Is the NHL cap system too strict?

[Machinehead]

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.

Well, yes, to your last point, this is what we have for the foreseeable future.

As long as we're daydreaming, while I concede that overspending would be a problem and going too soft wouldn't work with some of these owners running around, I can also plainly see that this isn't working. It's too far in the other direction.

26/32 teams are within $4m of the cap. Some of these teams aren't even good. We're at the point where the floor price of an NHL roster is just about at the cap ceiling.

At the very least, even if we keep the system, it would be nice to raise the ceiling. I know there are circumstances leading to where the ceiling currently is, but this is a mess. Another couple of years with a stagnant cap and I don't see any option besides emergency adjustments. The NHLPA is not going to tolerate players sitting out because nobody can afford them and that's on its way.

Jakub Vrana is undebatably an NHL player sitting in the minors because literally nobody can take him. He's the first of many.

 

[Hunter368]

Well, yes, to your last point, this is what we have for the foreseeable future.

As long as we're daydreaming, while I concede that overspending would be a problem and going too soft wouldn't work with some of these owners running around, I can also plainly see that this isn't working. It's too far in the other direction.

26/32 teams are within $4m of the cap. Some of these teams aren't even good. We're at the point where the floor price of an NHL roster is just about at the cap ceiling.

At the very least, even if we keep the system, it would be nice to raise the ceiling. I know there are circumstances leading to where the ceiling currently is, but this is a mess. Another couple of years with a stagnant cap and I don't see any option besides emergency adjustments. The NHLPA is not going to tolerate players sitting out because nobody can afford them and that's on its way.

Jakub Vrana is undebatably an NHL player sitting in the minors because literally nobody can take him. He's the first of many.

Also I should of stated, i have no problem with if a GM makes a dumb contract, he needs to live with it. We see dumb GM's pay these huge UFA contracts that have value for 2-3 years and then the rest of it is negative value. Good drafting, development and contract management should be rewarded, not ignored. Dumb GM's needs to live with those dumb contracts, if we allow them to just buy it out then again thats a huge advantage for big market teams.

What the cap is or isn't at, is a factor of the economy IMO. Consumer spending is down, so should the NHL cap be down or flat IMO.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Just give everyone one compliance buyout every three years. Then, it’s not such an advantage that the Rangers or Leafs could disappear a mistake every off season.

Forcing teams to keep Andrew Ladd in the NHL five years after he deserved to be there isn’t good for business.

 

[Guttersniped]

this. or have 1 compliance buyout option every summer. some players get too comfortable after getting a big cushy contract

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.

Don’t hold your breath for anymore compliance buyouts ever and certainly not as often as that.

The two free compliance buyouts teams got in 2013-14 added to the escrow mess.

The owners and players split expected revenue. Any “missing” revenue goes into escrow. That’s what Compliance Buyouts are, missing revenue for owners.

The more teams spend beyond the hard cap the more escrow goes up. LTIR, performance bonuses, etc also cause problems with that.

But the giant free buyouts of 2013-14 were a big contributor early on to escrow.

34.5 million reasons I’d be against compliance buyouts in the next CBA if I were a player

Escrow has been a dirty word among players for the better part of a decade now, and it’s understandable knowing that they see an extra 10%, 15%, or even 18% shaved off of their every hard ear…

slappersandstats.com

 

[Machinehead]

Also I should of stated, i have no problem with if a GM makes a dumb contract, he needs to live with it. We see dumb GM's pay these huge UFA contracts that have value for 2-3 years and then the rest of it is negative value. Good drafting, development and contract management should be rewarded, not ignored. Dumb GM's needs to live with those dumb contracts, if we allow them to just buy it out then again thats a huge advantage for big market teams.

What the cap is or isn't at, is a factor of the economy IMO. Consumer spending is down, so should the NHL cap be down or flat IMO.

When it's this many teams in trouble, it can no longer be written off as the GM's being irresponsible.

They're paying the market rate and getting in cap trouble. What are they supposed to do?

