Salary cap ideas on reforms

[Roomba With a Bauer]

Here are some issues I see:

1. Guaranteed contracts with a hard cap.

Problem: GMs are stifled by guaranteed contracts and players do not often play up to the contract. It can ruin a team for seven or eight years and it stagnates the league. It also limits player movement.

Solution 1: Modify the buyout structure. Give the teams the option of surrendering draft picks in exchange for reducing cap hits from buyouts. Teams are not allowed to resign bought out players for 5 years. This cuts out the middle man in the current "trade cap dumps with a pick" arrangement that the league is using. Any bought out contract worth more than 10% of the cap is an automatic loss of a first round pick within three seasons. Simultaneously ban trades for the purpose of dumping cap.

Solution 2: Soft cap with a luxury tax. This gives teams wiggle room to adjust for bad contracts while still punishing them. Luxury tax revenues are added to revenue sharing for other teams.

2. Tax Differences.

Problem: Teams in states with no or low taxes have an inherent advantage that cannot be mitigated by other teams.

Solution: Change the salary calculations to use post-tax instead of pre-tax numbers to somewhat equalize the cap across all teams.

3. LTIR Manipulation:

Problem: Teams are blatantly putting players on LTIR who could be playing, or using injured players as an excuse to acquire extra salary for a playoff run.

Solution: During the playoffs, teams will calculate a daily salary for each player based on their regular season contract and submit a sum total to the NHL. Teams rosters during the playoffs must be compliant with the calculated daily cap from the regular season. If a player is acquired to replace an injured player, and the injured player is deemed ready to return during the playoffs, the team must still submit a daily roster using the players available to them that equals or is under the calculated daily average cap. Extra "salary" can be held in reserve in case of injury.

 

[Flukeshot]

Focusing on the OP's position, that being player loans. It is an implementable system if the restrictions are there.

1- finances work just as a trade. Cap hit and actual funds go to the acquiring team
2- NTC and NMC honored as not allowing loans
3- All loans only last to the end of the season/playoffs. Players come back once their acquiring team plays their last game.
4- no salary retention, keep it clean

While restrictions would lessen the likelihood of a loan, or minimize the assets going the other way. It would make them more feasible to create a loan system.


The rest of the options are all just complexities to the 50/50 split of HRR. Cool one team buys out 8 players and doesn't suffer the cap hit, but at the end of the day the players get half HRR and all those buyouts and replacement contracts come from the same pool of funds.

 

[StreetHawk]

HRR split isn’t going to change. So, if we are adding more money into player expenses how will that be accounted for? NHL taking less than 50% of HRR or the PA just going to end up paying it back via escrow.

 

[Copenhagen91]

Yes, attack the messenger, but not the message.


People like you make this world worse.

Be a better person.

I think the message was attacked enough…. Little sensitive over there in leaf land I guess

 

[madmike77]

I think ultimately we’ll see some kind of cap/contract reform. In some respects the PA loves contracts like Huberdeau’s because it means big, guaranteed salaries for the players.

But the flipside is players are stuck with a team if their play doesn’t warrant their contract. Huberdeau is miserable in Calgary. But because of that contract he’ll never be able to leave. It’s great for him financially, but I think he’d negate it and sign for less elsewhere if he could. At the moment that’s not an option.

 

[dortt]

you do not need escrow

set the cap at the projected 50% of HRR

if a team spends above, a 100% tax for the first 10 million above the cap, with a 250% tax for any spending above 10M over the cap. All revenues are shared with those teams that did not spend above the cap

raise UFA to 29

 

[Golden_Jet]

you do not need escrow

set the cap at the projected 50% of HRR

if a team spends above, a 100% tax for the first 10 million above the cap, with a 250% tax for any spending above 10M over the cap. All revenues are shared with those teams that did not spend above the cap

raise UFA to 29

The cap is set at 50% of HRR currently, (72.6 million)
The number is the midpoint of max (115%) and minimum (85%).

Escrow now happens because more than 50% of teams go over the midpoint.

So you hit your 250% at 82.6 million, this year, (900k under current max).

 

[La Bamba]

They need compliance buyouts again for the next CBA renewal

 

[dortt]

The cap is set at 50% of HRR currently, (72.6 million)
The number is the midpoint of max (115%) and minimum (85%).

Escrow now happens because more than 50% of teams go over the midpoint.

So you hit your 250% at 82.6 million, this year, (900k under current max).

I have no issues with that. Players would be paid what is in their contracts without any escrow. Pay more than the cap, pay the teams that do not exceed the cap.

Cap should be rising anyways significantly over the coming years

 

[Statto]

If the cap truly isn't to level out competition and is a cost-stabilizer for owners, why not allow teams to have one compliance buyout at a time?

