Is the NHL cap system too strict?

[jiggy35]

Went with luxury tax option with the recent issue of flat cap.

But feel like the biggest issue is guaranteed long-term contracts. Few players are able to maintain any certain level of play or productivity.

GMs sign these deals with little foresight to save their asses, and obviously a player will take maximum security (can’t blame em).

I would be keen for max. 3 years for UFA and 4-5 years for RFA to increase competition and create a more dynamic market.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Threads about the cap and taxes tickle me. It’s so obvious that one fanbase in particular does not like their team not having a competitive advantage over others.

The NHL paid a heavy price for a hard cap. There’s no reason to go backwards. For as much as some point to the NBA, that league wishes it had the NHL’s system.

Report: Some owners pushing for hard cap style spending limit in CBA negotiations

The players will reject any hard cap.

nba.nbcsports.com

 

[EK392000]

no. hell no

Thank you for your input. Really has made the discussion more stimulating.

 

[PensandCaps]

The NFL system is perfect

No its not, It treats the mass majority of players who aren't QBs very unfairly.

 

[amnesiac]

I like the idea of team drafted players dont cost as much on cap (say 75%)

Thank you for your input. Really has made the discussion more stimulating.

he did add an adjective, you can give him that

 

[T REX]

Thank you for your input. Really has made the discussion more stimulating.

Thanks

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Went with luxury tax option with the recent issue of flat cap.

But feel like the biggest issue is guaranteed long-term contracts. Few players are able to maintain any certain level of play or productivity.

GMs sign these deals with little foresight to save their asses, and obviously a player will take maximum security (can’t blame em).

I would be keen for max. 3 years for UFA and 4-5 years for RFA to increase competition and create a more dynamic market.

Agreed on luxury tax, disagree on length of contract. The owners are plenty rich and make even more off the NHL- if they wanna sign contracts they know are too much, let ‘em. It’s only a problem now because it wrecks long term planning given the cap, and now teams have incentive to fudge LTIR concerns.

Just let ‘em pay 25%-50% extra, put that money into growing the game, and call it a day.

 

[ole ole]

Like the cap but i would still like to see the cap be after taxes. Levels the playing field.

 

[Machinehead]

Without a cap it would the worst of all pro sports, not even worth watching. Teams would just buy the cup year after year (or at least buy a huge advantage every year). Original six teams and some USA teams already have big advantage, no cap would just give them more advantages. If they ditched the cap now, kiss goodbye a huge group of fans who have no interest in watching the same 6-7 teams every year fight for the cup and all the best players and the rest of the league have no chance. Need to make more parity in the NHL, not less. Can’t even imagine why any rational sports fan would want no cap, especially non original six team fans or non popular USA teams Fans. Even if I was an original six team fan, I would want the cap, parity & competition is good……simply having huge advantages over most of the league with no cap would be boring & dumb. IMO

Don't understand this argument.

From 1968 to the establishment of the salary cap, the Leafs, Hawks, Rangers, Bruins, and Red Wings combined for six Cups and the Red Wings won half of those. Montreal's dominance had more to do with the lack of a proper draft, which didn't exist until the 60's and wasn't turning out top players consistently until the late 70's. Once the draft suck its teeth in, they stopped winning too.

Those five teams have won almost as many Cups (five) in the 17 seasons since the cap exists as in the 38 seasons prior.

 

[Hunter368]

Don't understand this argument.

From 1968 to the establishment of the salary cap, the Leafs, Hawks, Rangers, Bruins, and Red Wings combined for six Cups and the Red Wings won half of those. Montreal's dominance had more to do with the lack of a proper draft, which didn't exist until the 60's and wasn't turning out top players consistently until the late 70's. Once the draft suck its teeth in, they stopped winning too.

Those five teams have won almost as many Cups (five) in the 17 seasons since the cap exists as in the 38 seasons prior.