 

[T REX]

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

Ridiculous. SMDH. Please stop it.

While we're at it...let's make the sun stop shining in FL too.

GMAB

 

[Guttersniped]

Also I should of stated, i have no problem with if a GM makes a dumb contract, he needs to live with it. We see dumb GM's pay these huge UFA contracts that have value for 2-3 years and then the rest of it is negative value. Good drafting, development and contract management should be rewarded, not ignored. Dumb GM's needs to live with those dumb contracts, if we allow them to just buy it out then again thats a huge advantage for big market teams.

What the cap is or isn't at, is a factor of the economy IMO. Consumer spending is down, so should the NHL cap be down or flat IMO.

The NHL froze the cap specifically to stabilize the cap during the pandemic, so it wouldn’t go down, but they also delayed any major increase because of the escrow crisis.

There a predicted big jump in salary cap coming after next season.

The plan is to have escrow taken care of and the salary cap way up by the time the CBA expires in September 2026.

That’s the most important date, the NHL wants to throw a bunch of new money, and a fixed escrow situation, at the NHLPA so they can get the CBA they want done without any stoppage.

 

[Hunter368]

When it's this many teams in trouble, it can no longer be written off as the GM's being irresponsible.

They're paying the market rate and getting in cap trouble. What are they supposed to do?

I can't get into each teams spending in detail, but the Jets are very responsible team for spending and they have 9-10 million in cap space right now. That type of behavior should be rewarded while reckless spending should be penalized IMO.

 

[Machinehead]

I can't get into each teams spending in detail, but the Jets are very responsible team for spending and they have 9-10 million in cap space right now. That type of behavior should be rewarded while reckless spending should be penalized IMO.

The Jets will have $9m at the deadline but it's projected to be $2m going into next year.

PLD is an RFA after 2024 and Mark Schiefele is a UFA after 2025, with no indication the cap is going up significantly before then.

Have fun. We're starting a support group.

 

[Machinehead]

There a predicted big jump in salary cap coming after next season.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard this story, I would start my own league.

 

[Hunter368]

The Jets will have $9m at the deadline but it's projected to be $2m going into next year.

PLD is an RFA after 2024 and Mark Schiefele is a UFA after 2025, with no indication the cap is going up significantly before then.

Have fun. We're starting a support group.

PLD is likely traded this summer, so he's a moot point. Jets have 17 million in cap space next year, there is no issues next year. After next year the cap is projected to rise a fair bit, so still no issues for the Jets cap wise. Again Jets have been responsible spending, while some other GM's sign dumb contracts and shoot themselves in the foot. Personally I have no sympathy for GM's who spend their brains out on UFA's and dumb contracts......they should suffer IMO.

 

[Guttersniped]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard this story, I would start my own league.

It’s always planned to do that though. The CBA MOU memorandum in July 2020 set it up that way.

They froze the cap, and then limited the increases to a maximum of 1m, to set it up a big jump once escrow was taken care of.

Escrow had to be taken care of first.

If it wasn’t it would end up a massive problem again and would be an ugly point of contention when the new CBA was being negotiated.

They did leave an opening where both sides could “negotiate” for bigger increase in 2023-24 but good luck with that. It’s coming in 2024-25.

There was a massive jump after Vegas’ first season, it went from 75m to 79.5m in 2018-19. The revenue is there.

 

[wetcoast]

The salary cap was never meant to create parity or make the product more interesting to watch.

A salary cap exists because it guarantees cost certainty, with expenses (salaries) linked as a percentage of revenues.

The owners will never agree to getting rid of the salary cap or implementing a soft salary cap (luxury tax), because they want cost certainty and this only happens with a hard salary cap.

The salary cap is a farce where owners continue to make obscene amounts of money from fans who lap up the salary cap as some sort of necessary thing which is ridiculous.

A soft cap or one like baseball would be much better but a league that has basically let a sad sack one like in Arizona, Phoenix or the high school gym in the desert) exist is a joke.

