ok, a cap compromise - from GoCoyotes

why wont the owners negotiate a soft cap ? is that not progress and moving away from "staus quo".

GoCoyotes made a good suggestion I think and it might be middle ground.

comments ?

dr

"A cap that only affected players not developed by the team they play on seems like the best solution to me. If a player has played 10 years for the same team, or if that player has played their entire NHL career for the same team they should not count against the cap. The 10 year tenure with the team could be considered a franchise player exemption, and the entire NHL career could be considered a developmental exemption. Then of course you have to look at the total teams should be able to spend by acquiring players via trades and free agency. By limiting this, you are decreasing the cases where a player holdouts for a trade to make more money because if he is traded he would count towards a cap. You also decrease the money that can be spent on free agents, so that brings that market level down a notch as well. It still leaves an open end for the market as a whole for salaries to grow and players to make their money, but it ensures that owners spend the money in the right places, not just buying up players from poorer teams as it occurs now."

 

The problem with this is that the player has no control over whether or not he gets traded, and therefore no control over whether he ever gets the right to negotiate a salary without salary cap restrictions. A more likely scenario is that players won't count toward the cap as long as they go for a certain amount of time without exercising their free agent rights (regardless of whether or not they have been traded).

 

Thanks to Demented Reality for the support.

I've been touting what I call the Homegrown Cap for the past 4-6 months now.

It's pretty basic, there is a hard cap with two exemptions, the franchise player rule which would say any player that has played X number of years on the same team is exempt, players who are drafted or developed by a team are exempt.

For the franchise player rule, I would say anywhere from 7-10 years of service, otherwise the rule wouldn't do too much. It should be for the Pronger's, Steven's, Naslund's, Sundin's of the league, not the lesser tenured players like Shanahan or Turgeon by example.

For the developmental rule, I would say that as long as the player played their first game in the NHL for that team, they would be exempt. That would count the same if they were a free agent signing out of college, or a draft pick, or even a traded for prospect who broke into the league with that team.

The things that you are capping then are the players who are traded and the players who are signed as free agents. I believe if you set the cap to even $31 million like the NHL is proposing for the ENTIRE ROSTER, it would make a difference.

In millions of dollars, this is how the NHL stacked up as of current rosters for non-homegrown payrolls at the end of the season. These numbers are without franchise player exemptions, so figure accordingly in several cases.

1 TOR $70.6
2 PHI $66.7
3 STL $59.2
4 DET $55.2
5 DAL $54.0
6 LA $45.2
7 NYR $44.7
8 NYI $40.0
9 VAN $38.0
10 ANA $38.0
11 COL $34.8
12 BOS $34.4
13 TB $27.4
14 CAR $25.6
15 BUF $25.2
16 EDM $24.8
17 OTT $24.7
18 NJD $24.0
19 PHO $23.1
20 MTL $23.1
21 CGY $22.8
22 CBJ $20.3
23 ATL $20.3
24 FLA $19.2
25 SJ $18.2
26 NSH $17.1
27 MIN $16.6
28 CHI $10.6
29 WAS $8.2
30 PIT $7.6

Again, these are the numbers at the end of the season, which has changed since then for sure. If you take the franchise player exemption, there are still several teams over $31 million. It's no surprise that many of the big spenders of the past were at the top of the list, as they are the ones who were driving the free agency market. It's no surprise that many of the teams at the bottom are the one's having a hard time to stay in the game and are not the big free agent spenders. Many of the teams at the bottom had to give up their players to the teams at the top for salary concerns. Maybe all things would be more equal if that wasn't required at the time. It also shows how much some teams who can still contend can compete with homegrown talent. Cup finalists Calgary & Tampa Bay being among the middle ground.

 

Do those numbers include players that have been traded to that team, ie all non drafted players?

 

What happens when a team goes over the cap? What kind of 'penalty' does the team receive?

 

Yes, they include everyone who didn't play their first NHL game for that team. Like I said, you can adjust for the franchise player exemption.