IMO you can't compare NHL salaries in modern times to salaries back in the 60, 70, 80, 90, or even early 2000's etc. Player salaries have exploded, now small markets would just become farm teams for the big hockey markets like original six teams. Heck even with the cap, some small market teams have a hard time competing while big markets have no problem burning money to solve their bad choices. As it is big markets have big advantages over the small markets, take away the cap and you have a small group of 6-8 competitive teams and a bunch of farm teams developing players for the big markets with no chance to compete themselves. NHL needs to make things more balanced and fair as it is now, big markets have far too many advantages as it is, removing the cap would be the final nail in the coffin for likely multi times have many fans. Personally, I started watching the NHL in the 70's with my father, I played hockey at various levels until my early 20's.......but removing the cap would kill the sport to me, I wouldn't even watch it anymore, no one wants to see/watch 6-8 teams dominate the majority of the NHL every year and steal all the good players simply by outbidding the smaller markets and buying a cup or buying a massive advantage.

 

[Machinehead]

IMO you can't compare NHL salaries in modern times to salaries back in the 60, 70, 80, 90, or even early 2000's etc. Player salaries have exploded, now small markets would just become farm teams for the big hockey markets like original six teams. Heck even with the cap, some small market teams have a hard time competing while big markets have no problem burning money to solve their bad choices. As it is big markets have big advantages over the small markets, take away the cap and you have a small group of 6-8 competitive teams and a bunch of farm teams developing players for the big markets with no chance to compete themselves. NHL needs to make things more balanced and fair as it is now, big markets have far too many advantages as it is, removing the cap would be the final nail in the coffin for likely multi times have many fans. Personally, I started watching the NHL in the 70's with my father, I played hockey at various levels until my early 20's.......but removing the cap would kill the sport to me, I wouldn't even watch it anymore, no one wants to see/watch 6-8 teams dominate the majority of the NHL every year and steal all the good players simply by outbidding the smaller markets and buying a cup or buying a massive advantage.

Player salaries aren't up at all when you adjust for the economy at-large.

What's actually up is team valuation and the net worth of pretty much every owner. Small teams don't exist. They're all headed up by people with endless resources. All of them.

I agree that the scenario you're describing is horrible, but it's unfounded.

We have a very large sample of a no-cap league, during a time where players cost more adjusted for inflation and owners had less to spend. What you're describing didn't happen.

 

[Stealth JD]

Just add $3-5M for every team on March 1. Problems solved. Structure it so there is a Day1 cap and a March 1 cap so the total dollars don't exceed the 50/50 split. Essentially make teams reserve space that they want but are too poor at planning to benefit from.

 

[Hunter368]

Player salaries aren't up at all when you adjust for the economy at-large.

View attachment 646272

What's actually up is team valuation and the net worth of pretty much every owner. Small teams don't exist. They're all headed up by people with endless resources. All of them.

I agree that the scenario you're describing is horrible, but it's unfounded.

We have a very large sample of a no-cap league, during a time where players cost more adjusted for inflation and owners had less to spend. What you're describing didn't happen.

Not sure how you can say it didn't happen, teams lost their teams b/c they could afford to keep up with rising salaries. Looks at other pro sports without a cap, its the same thing. You have competitive elite big teams are the nobody farm teams.......thats boring as hell IMO.

Saying owners have unlimited money, is talking like a fan and not a businessman. If a business isn't profitable its dead as a business, owners shouldn't be expected to prop up unprofitable teams. No cap would kill some teams and make a bunch more uncompetitive.

 

[Machinehead]

Not sure how you can say it didn't happen, teams lost their teams b/c they could afford to keep up with rising salaries. Looks at other pro sports without a cap, its the same thing. You have competitive elite big teams are the nobody farm teams.......thats boring as hell IMO.

MLB doesn't have a hard cap and both the World Series and the Stanley Cup have had 11 different winners since 2006.

To be fair, the NBA has only had nine, what a wasteland. Only big market teams like the Knicks get to win.

 

[tucker3434]

Like the cap but i would still like to see the cap be after taxes. Levels the playing field.