NHL owners are hard core capitalists who use a socialist ideal when it provides them with more money and revenues.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Cap is great, I'd prefer they fix the LTIR nonsense, but they won't cause both sides like it too much.

 

[Machinehead]

PLD is likely traded this summer, so he's a moot point. Jets have 17 million in cap space next year, there is no issues next year. After next year the cap is projected to rise a fair bit, so still no issues for the Jets cap wise. Again Jets have been responsible spending, while some other GM's sign dumb contracts and shoot themselves in the foot. Personally I have no sympathy for GM's who spend their brains out on UFA's and dumb contracts......they should suffer IMO.

Ok, so the Jets are one of the few teams "being responsible."

Honestly, and I mean no disrespect, do you really think the Jets have a chance to win the Stanley Cup?

They're a solid team and the West looks pretty open, but over Boston, Tampa, Toronto, or Carolina? Are they beating Colorado in a 7 game series?

Like, anybody can be under the cap if they want to be responsible instead of win. We're talking about a barrier to be able to compete that most teams can't get over unless they locked up a bunch of talent they drafted in a different environment (Tampa, Colorado), signed Bergeron and Krejci to contracts many millions of dollars under value because they're nice guys (Boston), or pulled some other shit (Tampa again). Or they're just trying the same core over and over again with no ability to actually improve it (Toronto).

And if the Jets do fall short, do you think they have the ability to get better? You said yourself they're probably trading one of their better players for financial reasons. So they're just gonna wing it this year and then prioritize responsibility over the roster.

From your perspective, you want the team to survive, and I get that, but you have to understand that most fans want their team to have a chance at winning. You can't put together a Stanley Cup roster on paper and be responsible. That's just not the market we're in.

You can't put this crisis on the GM's. They don't unilaterally control what players are worth and their responsibility is to make the best team. It's the owner's responsibility to be financially viable.

 

[Machinehead]

It’s always planned to do that though. The CBA MOU memorandum in July 2020 set it up that way.

They froze the cap, and then limited the increases to a maximum of 1m, to set it up a big jump once escrow was taken care of.

Escrow had to be taken care of first.

If it wasn’t it would end up a massive problem again and would be an ugly point of contention when the new CBA was being negotiated.

They did leave an opening where both sides could “negotiate” for bigger increase in 2023-24 but good luck with that. It’s coming in 2024-25.

There was a massive jump after Vegas’ first season, it went from 75m to 79.5m in 2018-19. The revenue is there.

I'm chalking this one up to believing it when I see it.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Cap is fine , be smarter

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

The availability of retention is a reason why GMs feel free to spend so aggressively. It's an expectation right now. The highest rental cap hit not retained last deadline was Copp's $3.64 mil. Double retention is not very expensive. If Patrick Kane can be acquired in season with a yearly equivalent cap hit of ~$2.62 mil (after double max retention), why save?

To me, that's the market acting efficiently.

 

[Lt Dan]

The NBA is proof that a hard cap is needed. Their cap is a joke

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.

you say this but Chicago had a dynasty run from 2010-2015 and won three cups and they would have also won in 2014 if the OT in game 7 went the other way.
The Kings won 2 cups in 2012 and 2014
Pittsburgh won in 2016,2017

So yeah, the cap works

 

[Guttersniped]

I'm chalking this one up to believing it when I see it.

You should believe how they structured the cap freeze and the limited 1m increases in order to lower escrow because that’s all in the MOU.

If you’re talking about the larger jump coming, then you do you.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Haven't thought this through, so maybe the logistics don't work. But what about a rule where you can add *ONE* player at the deadline even if it pushes you over the cap, but the penalty is that the next season the amount that player's cap hit pushed you over the cap is on the books even if he's a rental and isn't on the team anymore?

Example: Any team at the cap can acquire Patrick Kane at the deadline even if doing so pushes them over the cap. But if adding Kane's salary pushes a team $8 million over the cap this year, then next year they've already got $8 million committed even though that player isn't even on the roster.

