Buying cap space

[Stephen]

Get with it. No, you can't spend more than any other team is allowed to. Not even if you throw chunks of cash at someone. Sorry.

Really that proposal just re-widens the big market / small market team gap, defeating the purpose of the lockout.

The last time I checked, there's going to be a salary floor and a cap. That means that you can still spend more than another team.

 

[Stephen]

OK then riddle me this leaf fan, how am I going to spend all of my new found riches if I've just sold you all my cap space. This isn't some better economic system that you've discovered it's just another ridiculous attempt to circumvent the cap by Leaf fans who are subconsiously terrified of the new reality.

Well, if you bothered reading the posts, you'd see that a team would not be allowed to buy/sell more than about $5 million per year, so you wouldn't have sold me all your cap space.

If you can't work out the math by yourself, a team, the Leafs you if insist, can have a luxury taxed maximum of $44 million if they buy $5 million off a poor team.

Let's say that poor team is Montreal, and Montreal is operating at $25 million before the trade with $14 million in free cap room. They sell the maximum allowable amount of $5 million to Toronto. Montreal still has $9 million in cap room with $5 million in Toronto's luxury fines. They can easily spend that money on whatever they want.

 

[SENSational]

No.

I agree

 

[Sens4Cup]

Well, if you bothered reading the posts, you'd see that a team would not be allowed to buy/sell more than about $5 million per year, so you wouldn't have sold me all your cap space.

If you can't work out the math by yourself, a team, the Leafs you if insist, can have a luxury taxed maximum of $44 million if they buy $5 million off a poor team.

Let's say that poor team is Montreal, and Montreal is operating at $25 million before the trade with $14 million in free cap room. They sell the maximum allowable amount of $5 million to Toronto. Montreal still has $9 million in cap room with $5 million in Toronto's luxury fines. They can easily spend that money on whatever they want.

This whole discussion is pointless as it won't happen. The whole point of the lockout was to provide an equal playing field. This would reverse that, and I guess it really wouldn't matter for the Leafs, since they can't win a cup with a 70 million dollar payroll, then it seems unlikely they'll win one with 39 million.

 

[grego]

Selling cap space to is essentially creating a luxury tax, with a specific form of revenue sharing and penalties that go to a specific team.

I would think that since Bettman has stated he doesn't believe in a Luxury tax, that he would not like this system either

 

[Guy Legend]

I agree

As do I.

 

[Chilly Willy*]

Leafs fans on these boards often seem to have a couple of different ideas:

1. Players will play cheaply for the Leafs and they'll be able to stack their team.
2. There will be some way of circumventing(avoiding) the cap.

Neither of these seem likely. Players coming to Toronto is not out of the question, but players that will accept 500K or 1 million when they could 3-5 million from another team, those kinds of things aren't going to happen. As people have posted, union members are going to be under pressure to maintain the market value of the players, not undercut it.

In addition, there are only a handful of players who would accept less than market value to stay with a team, and generally these are guys who have been career long players for those teams. Thus Detroit may be able to sign Yzerman cheaply as he's a career Red Wing. But to think guys like Roberts and Nieuwendyk would accept league minimum salaries to keep playing for the Leafs is unrealistic. This same issue arises with Boston fans who believe they can buy a championship next season, which seems just as unlikely.

While free agents will come cheaper than before, the key to this league will be sound financial management. The cost of having an aging veteran club may show up in cap room occupied by injured players. While the costs of having a young team may be losing some of its players at earlier ages.

Leafs fans crack me up, in their crazy little minds every star that is UFA this year is going to the Leafs and playing for 450,000.

 

[Leaf Lander]

i like the idea

it is revenue sharing at the best

 

[The Overseer*]

The Leafs and Rangers weren't winning championships when they were spending money like crazy, how is an extra $4-5 million going to put them over the top if they don't have a good developmental system in place?

Then what's the point of this change you're proposing?


Here's an example, and I won't use the Leafs since Leafs' fans seem very sensitive. I guess I'd be sensitive too if I'd failed to live up to expectations so many times, but that's another topic. . .

The Avalanche can't afford to resign forsberg, blake, tanguay, and hejduk and still be under the cap. Under your proposition, the Avalanche would send some money to some team - say Nashville - and use that credit (?) to sign all of their players. As a result, the Avalanche have an exciting team, fill the building every night, make the playoffs (extra $1 million per home game) and have a healthy franchise. The Predators are stuck with a low payroll and a team that barely makes the playoffs, bowing out in the first round.

Now, under the cap system, the Avalanche have to let one of their players go. Say Forsberg. Forsberg signs with a team with cap room. Say Nashville. Now Nashville is able to add some scoring to their excellent defense and they challenge Colorado for the 3rd playoff spot. They build a local following because their team is exciting to watch and Forsberg is a big name. Colorado is still a good team with strong revenues and a good fan base, and now Nashville is too.


Hmm, which is better?

 

[Strazzobosco]

I think a team can still pass the cap; go ahead and get a $65M team but... they'll end up suffering the consequences and give up draft picks. If it's worth a Stanley Cup... why not?

