA, and in this situation the NHLPA is getting free money from the loophole.

Agree on the inability to change the CBA unilaterally.

Can you let me know how the NHLPA is getting more money? It sure seems like the amount paid to player is exactly the same. A little more of it might be coming from one team (Vegas in this case), and a little less from others (CAL & SJ in this case).

It would seem that most proposed changes (primarily making teams stay cap compliant during the play-off's) would just further limit player movement at the deadline, but not change the $'s paid to players. A by product of a rule like this could required teams to "de-activate" players if they wanted to activate a player from IR, which would be interesting.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Right, but the intention was not that LTIR would be exploited to allow teams to deliberately roll out a team wildly over the cap after acquiring high-impact players who wouldn’t otherwise have been allowed to play.

Since the players have already been paid their full salaries, the NHL doesn't care. It does not cost them an extra dollar for Stone to play in the play-offs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can you let me know how the NHLPA is getting more money? It sure seems like the amount paid to player is exactly the same. A little more of it might be coming from one team (Vegas in this case), and a little less from others (CAL & SJ in this case).

I guess a better way to say it is that it opens up the potential for more money to be on the table. By clearing cap space, Vegas can take on contracts from let’s say Calgary. By clearing contracts, Calgary now has more empty roster spots and more cap space. They might just sit on that, or maybe they activate a draftee, maybe they sign a guy out if Europe or the minors for the balance of the season. That gets down to the particular details of each team. The point is that the number of empty roster spots leaguewide goes up by 1 and the amount of potential salary spending goes up by $X for every player who does this.

Of course that all catches up to them in escrow, but historically the PA has regarded cash in hand as the priority.

Since the players have already been paid their full salaries, the NHL doesn't care. It does not cost them an extra dollar for Stone to play in the play-offs.

That’s not the issue, though. Of course the owners are fine with the loophole financially, but they are probably not so fine with getting knocked out of the playoffs. When it’s a non-cap-compliant team doing the knocking, an issue arises.

 

[stranger]

Next Fall Vegas will put entire 1st line on LITR.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I guess a better way to say it is that it opens up the potential for more money to be on the table. By clearing cap space, Vegas can take on contracts from let’s say Calgary. By clearing contracts, Calgary now has more empty roster spots and more cap space. They might just sit on that, or maybe they activate a draftee, maybe they sign a guy out if Europe or the minors for the balance of the season. That gets down to the particular details of each team. The point is that the number of empty roster spots leaguewide goes up by 1 and the amount of potential salary spending goes up by $X for every player who does this.

Of course that all catches up to them in escrow, but historically the PA has regarded cash in hand as the priority.



That’s not the issue, though. Of course the owners are fine with the loophole financially, but they are probably not so fine with getting knocked out of the playoffs. When it’s a non-cap-compliant team doing the knocking, an issue arises.

The cap is to ensure cost certainty and nothing else. The money paid to players on LTIR does count towards the player's share at the end of the season. So, unless that changes, the owners do not care.

 

[yeaher]

Stone is already on LTIR for next season

 

[tarheelhockey]

The cap is to ensure cost certainty and nothing else.

Right, but there are hundreds of pages in the CBA which have nothing to do with cost certainty. If that was the only factor, there would be no LTIR. It was appended to the cap system to resolve an issue with competitive fairness, and this topic is another issue with competitive fairness that will ultimately also be resolved with the CBA — during negotiations in 2026.

 

[Mick Riddleton]

The hockey gods have spoken, and we thank them, or, I mean, Dallas!!

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The NHL could stop what Vegas did if it chose to. Instead it chooses not to.

No, the NHL can not simply “choose” to rewrite the CBA. Changes have to be negotiated with the NHLPA, and in this situation the NHLPA is getting free money from the loophole.

TMH has it right: if the league thinks there's games being played [pun intended], the league absolutely has the power under the CBA as it stands to stop it. It doesn't. Whether that's intentional or not is for everyone to argue.

I would say that the league puts in an effort, enough to say "we've done our job, everything looks fine" but it doesn't put in all the effort it could - and that is intentional.