The tax code is a nightmare and it’s not the Pandora’s box the NHL needs to open. People don’t realize how complex that would be.

 

[Hunter368]

MLB doesn't have a hard cap and both the World Series and the Stanley Cup have had 11 different winners since 2006.

To be fair, the NBA has only had nine, what a wasteland. Only big market teams like the Knicks get to win.

Thats my point, if small market teams can only compete when they draft a once in a life time franchise player, IMO just pack and quit the league bc thats boring. We need a more fair balanced playing field then what we have now, not less competitive. Orginal six teams, a few tax free teams, warm weather teams........all have huge advantages already over smaller markets, teams who aren't tax free and aren't beach life.

Saying owners have unlimited money, is talking like a fan and not a businessman. If a business isn't profitable its dead as a business, owners shouldn't be expected to prop up unprofitable teams. No cap would kill some teams and make a bunch more uncompetitive.

 

[Machinehead]

Thats my point, if small market teams can only compete when they draft a once in a life time franchise player, IMO just pack and quit the league bc thats boring. We need a more fair balanced playing field then what we have now, not less competitive. Orginal six teams, a few tax free teams, warm weather teams........all have huge advantages already over smaller markets, teams who aren't tax free and aren't beach life.

Saying owners have unlimited money, is talking like a fan and not a businessman. If a business isn't profitable its dead as a business, owners shouldn't be expected to prop up unprofitable teams. No cap would kill some teams and make a bunch more uncompetitive.

I mean, billionaires kinda do have unlimited money and obviously hockey isn't your income stream if you can buy a hockey team, but I don't wanna go down that rabbit hole.

Everything else you're saying about non-hard-cap leagues is just objectively false and we have evidence of it. You're entitled to believe the NHL should be whatever you think it should be, but you're speaking falsehoods as if they're truths.

"Poor" teams like the Kansas City Royals, Washington Nationals, Milwaukee Bucks, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Toronto Raptors have had more championship success under a soft cap in just the last decade than any such teams in the NHL.

Who's winning in the NHL since the cap? Chicago, LA, Tampa, and Pittsburgh? Like I said, the O6 are doing better now. Five of them have been to the SCF. Even the teams that haven't won like the Rangers and the Leafs are perennial playoff teams. Sure glad we leveled the playing field for non-traditional markets to have a chance.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the hard cap (emphasis on "hard" - nobody is advocating for a free-for-all) because I think the sport should be more unfair, I'm arguing against it because it doesn't accomplish anything you're claiming it accomplishes.

A soft cap allows small-market teams to build something without getting steamrolled or before they get steamrolled, without the biggest teams buying everyone. The NHL's cap system just steamrolls everyone and who has access to the loopholes? The biggest markets.

 

[innitfam]

Allow one compliance buyout every 3 years, but this buyout has to be paid out to a higher% to the player, say 60% to an under 26 and 90% to an over 26.

 

[Suntouchable13]

No, NHL GMs are too dumb

 

[Hunter368]

I mean, billionaires kinda do have unlimited money and obviously hockey isn't your income stream if you can buy a hockey team, but I don't wanna go down that rabbit hole.

Everything else you're saying about non-hard-cap leagues is just objectively false and we have evidence of it. You're entitled to believe the NHL should be whatever you think it should be, but you're speaking falsehoods as if they're truths.

"Poor" teams like the Kansas City Royals, Washington Nationals, Milwaukee Bucks, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Toronto Raptors have had more championship success under a soft cap in just the last decade than any such teams in the NHL.

Who's winning in the NHL since the cap? Chicago, LA, Tampa, and Pittsburgh? Like I said, the O6 are doing better now. Five of them have been to the SCF. Even the teams that haven't won like the Rangers and the Leafs are perennial playoff teams. Sure glad we leveled the playing field for non-traditional markets to have a chance.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the hard cap (emphasis on "hard" - nobody is advocating for a free-for-all) because I think the sport should be more unfair, I'm arguing against it because it doesn't accomplish anything you're claiming it accomplishes.

