Idea for cap relief

[Stonewall]

If a player has a one-way, post entry level contract with a team for a long time, say 10 or 15 consecutive seasons, any salary after that doesn't count against the cap, or only counts an extremely minimal amount.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Sarcastic]

Advantage for the rich teams to keep their homegrown talents.

 

[NewLife]

Miss understood you. A lot. But nah I'm don't buying it.

 

[stepdad gaary]

so basically Crosby comes off the books in 2 years and Malkin in 3. I'm good with this

 

[Stonewall]

Miss understood you. A lot. But nah I'm don't buying it.

I had to be really detailed

 

[MoreOrr]

The only teams that need "Cap relief" are the ones that can't afford to spend to the Cap floor.

 

[dahrougem2]

Lol so basically the Penguins and Blackhawks wouldn't have to worry about Crosby, Malkin, Toews, and Kane once the 10 year mark hits? Why not just banish the 28 other teams to the AHL and have the cup final between those two teams because then they'd be able to load up on free agents as their star players won't count towards the cap

 

[Archangel]

Lol so basically the Penguins and Blackhawks wouldn't have to worry about Crosby, Malkin, Toews, and Kane once the 10 year mark hits? Why not just banish the 28 other teams to the AHL and have the cup final between those two teams because then they'd be able to load up on free agents as their star players won't count towards the cap

My thinking as well. The cap is there for a reason and once you start putting in * beside contract it loses it is use.
With the Hawks they would have an extra 21 million to spend on player just off of Kane and Toews--but they also have Seabrook and Keith. Adding another 11m being available--so the hawks now have 32mll more to spend because of this new clause and we are not done yet. Crawford has been a hawk since 2003 and makes 6mill a year--so give or take a but the hawks could spend 38mill more with the clause and yet we are not done still--we forgot to toss Bickell onto the ten year list and his 4 mill a year taking us to 42 mill next year and are we done yet? Nope, one other player is also close to the 10 year list Niklas Hjalmarsson class of 2005 and his 4.1 taking the total to 46.1 give or take Flames payroll is 55mill or just 9mill more. There are some major flaws in the idea. One player per team given the FRANCHISE player tag and HIS sal does not count against the cap--not based upon years on the team. Franchise players can not be traded and as long as the player is on that contract he keeps that title--no changing franchise tag year to year

 

[Mypetrobot]

How about you can buyout contracts but it costs a draft pick or picks depending on years and money remaining?

Or for more on topic for this thread, like the MLS you can have one designated player (dp) that doesn't count against the Cap.

 

[Gliff]

If a player has a one-way, post entry level contract with a team for a long time, say 10 or 15 consecutive seasons, any salary after that doesn't count against the cap, or only counts an extremely minimal amount.

Thoughts?

Just going to encourage huge longterm deals that give the advantage to big market teams. No.

I'm sorry but you don't need to spend to the cap to be a competitive team and I have zero sympathy for teams that make the same mistakes every single offseason.

 

[Mypetrobot]

My thinking as well. The cap is there for a reason and once you start putting in * beside contract it loses it is use.
With the Hawks they would have an extra 21 million to spend on player just off of Kane and Toews--but they also have Seabrook and Keith. Adding another 11m being available--so the hawks now have 32mll more to spend because of this new clause and we are not done yet. Crawford has been a hawk since 2003 and makes 6mill a year--so give or take a but the hawks could spend 38mill more with the clause and yet we are not done still--we forgot to toss Bickell onto the ten year list and his 4 mill a year taking us to 42 mill next year and are we done yet? Nope, one other player is also close to the 10 year list Niklas Hjalmarsson class of 2005 and his 4.1 taking the total to 46.1 give or take Flames payroll is 55mill or just 9mill more. There are some major flaws in the idea. One player per team given the FRANCHISE player tag and HIS sal does not count against the cap--not based upon years on the team. Franchise players can not be traded and as long as the player is on that contract he keeps that title--no changing franchise tag year to year

You do know the franchise tag counts against the cap in the nfl and good for one year. That's why I said the designated player like in the mls.

 

[cujoflutie]

I actually was hoping the idea of the NHL's version of a franchise player would come to fruition during the lockout.

Allow teams to designate a cap exemption for one player. Needless to say all players would want to be the franchise player on a team since their earnings could be a lot higher; so Malkin may be more tempted to become a franchise player on another team rather than play second banana to crosby.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

If a player has a one-way, post entry level contract with a team for a long time, say 10 or 15 consecutive seasons, any salary after that doesn't count against the cap, or only counts an extremely minimal amount.

Thoughts?

I've thought about something similar to your idea. My idea was that there should be some cap relief if the player was drafted by the team and has stayed there his entire career... maybe after 10 seasons or when they become a UFA.

IMO, teams shouldn't be punished for wanting to keep the players they drafted just because they drafted well.

They could do that or just have a cap on what you can spend on UFA's and ignore home grown talent entirely.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Just going to encourage huge longterm deals that give the advantage to big market teams. No.

I'm sorry but you don't need to spend to the cap to be a competitive team and I have zero sympathy for teams that make the same mistakes every single offseason.

Oh, it's funny considering the successful teams do spend to the cap, of course there are others that do that aren't successful that do/have.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

How about you can buyout contracts but it costs a draft pick or picks depending on years and money remaining?