Essentially, short term gain for long(ish) term pain where if you think you have a shot you can go for it this year, but it'll cost you next year.

 

[Hunter368]

Ok, so the Jets are one of the few teams "being responsible."

Honestly, and I mean no disrespect, do you really think the Jets have a chance to win the Stanley Cup?

They're a solid team and the West looks pretty open, but over Boston, Tampa, Toronto, or Carolina? Are they beating Colorado in a 7 game series?

Like, anybody can be under the cap if they want to be responsible instead of win. We're talking about a barrier to be able to compete that most teams can't get over unless they locked up a bunch of talent they drafted in a different environment (Tampa, Colorado), signed Bergeron and Krejci to contracts many millions of dollars under value because they're nice guys (Boston), or pulled some other shit (Tampa again). Or they're just trying the same core over and over again with no ability to actually improve it (Toronto).

And if the Jets do fall short, do you think they have the ability to get better? You said yourself they're probably trading one of their better players for financial reasons. So they're just gonna wing it this year and then prioritize responsibility over the roster.

From your perspective, you want the team to survive, and I get that, but you have to understand that most fans want their team to have a chance at winning. You can't put together a Stanley Cup roster on paper and be responsible. That's just not the market we're in.

You can't put this crisis on the GM's. They don't unilaterally control what players are worth and their responsibility is to make the best team. It's the owner's responsibility to be financially viable.

Jets are a lock for the playoffs, are they a top 5 contender? No, but thats my point partly.

PLD isn't being traded for financial reasons, he's likely being traded due to his desire to play in a large market. Again part of my point.

Jets have the ability to get better, like all teams do, but will they is the big question. But thats fair, teams need to draft, develop and spend wisely to be a good team. IMO. If they can't do all three of those then they shouldn't be a serious contender.

Can't put a cup roster on paper and be responsible? Why not? That's the whole point, cups are won or should be won partly on the ice, partly in management office and partly on your AHL team. Are you suggesting to be a cup roster you need to spend without reason or logic? I assume not, but its weird how you worded your point.

Absolutely GM's are partly responsible, not 100% but they sure own a big piece of the pie of blame. How many UFA contracts are actually good contracts given out during free agent frenzy? Zero %? Some are ok for 1-2-3 years then the vast majority are horrible contracts that should never of been signed. Again cap can be tweaked or changed the rules, but there have to be rules, restrictions, any big teams can't be just given the golden key to buy the cup or buy their way out of bad decisions. Not saying this is what you are saying or wanting just to be clear.

IMO I would support a cap structure (call it whatever you want), that gives all teams an equal and fair chance at winning the cup, being a good team, sustaining a team long term, etc. Give me a cap structure that rewards good decisions and punishes bad decisions. Give me those things and I support it. Anything that just gives big market teams, tax free teams and beach weather teams more advantages then they already have.......I wouldn't support it bc it just leads to a unbalanced league that heavily favors a few teams at the cost of the majority.

Good chat BTW

 

[Xirik]

would be interesting to see how many of those people picking option 1 or 2 are fans of teams that are having self inflicted cap problems.

 

[GRob83]

I think players drafted and developed by a team should count 85% toward the Salary Cap if they re-sign after their rookie deal expires. Time to reward front offices for scouting and finding good players instead of offer sheets and free agency poaching away their talent.
Example, a $10,000,000 salary would have a cap hit of $8,500,000. If that player is traded, the team acquiring the player would take a $10,000,000 cap hit.

 

[joestevens29]

Just give everyone one compliance buyout every three years. Then, it’s not such an advantage that the Rangers or Leafs could disappear a mistake every off season.

Forcing teams to keep Andrew Ladd in the NHL five years after he deserved to be there isn’t good for business.

The one idea I did like on the compliance buyouts whether it was 3 years or 4 or even 5, was that if you didn't use it you received another 1st round draft pick.

Gives the smaller market teams something if they decide not to use their buyout.