A soft cap allows small-market teams to build something without getting steamrolled or before they get steamrolled, without the biggest teams buying everyone. The NHL's cap system just steamrolls everyone and who has access to the loopholes? The biggest markets.

Maybe we're getting hung up on a difference in wording, you keep saying no cap works and I keep giving you examples how it would fail based on actual facts when it did fail.

I keep seeing people saying "soft cap", but I've seen no one define it. Define a soft cap in your mind, b/c a league without restrictions that make all teams equal or more equal anyways is a utter failure IMO.

 

[TBF1972]

I think it's mostly fine and accomplishes what it sets out to do. COVID and the resulting escrow really screwed it up. If 5 years from now 3/4 of the league is still operating within a million or two of the cap limit then something has gone terribly wrong. I wouldn't mind them introducing some mechanisms like more compliance buyouts, franchise/homegrown discount tags, or at least a way to structure retention in a way that allows GMs to be more creative.

Like take for instance Erik Karlsson. Great player having a great year on a shit team. Basically untradeable due to his contract, even though an Erik Karlsson trade would help hockey wise the team acquiring him on the ice, the team trading him build assets, the player himself have a shot at winning, and the league's fans who want to see more great players playing meaningful hockey into the spring. SJ should be allowed to retain 40% or whatever for this season and maybe the next, then bring that % down for the subsequent two.

erik karlsson was a fa and chose more money over playing for a contender. additionally he has a nmc, over the life time of his contract. his low likelyhood to get traded is by design. he got what he wanted.

 

[TBF1972]

Soft cap/luxury tax/franchise tag, whatever it is just loosen it up. Every single contender in the league is either maxed or over the cap with LTIR.

It’s boring from a general fan perspective that teams can’t really go all out in pursuit of a cup. Plus it’s frustrating as hell losing good players/fan favourites every year to UFA solely due to cap constraints.

there are teams, who can. they employ a smart management team.

 

[Steerpike]

It feels good to root for a team that is responsible with its cap and not having to worry about another team trying to snag up one of your free agents because they weren’t responsible with theirs

Didnt you read the threads about how NHL viewership is down because my team can't afford to take all of your talented players?

 

[Machinehead]

Maybe we're getting hung up on a difference in wording, you keep saying no cap works and I keep giving you examples how it would fail based on actual facts when it did fail.

I keep seeing people saying "soft cap", but I've seen no one define it. Define a soft cap in your mind, b/c a league without restrictions that make all teams equal or more equal anyways is a utter failure IMO.

It's not in my mind, it has a real, concrete definition.

A soft cap is a salary cap where you pay penalties for going over (the penalties and what they entail vary by league) but you can still play games while over the cap.

A hard a cap is where you literally cannot go over the cap by penalty of disqualification, and this is the system we see in the NHL.

In MLB, the owners pay a fee out of pocket for going over the cap adjusted for how much they're over by. These penalty fees go to the teams furthest from the cap through a league revenue sharing program. Some teams, if they're contending, just say "f*** it we'll pay the fee" for a year or two but the vast majority stay under. Currently only five teams are over (with a lot of the offeason to go) and even the much ballyhooed Yankees have only paid the fee twice in the last several years.

The NBA also uses a soft cap in combination with several cap privileges such as a homegrown player not counting towards the cap, for example. If you go over the cap, you can still play, but you lose these privileges. That hurts you long-term when you can't sign your third overall pick because you decided to compete now.

The NFL has a hard cap system which requires teams to be under, similar to the NHL, but unlike the NHL, also has a number of cap privileges to allow for wiggle room, most of them geared towards homegrown players.

The NHL is the only of the four major sports that has a hard cap with zero privileges. That's what people are against and feel is too strict.

People against the cap in the NHL would like to move towards a soft cap or privilege system built into the hard cap to eliminate some of the biggest expenses. I don't know any hockey fans who want a free-for-all and a free-for-all no longer exists in North American sports. All four leagues have some cap system, just to hugely varying degrees.