 

[TooManyHumans]

No, the NHL can not simply “choose” to rewrite the CBA. Changes have to be negotiated with the NHLPA, and in this situation the NHLPA is getting free money from the loophole.

I meant the collective NHL but whatever. Point remains that these are the agreed upon rules. They could agree to different rules if they viewed this as a problem. They do not. It is only whinging fans that have a problem with a team following the rules more efficiently than their team. And btw, I am not a Vegas fan. I just don't see anything to complain about with how they follow the agreed upon rules.

 

[TheNumber4]

Why do people keep parroting this dumb narrative that the Salary Cap was for Cost Certainty only? Yeh that’s ONE benefit of the salary cap amongst others, but parity was also a goal. As officially stated by the NHL and as enjoyed by any small market team that found they couldn’t compete financially before the salary cap was introduced.

 

[King'sPawn]

No, the NHL can not simply “choose” to rewrite the CBA. Changes have to be negotiated with the NHLPA, and in this situation the NHLPA is getting free money from the loophole.

That hasn't stopped the league from punishing teams for violating "the spirit of the cap" like when they punished New Jersey for the Kovalchuk contract.

And later teams were "warned" about contract shenanigans like that.

 

[coolboarder]

Make the salary cap uncapped for all teams so there'd be a bidding wars for their service and I don't think teams would be willing to overpay them. The trick is to find a top 16 player for each position worthy of the high payment in which it is a playoff team of being a top 16 teams. I also think that there should be unguaranteed contract for all players where teams can buy them out without any penalty. Players will still get paid for being bought out.

 

[Voight]

That hasn't stopped the league from punishing teams for violating "the spirit of the cap" like when they punished New Jersey for the Kovalchuk contract.

And later teams were "warned" about contract shenanigans like that.

That's because of how ballsy Lou was with that contract. Front loaded long term deals weren't anything new, but he went a little too far with the original Kovy deal which is why NJ was punished.

 

[TheBeard]

That's because of how ballsy Lou was with that contract. Front loaded long term deals weren't anything new, but he went a little too far with the original Kovy deal which is why NJ was punished.

Wait, so technically it was legal, they just went to far?

What’s the difference then?

 

[Voight]

Wait, so technically it was legal, they just went to far?

What’s the difference then?

He was doing the same thing many other teams like Chicago and Vancouver had done with long term contracts. But IMO the start that broke the camels back was the overall structure of it and came at a. time when the league wanted to crack down on said deals (hence the new CBA 2 years later that specified 8 years as a max contract length)

 

[TheBeard]

He was doing the same thing many other teams like Chicago and Vancouver had done with long term contracts. But IMO the start that broke the camels back was the overall structure of it and came at a. time when the league wanted to crack down on said deals (hence the new CBA 2 years later that specified 8 years as a max contract length)

IYO, was Lou doing something wrong?

 

[Voight]

IYO, was Lou doing something wrong?

In theory no, because he wasn't the first GM to sign a player to a deal that was extremely front loaded. I really dont think the league would've punished the team had he had not gone to the extent he did, signing a 27 year old to a 17 year contract was just asking for the league to do something.

Ovy for example, was 22 when the Caps gave him a 13 year deal, which is much more reasonable. You knew he'd see the end of that deal and play all 13 years (barring a catastrophic injury). Thrashers offered Kovalchuk a 12 year deal before the trade, highly doubt the league would've had an issue with that had he signed it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

In theory no, because he wasn't the first GM to sign a player to a deal that was extremely front loaded. I really dont think the league would've punished the team had he had not gone to the extent he did, signing a 27 year old to a 17 year contract was just asking for the league to do something.

And that's the thing. If it had been ... only 15 years? Only ~3 years at minimum salary? Would that have been OK? Which gets back to my point about all the prior ultra-long, ultra-front loaded contracts that took guys out to age 41, 42, 43: the league was fine with some cap circumvention, but not a lot of cap circumvention.

 

[DRW895]

Too much unfair hate around Vegas