If it's a hard cap, teams can't go over the cap unless they face the same punishments a regular hard cap would impact (fines?). You could even do a luxury tax, but I don't even like that idea unless you start taxing very high percentages, at least dollar for dollar if not more.

 

I personally like your idea... alot

In my opinion:

I think whatever the average NHL career is (10 years? 15 years? etc.), divide that number by 2... If the player is with the same franchise for at least half of the average NHL playing career (taking out the outlyers (sp?) like Messier, Francis, one-game wonders, etc.) then IMO, make the franchise player exemption apply to that player...

In my opinion:

Personally, I prefer a luxury tax (with the money collected by the league and then divided equally amongst the teams at the end of the season)... This rewards the teams who are home growing their talent - By giving them extra cash to pay for their home grown 'core'... Dollar for dollar tax sounds good to me...

 

I'm not going to both with current rosters because there are so many free agents unsigned, but I took into account an 8 year tenure with a team and counted that towards the franchise player exemption. Here are the updated results at season's end.

1 TOR $60.7 (Domi, Sundin)
2 PHI $53.7 (Desjardins, Leclair)
3 DAL $48.0 (Zubov)
4 STL $47.2 (Pronger, Macinnis, Demitra)
5 NYR $44.7
6 DET $44.5 (Maltby, Draper, Shanahan)
7 LA $41.2 (Norstrom)
8 NYI $40.0
9 ANA $38.0
10 COL $34.8
11 BOS $34.4
12 VAN $32.4 (Naslund)
13 TB $27.4
14 CAR $25.6
15 EDM $24.8
16 OTT $24.7
17 PHO $23.1
18 MTL $23.1
19 CBJ $20.3
20 ATL $20.3
21 FLA $19.2
22 SJ $18.2
23 NSH $17.1
24 NJD $17.0 (Stevens)
25 CGY $16.8 (Iginla)
26 MIN $16.6
27 BUF $16.2 (Satan, Zhitnik)
28 CHI $10.6
29 WAS $8.2
30 PIT $7.6

Still favors the big spenders, but they'd have $15-20 million to trim too.

 

I could live with a luxury tax, but I think it has to be severe enough that it's not an afterthought. It could be spread out even among all the teams under the cap limit. I don't personally like the strictness of the hard cap, but I thought this was a hard cap with enough openings that it wasn't nearly as restrictive. It definitely rewards the teams that are able to build from within, but it doesn't necessarily even the playing field from the teams who spend more than they develop. It just slows down the teams who spend more, and it gives some financial relieve to the teams who stay under the cap. Based on last season, there were 18 teams that would have been under the cap, and they would have each received $8.5 million from a luxury tax dollar for dollar if the luxury cap was $31 million. That'd put most of those teams out of the red.

 

I think you're missing at least Shanahan for Detroit, 2003-2204 was his 8th here.

 

Time flies, I remember that trade like it was just yesterday, anyway I stand correct. That'd knock Detroit down another $6M?

 

I beleive so.

 

Funny how the Coyotes have been criticized by their offseason spending by many, and yet their current roster consists of $33,270,000 is salary committed to players that would fall under the cap. Granted, the Coyotes have not built a team wisely thus far, as only Kolanos & Doan will be on the active roster and considered cap exempt under my rules. Says a lot about how the Coyotes got into the place they are in and why they've had to sign all the players to make up for it. The Coyotes have done it much like the Canucks of the past though, contracts for players that filled holes but that didn't exceed the market value to the point of detriment. That's about where I stop comparing those two teams, but I think the Coyotes are on the right track, and Vancouver got back on track just a few short years ago the same way.

So there is room to improve your team through free agency, it just can't be the only fix on a yearly basis.

 

TREMENDOUS IDEA AND VERY CREATIVE GC! WELL DONE. It provides the framework for what could be an incredible opportunity to satisfy everyone including the fans. This idea is the best I have read yet and gives both sides something to work from. We have to find ways to keep this idea in the heads of everyone.

 

I like the idea, send it in to the league and the players. the worst they can do is throw it away.