 

[Resolute]

I think a team can still pass the cap; go ahead and get a $65M team but... they'll end up suffering the consequences and give up draft picks. If it's worth a Stanley Cup... why not?

No chance on earth that the NHL validates the contracts needed to put together a $65 million payroll.

However, as I have proposed in the past, any team that does end up paying more than the cap at the end of the year should immediately forefit it's playoff spot. Whether you are $1 over, or $1 million over.

 

[Tico]

Then what's the point of this change you're proposing?


Here's an example, and I won't use the Leafs since Leafs' fans seem very sensitive. I guess I'd be sensitive too if I'd failed to live up to expectations so many times, but that's another topic. . .

The Avalanche can't afford to resign forsberg, blake, tanguay, and hejduk and still be under the cap. Under your proposition, the Avalanche would send some money to some team - say Nashville - and use that credit (?) to sign all of their players. As a result, the Avalanche have an exciting team, fill the building every night, make the playoffs (extra $1 million per home game) and have a healthy franchise. The Predators are stuck with a low payroll and a team that barely makes the playoffs, bowing out in the first round.

Now, under the cap system, the Avalanche have to let one of their players go. Say Forsberg. Forsberg signs with a team with cap room. Say Nashville. Now Nashville is able to add some scoring to their excellent defense and they challenge Colorado for the 3rd playoff spot. They build a local following because their team is exciting to watch and Forsberg is a big name. Colorado is still a good team with strong revenues and a good fan base, and now Nashville is too.


Hmm, which is better?

I actually think the question is an excellent one, and I'm not a Leafs fan. Let's take your example...er, for example.
Let's say though that Nashville tends to be a bit 'on the cheap' as it pertains to paying their players (not identifying Nashville as such, but there are teams that act in this manner). Preds fans are tired of the act of getting close, but without anything to show for it, and ownership won't come across with the $ to seal the deal. Nashville is stocked with a nice set of prospects, but not much in the way of veteran leadership - which costs $. (I'm thinking in this regard of the impact Steve Sullivan has had in the short time there, but there are plenty of other names to fill in the blanks for other teams.)
Going out and getting said veteran leadership would come easier if a fine/tax/whatever against the Avs were redistributed in part to the Preds, no? Further, it would force the hand of owners who won't spend money to improve their team, increasing parity and evening the field between big and small teams in spite of the skinflint ways of some owners.
If the Avs get to keep Forsberg, but it costs them cash to do so in the form of a cap penalty that gets redistributed - why is this a bad thing for Nashville?

 

[vatali]

What this does is raise teh average player salary again. Say you can't sign Byran Marchment for 2.5 mil, so you need to go over the cap room. So Instead of giving him market value of 1.5 to fit in your cap, you give him teh higher number so he will stay a Leaf. Now the sharks have a similar player to marchemnt, say mike rathje, and his contract is up. He knows his normal market value is 1.5, but Mush just got 2.5. Then we get back in the same place where we were last year.

 

[Stephen]

Then what's the point of this change you're proposing?


Here's an example, and I won't use the Leafs since Leafs' fans seem very sensitive. I guess I'd be sensitive too if I'd failed to live up to expectations so many times, but that's another topic. . .

The Avalanche can't afford to resign forsberg, blake, tanguay, and hejduk and still be under the cap. Under your proposition, the Avalanche would send some money to some team - say Nashville - and use that credit (?) to sign all of their players. As a result, the Avalanche have an exciting team, fill the building every night, make the playoffs (extra $1 million per home game) and have a healthy franchise. The Predators are stuck with a low payroll and a team that barely makes the playoffs, bowing out in the first round.

Now, under the cap system, the Avalanche have to let one of their players go. Say Forsberg. Forsberg signs with a team with cap room. Say Nashville. Now Nashville is able to add some scoring to their excellent defense and they challenge Colorado for the 3rd playoff spot. They build a local following because their team is exciting to watch and Forsberg is a big name. Colorado is still a good team with strong revenues and a good fan base, and now Nashville is too.


Hmm, which is better?

Let's say that Colorado pays out $5 million to Nashville so they can keep Forsberg, and they have a good team. Colorado fans win, Colorado management wins.

Let's say that there is a rule in place that forces Nashville's ownership to spend at least 75% of that $5 million in luxury tax money on their payroll the following season. So while Nashville was struggling along before their trade with a $25 million payroll, getting blown out in the first round, their fans will see a committment to a $3.75-$5 million payroll hike the next season, which could yield a first line veteran, a top 3 defenseman or a couple of mid range veterans. It could also be money they could use towards resigning a soon to be UFA.

This kind of system will allow teams in tight situations to get by at a heavy cost.

This system will put money into the hands of poor teams, who will be forced to spend a chunk of money on improving their roster. So while Colorado wins, Nashville wins too.

 

[Timmy]

This thread made three pages?

If teams were pulling this crap, and the result was the player/revenue percentage going over 54% and players having to give back through the escrow account, how happy do you think the NHLPA would be?

Some owners are pocketing the 5mil plus a percent of the escrow, plus playoff revenue sharing, and buying themselves new Maybachs instead of lining the players pockets?

Plus, why is this being discussed if it's not going to happen? There's so much that's real and about to happen, how does this add to the conversation?