Personally, I like MLB's system. Again, despite the memeing about the Yankees (who have won f*** all this century) it's actually a pretty healthy league at the top. Most teams stay under but contenders can "go for it" for a year or two. The problem with baseball is that there's no cap floor, which allows the type of tanking that makes this year's Blackhawks look like Team Canada.

I love the NBA's cap floor. It's actually 90% of the cap ceiling. It forces you to invest money if you're going to buy a basketball team, which is a problem I've touched on.

I would like to see the NHL borrow from both of these. A stricter soft cap where the penalties for overages are draft picks, and these picks go to the teams the furthest under or pulling in the least revenue. The owners have cash, so hit them on the ice. I would also like to see an extremely strict cap floor like in the NBA to make these fat cats invest, but the cap floor as it is is fine. I understand that the NBA has more revenue so it's a different situation.

 

[Hunter368]

It's not in my mind, it has a real, concrete definition.

A soft cap is a salary cap where you pay penalties for going over (the penalties and what they entail vary by league) but you can still play games while over the cap.

A hard a cap is where you literally cannot go over the cap by penalty of disqualification, and this is the system we see in the NHL.

In MLB, the owners pay a fee out of pocket for going over the cap adjusted for how much they're over by. These penalty fees go to the teams furthest from the cap through a league revenue sharing program. Some teams, if they're contending, just say "f*** it we'll pay the fee" for a year or two but the vast majority stay under. Currently only five teams are over (with a lot of the offeason to go) and even the much ballyhooed Yankees have only paid the fee twice in the last several years.

The NBA also uses a soft cap in combination with several cap privileges such as a homegrown player not counting towards the cap, for example. If you go over the cap, you can still play, but you lose these privileges. That hurts you long-term when you can't sign your third overall pick because you decided to compete now.

The NFL has a hard cap system which requires teams to be under, similar to the NHL, but unlike the NHL, also has a number of cap privileges to allow for wiggle room, most of them geared towards homegrown players.

The NHL is the only of the four major sports that has a hard cap with zero privileges. That's what people are against and feel is too strict.

People against the cap in the NHL would like to move towards a soft cap or privilege system built into the hard cap to eliminate some of the biggest expenses. I don't know any hockey fans who want a free-for-all and a free-for-all no longer exists in North American sports. All four leagues have some cap system, just to hugely varying degrees.

Personally, I like MLB's system. Again, despite the memeing about the Yankees (who have won f*** all this century) it's actually a pretty healthy league at the top. Most teams stay under but contenders can "go for it" for a year or two. The problem with baseball is that there's no cap floor, which allows the type of tanking that makes this year's Blackhawks look like Team Canada.

I love the NBA's cap floor. It's actually 90% of the cap ceiling. It forces you to invest money if you're going to buy a basketball team, which is a problem I've touched on.

I would like to see the NHL borrow from both of these. A stricter soft cap where the penalties for overages are draft picks, and these picks go to the teams the furthest under or pulling in the least revenue. The owners have cash, so hit them on the ice. I would also like to see an extremely strict cap floor like in the NBA to make these fat cats invest, but the cap floor as it is is fine. I understand that the NBA has more revenue so it's a different situation.

I've said already, I'm all for changes to the current structure/cap/rules/lack of rules, which already gives big market teams too many advantages. Could some version be created, sure, likely. But call it whatever you want there needs to be restrictions on spending so big market teams don't just buy the cup (or huge advantages to win it) year after year. Your example of going over the cap is pointless if its just a out of pocket fee/cost which big markets don't care about........ifs its a huge out of pocket fee maybe but my point if its a 250k fee its meaningless to big markets.

Personally there a version that works? Likely, but I haven't seen any single one that would work good/better, maybe a combo of multi versions might work better/good but who knows at this point. Owners and players are going to block some of the changes mentioned.