Here's how Detroit payroll would break down this season, using the roster and salaries at http://www.allsports.com/nhl/redwings/features/orgchart.html

I added in Chelios at $2.5, Datsyuk at $3.5, Schnieder ar $4, and Yzerman at $4.

Their payroll comes out to roughly $66 million. Of that, $29 million is committed to players not drafted, or having less than 8 years of service for them. That puts them in the middle of the pack. There's still a pretty good chance they won't sign Schneider (and if they do, it will be for less than $4 million), and if the lockout goes on for the full year, Chelios won't be back. So that takes the total down to $22 million, putting them in the bottom third of last year's league totals.

 

The Vancouver Canucks 2004-2005 Case Study
Using the ‘GoCoyotes’ Framework
Drafted/Developmental player exception… 8 years Franchise player exception… $31 million cap…

Assumptions and sources: I assume that I am applying the framework properly ... I got these 2004/2005 salaries from the HF Canucks board (every team needs a Mizral)… I got the Seasons with Canucks from Yahoo Sports (eyeballing the seasons with the Canucks) - I included the season that the player was traded to the Canucks, or the season that the drafted player played his first game - as this is when they began their tenure with the Canucks, even though it wasn't necessarily a full season)… I counted total seasons with the Canucks (not consecutive seasons) - i.e. in the case of Linden and May they were with the Canucks, then traded, and then traded back... I assume that the numbers (and my math) are correct...

Todd Bertuzzi
2004-05 Salary: $7,133,333
Seasons with Canucks: 7
No franchise player exception

Markus Naslund
2004-05 Salary: $5,650,000
Seasons with Canucks: 9
Franchise player exception

Ed Jovanovski
2004-05 Salary: $4,750,000
Seasons with Canucks: 6
No franchise player exception

Brendan Morrison
2004-05 Salary: $3,550,000
Seasons with Canucks: 5
No franchise player exception

Dan Cloutier
2004-05 Salary: $3,050,000
Seasons with Canucks: 4
No franchise player exception

Mattias Ohlund
2004-05 Salary: $3,000,000
Seasons with Canucks: 7
Drafted player exception

Brent Sopel
2004-05 Salary: $2,100,000
Seasons with Canucks: 6
Drafted player exception

Trevor Linden
2004-05 Salary: $2,000,000
Seasons with Canucks: 13
Franchise player exception

Sami Salo
2004-05 Salary: $1,675,000
Seasons with Canucks: 2
No franchise player exception

Marek Malik
2004-05 Salary: $1,550,000
Seasons with Canucks: 2
No franchise player exception

Daniel Sedin
2004-05 Salary: $1,350,000
Seasons with Canucks: 4
Drafted player exception

Henrik Sedin
2004-05 Salary: $1,350,000
Seasons with Canucks: 4
Drafted player exception

Bryan Allen
2004-05 Salary: $1,179,750
Seasons with Canucks: 4
Drafted player exception

Artem Chubarov
2004-05 Salary: $931,700
Seasons with Canucks: 5
Drafted player exception

Brad May
2004-05 Salary: $900,000
Seasons with Canucks: 5
No franchise player exception

Ryan Kesler
2004-05 Salary: $850,000
Seasons with Canucks: 1
Drafted player exception

Matt Cooke
2004-05 Salary: $750,000
Seasons with Canucks: 6
Drafted player exception

Alex Auld
2004-05 Salary: $625,000
Seasons with Canucks: 3
Drafted player exception

Jarkko Ruutu
2004-05 Salary: $600,000
Seasons with Canucks: 5
Drafted player exception

Jason King
2004-05 Salary: $575,000
Seasons with Canucks: 2
Drafted player exception

Wade Brookbank
2004-05 Salary: $450,000
Seasons with Canucks: 1
No Franchise player exception

Total Payroll of the 2004-05 Contracts: $43,394,783

Cap Exceptions: $20,961,450

Payroll Counted Towards Cap: $22,433,333

Room for additional non-exempt salaries (before Cap Penalties): $8,566,667

IMO, try to acquire a very good, established, 2nd line RW for the Sedins for around $3.5 -$ 4 million – and we should be pretty good to go (for a total payroll of between $46,894,783 - $47,394,893)… While still being approx. $4,500,000 under the cap (in case we need to add another body or two at the trade deadline to try and solidify a solid playoff run)…