It's like talking about your favourite zoos, and somebody says, "What they really need are unicorns."

 

[Stephen]

It's like talking about your favourite zoos, and somebody says, "What they really need are unicorns."

It's also like talking about Niedermayer to Vancouver.

Sometimes it's fun to imagine what things could be like.

 

[The Overseer*]

Let's say that Colorado pays out $5 million to Nashville so they can keep Forsberg, and they have a good team. Colorado fans win, Colorado management wins.

Let's say that there is a rule in place that forces Nashville's ownership to spend at least 75% of that $5 million in luxury tax money on their payroll the following season. So while Nashville was struggling along before their trade with a $25 million payroll, getting blown out in the first round, their fans will see a committment to a $3.75-$5 million payroll hike the next season, which could yield a first line veteran, a top 3 defenseman or a couple of mid range veterans. It could also be money they could use towards resigning a soon to be UFA.


This kind of system will allow teams in tight situations to get by at a heavy cost.

This system will put money into the hands of poor teams, who will be forced to spend a chunk of money on improving their roster. So while Colorado wins, Nashville wins too.

short - term thinking.

the way to put money into the hands of poor teams is to allow them to put together good teams, build a fan base, get home playoff games.

under your proposal, the top teams get to keep skimming the talent, leaving the lower teams with infusions of cash, but no players to spend it on.

the system in place now, if the reports are accurate, has the same long-term effect (lower echelon teams get more competitive) as your proposal, but it should happen quicker. and, as a bonus, those teams that have been destroying hockey for the last 10 years (leafs, wings, avalanche) have to be brought back down to earth.

your proposal amounts to: "well, I guess parity might be good, but *sob* what about my favourite player *sob*? Can't we squeeze him in under the cap? Peeeaaase?"

suck it up - the big market teams have had an unfair advantage for too long. parity will help the league in every aspect. hell, it might even do away with the trap. I'm getting pretty tired of big-market whiners.

 

[Dr Love]

Let's say that Colorado pays out $5 million to Nashville so they can keep Forsberg, and they have a good team. Colorado fans win, Colorado management wins.

Let's say that there is a rule in place that forces Nashville's ownership to spend at least 75% of that $5 million in luxury tax money on their payroll the following season. So while Nashville was struggling along before their trade with a $25 million payroll, getting blown out in the first round, their fans will see a committment to a $3.75-$5 million payroll hike the next season, which could yield a first line veteran, a top 3 defenseman or a couple of mid range veterans. It could also be money they could use towards resigning a soon to be UFA.

This kind of system will allow teams in tight situations to get by at a heavy cost.

This system will put money into the hands of poor teams, who will be forced to spend a chunk of money on improving their roster. So while Colorado wins, Nashville wins too.

You're assuming that a bad Nashville team would then be able to lure a player over with that money. Which they're only going to do by overpaying, and that doesn't help anyone.

 

[Stephen]

You're assuming that a bad Nashville team would then be able to lure a player over with that money. Which they're only going to do by overpaying, and that doesn't help anyone.

No, I'm assuming they'll use those funds to make responsible improvements to their roster by signing mid level free agents or making trades for veterans with higher salaries or by using that money to resign their own UFAs.

 

[Dr Love]

No, I'm assuming they'll use those funds to make responsible improvements to their roster by signing mid level free agents or making trades for veterans with higher salaries or by using that money to resign their own UFAs.

Again, you're assuming that players would want to go to the Predators or that they would be able to make such trades. And if they can't spend that money wisely because players don't want to play there for the same money they could play in a consistently good team, say, Vancouver for, then you're forcing them to take on overpaid players.

Anyway you cut it, it's an absolutely terrible idea, and one that circumvents the point of a cap.

 

[Stephen]

suck it up - the big market teams have had an unfair advantage for too long. parity will help the league in every aspect. hell, it might even do away with the trap. I'm getting pretty tired of big-market whiners.

I'm getting pretty tired of militant small market hostility.

 

[Stephen]

Again, you're assuming that players would want to go to the Predators or that they would be able to make such trades. And if they can't spend that money wisely because players don't want to play there for the same money they could play in a consistently good team, say, Vancouver for, then you're forcing them to take on overpaid players.

Anyway you cut it, it's an absolutely terrible idea, and one that circumvents the point of a cap.

If nobody wants to go to Nashville, hypothetically, nobody is going to go to Nashville, regardless of whether big bad Toronto is paying out $39 million or $44 million with a $5 million penalty. Even the current system won't solve that.

 

[Dr Love]

If nobody wants to go to Nashville, hypothetically, nobody is going to go to Nashville, regardless of whether big bad Toronto is paying out $39 million or $44 million with a $5 million penalty. Even the current system won't solve that.

Then you'd agree that your system is bunk if teams can't spend that money you're forcing them to?

 

[Empireshark]

It's also like talking about Niedermayer to Vancouver.

Sometimes it's fun to imagine what things could be like.

I think Stephen named his unicorn Fluffy.

 

[Timmy]

I think Stephen named his unicorn Fluffy.

Maybe we need a fantasy thread board.

Then we could move this one...