Or for more on topic for this thread, like the MLS you can have one designated player (dp) that doesn't count against the Cap.

Teams should be able to trade for cap space - that is the most logical solution to the cap problem.

Besides, the cap doesn't even address frugal teams lack of spending in the first place - it only attacks teams that want a competitive team and are willing to pay for it.

Besides, if a team can't be financially successful then they shouldn't exist... Hockey is a business first an foremost - they don't exist for our pleasure alone.

 

[jniklast]

You get the player for three years on a cheap ELC, then you have them for another 4 years as RFAs. And then you still are the only team able to negotiate for a whole year and the only team being able to offer 8 years instead of 7.

Isn't all that enough? Especially considering that most times the draft rights for a star player are a reward for losing?

 

[Gliff]

Oh, it's funny considering the successful teams do spend to the cap, of course there are others that do that aren't successful that do/have.

You dont have to win the cup to be successful.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

You get the player for three years on a cheap ELC, then you have them for another 4 years as RFAs. And then you still are the only team able to negotiate for a whole year and the only team being able to offer 8 years instead of 7.

Isn't all that enough? Especially considering that most times the draft rights for a star player are a reward for losing?

It's not right - it's not a teams fault that they drafted well and another team didn't.... If a player wants to leave via his own free will then that is fine but to FORCE a team to trade a player they drafted "just because" is absolute nonsense.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

You dont have to win the cup to be successful.

Maybe, however I define that as success as a Hawks fan, I suppose the WCF are a success too if you lose in game 7 OT.

I understand what you're saying tho, being relevant certainly gives hope and creates excitement.

 

[Gliff]

It's not right - it's not a teams fault that they drafted well and another team didn't.... If a player wants to leave via his own free will then that is fine but to FORCE a team to trade a player they drafted "just because" is absolute nonsense.

It isn't "just because". It is usually because the team did not make good choices in their UFA signings and/or trades. The Hawks didn't have to trade away their depth after thier first cup because they "drafted so well". It was because they had guys like Huet signed for 6 mil and Campbell for 7 mil.

If you make bad signings then you will lose players.

 

[Gliff]

Maybe, however I define that as success as a Hawks fan, I suppose the WCF are a success too if you lose in game 7 OT.

I understand what you're saying tho, being relevant certainly gives hope and creates excitement.

So only 4 teams every year are sucessfull in your mind? And only if the CF losers lose in 7 games? Do you realize how pompous that makes you sound "as a Hawks fan"?...

 

[Hawksfan2828]

It isn't "just because". It is usually because the team did not make good choices in their UFA signings and/or trades. The Hawks didn't have to trade away their depth after thier first cup because they "drafted so well". It was because they had guys like Huet signed for 6 mil and Campbell for 7 mil.

If you make bad signings then you will lose players.

Which is why teams should get cap relief for players they drafted who remain with the team.

If it even matters the Blackhawks HAD TO throw money at players to show they were serious about changing the franchise and it's image, so don't attempt to assert that they were reckless - they had no choice..... Those contracts ultimately lead to Chicago being a primo destination for FA's who take pay cuts just to play here.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

So only 4 teams every year are sucessfull in your mind? And only if the CF losers lose in 7 games? Do you realize how pompous that makes you sound "as a Hawks fan"?...

Success is a subjective term that relies on tolerance.

As a Hawks fan this team blew chunks for a decade and even the idea of making the playoffs was progress, and once they did it was almost like winning the cup...

If there is one team in the league that actually can justify it's supremacy it's the Blackhawks.

 

[Gliff]

Which is why teams should get cap relief for players they drafted who remain with the team.

If it even matters the Blackhawks HAD TO throw money at players to show they were serious about changing the franchise and it's image, so don't attempt to assert that they were reckless - they had no choice..... Those contracts ultimately lead to Chicago being a primo destination for FA's who take pay cuts just to play here.

How does that make sense? It will just give big market teams more ammo to sign their home grown talent to huge contracts AND UFAs to huge contracts. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

That's such ********. How many big name UFAs have Anaheim or San Jose signed IN THEIR HISTORY. You don't need to have a huge amount of big UFA signings to be successful. They had a choice and decided to expedite their rebuild and go for UFAs and it cost them in the end. It's the way this league is with the cap and if you can't see the plus side to that then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

How does that make sense? It will just give big market teams more ammo to sign their home grown talent to huge contracts AND UFAs to huge contracts. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

That's such ********. How many big name UFAs have Anaheim or San Jose signed IN THEIR HISTORY. You don't need to have a huge amount of big UFA signings to be successful. They had a choice and decided to expedite their rebuild and go for UFAs and it cost them in the end. It's the way this league is with the cap and if you can't see the plus side to that then I don't know what to tell you.

It may not make sense to you but it makes perfect sense to me and everyone that understands the position the Hawks were in 10 years ago....

They were known as a large market team that was as frugal as ever that would trade players out of spite..

No one wanted to play here - Chicago was where players were traded for punishment or where players signed when no one wanted them.

This organization was a gong show and newer fans don't understand that.

The Hawks were just as bad as Edmonton is presently.

Now players actually want to play for the Hawks and seek them out.