And by being under the cap, we get rewarded with the luxury tax revenue sharing (assuming that the framework includes this component)… Therefore, we have a pretty big incentive to stay under the cap – even if we can afford to go over…

It would be interesting to see case studies done for other teams…

 

It's taken some time to catch on, but I had a lot of agreement in the past when I brought this up too. Glad to see I'm not the only one that can make the sense of it.

Just get me that direct line to Bettman & Goodenow, and I'll straighten it all out.

With all favortism to the idea aside since I came up with it, I truely believe it's a viable option that nearly addresses many of the problems from the previous CBA.

 

well, i think the owners would disagree. it has only a slight corelation to the revenues of the league and they are adamant that there is a strict relationship between revenues and player costs.

although, i think its a good middle ground.

dr

 

Let me start by saying that even though I'll defend a hard cap until I'm blue in the face, I've always thought and said that the best plan would be a soft cap that helped teams retain players.

That said, I don't like GoCoyotes plan. Frankly, it's unreasonable. It puts incredibly too much emphasis on player development. Why should a team be punished because he traded for a player or signed a player? Aren't those two ways that a GM would generally go about improving his team?

The best type of soft cap would be one where a player's cap hit drops as the number of years he has been with an organization increases where, for players drafted by the organization, the first year would be the season following his draft.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but at one time I posted a system that was roughly:

1st year - 100% cap hit
2nd year - 98%
3rd year - 95%
4th year - 90%
5th year - 85%
6th year - 80%
7+ years - 75%

 

For what it's worth, here's how the Blues would work out with the system I listed:

Code:

[b]Player		Salary		Cap%	Cap Hit[/b]
Backman		1,000,000	75%	$750,000
Divis		400,000		85%	$340,000
Pollock		450,000		75%	$337,500
Walker		450,000		75%	$337,500
Rycroft		500,000		85%	$425,000
Boguniecki	600,000		85%	$510,000
Johnson		700,000		95%	$665,000
Low		750,000		75%	$562,500
Mayers		880,000		75%	$660,000
Cajanek		1,000,000	90%	$900,000
Sillinger		1,350,000	98%	$1,323,000
Drake		1,400,000	85%	$1,190,000
Salvador		1,400,000	75%	$1,050,000
Khavanov	1,700,000	80%	$1,360,000
Weinrich		1,750,000	98%	$1,715,000
Lalime		2,900,000	100%	$2,900,000
Weight		7,000,000	90%	$6,300,000
Tkachuk		9,000,000	85%	$7,650,000
Pronger		10,000,000	75%	$7,500,000
[b]Totals		43,230,000		$36,475,500[/b]

 

see, if you (hard cap supporter) and I (hard cap hater) were negotiating, we would have something here to work from. so why arent you even a little upset with the owners that they wont "open their mind" to something like this, preferring to kill hockey instead ?

or maybe, in fairness, its the players who wouldnt agree ?

what do you think ?

dr

 

Here's where I am on this... my primary concern is that the league fix the problems. To me, that means a) A system where all 30 teams can be successful and b) a system where teams cannot have a monetary advantage.

I personally think that for the league to achieve this that the players must bite first. What I mean by that is that the players must first offer a soft cap... something that the owners can work with in negotiations.

So, to answer your question, I'm not mad at the owners.

 

Another thing... just to be clear... if this system were to be used, I don't think the cap could be above $35M and maybe as low as $30M.

 

well, i think if the owners were more interested in getting hockey on track and not so focused on breaking the union, they would take the leadership position and make an alternative offer.

dr

 

While this proposal sounds like a reasonable deal, it punishes the market value of players for what they can't even control - getting traded. Under this proposal a player's earning potential would drop significantly if he was unfortunate enough to get traded. Not exactly fair, in my opinion, and I don't think the player would agree to it for this reason.