1) The full amount of the contract has to be paid to the player

This ensures neither the player nor the NHLPA loses out on money. Which I believe was the argument for not allowing compliance buyouts after the last round of them in 2013.

2) Teams are ineligible for a 2nd compliance buyout while the 1st buyout contract is in effect

Meaning if the Kings bought out PLD, they'd be unable to have another compliance buyout for 7 more seasons. This prevents large market teams from abusing their financial power and keeps a relatively level competitive balance throughout the league

3) The cap hit is completely off the books

This prevents teams from being saddled with an awful contract and limiting their effectiveness. I think it would strengthen the league and make teams more fun to watch.

A salary cap + guaranteed contracts basically ensures that GMs think short term, not minding if they hand out an 5-8 year deal to a 30+ year old player because they won't be around to deal with the consequences.

I like this but with a provision that it comes out of the teams financial cut, therefore doesn’t impact escrow. It’d make most teams much more careful about how they use/abuse it.

 

[StreetHawk]

They need compliance buyouts again for the next CBA renewal

Who's portion of HRR does that come out of?
Are the owners prepared to pay for it and thus it is not counted as part of player expenses or is it included and thus part of the escrow calculations?

Being realistic the options are probably going to be:

1) Reduce buyout rate down from 2/3 for those 26 and over (make SB eligible for buyouts). Teams that buy players out will typically go and spend the savings on another player.
2) Shorter term contracts from 8/7 down to 6/5. Might save teams from a couple of declining years, but depends on age of signing.

What is the cost to the owners to get the above? Reduce UFA from 27 or 7 accrued years of experience? Down to what? 26 or even 25?
Arbitration for all players coming off elc?

 

[Bouboumaster]

No need of reform

Just need less dumbass GMs that give dumbass contracts

If I were the owner of either Calgary or Edmonton, I would have summoned Treliving/Holland in my office I fire them right on the f***ing spot for signing Huberdeau/Nurse to their contracts

 

[Maple Leaf]

No need of reform

Just need less dumbass GMs that give dumbass contracts

If I were the owner of either Calgary or Edmonton, I would have summoned Treliving/Holland in my office I fire them right on the f***ing spot for signing Huberdeau/Nurse to their contracts

The owner is sitting right beside them during those signings

 

[Bouboumaster]

The owner is sitting right beside them during those signings

They have only themselves to blame than

They can suck a fat one, no need to punish the GMs/owner by helping those who can't count

 

[Guttersniped]

Imagine the player eliminating his team knowing he's coming back to them next season.



Buyout without cap penalty.

Stamkos (34) wants 15 mil/year

Sign Stamkos 8 years at 7.5 mil/year. Buy him out after 4.


My suggestion, Franchise player doesn't count on the cap. One per team

That’s bad for players under the hard cap because escrow has to cover the excess spending on players’ salaries.

That’s why Complaince Buyouts without cap hits won’t happen again, escrow had to cover that too.

 

[Gaud]

Teams that bring in more revenue should be able to spend more, top 16 revenue earning teams should get 1 buyout per year or be able to spend 10% more than the cap

not sure I agree with having different caps to favour richer teams, i think parity is important.

however, i wouldnt mind having some amendment to the cap that takes into account how much taxes are being spent in one market over another. A guy on a 1M salary will get 135 000$ more for playing in Nashville than in Montreal, on taxes alone.

That's over 10%!!!!
That's huge when you consider an 80+million cap.

 

[KevinRedkey]

The only salary cap change I'd like to see is some sort of implementation for the playoffs. Perhaps something similar to the off-season, where you can go over the standard cap by a %.

I don't want it to be too strict, and restrict trades - but I think we can all agree the Kucherov/Stone stuff is a little too convenient.

Otherwise, it works fine.

 

[SEALBound]

Couple things I'd like to see:

1. Contract length maximums coming down. I wouldn't hate seeing a progressive system, either. $10mil+, max 4yrs. $7-10mil, max 5 years, $4-7mil, max 6years, below $4mil, max 7 years. I want to see less anchor contracts in the league. If Nurse, Huberdeau, or Gaudreau had 4 year deals, it would hardly be an issue. If the player does better and outpaces the contract, they can be extended and rerewarded. If they fall off, the team isn't sunk for an additional 4-5 years in some cases. Players can then choose if they want the security over money or vice versa.

2. Reduce UFA age to 25 while capping RFA contact money and term. I think teams would be able to better build a compete if they didn't have to hand out major, long term deals to guys just off their ELC. Imagine Matthews, Nylander, and Marner maxing out at say $5mil instead of holding out for double that.

3. LTIR can stay as is, but come playoff time, the team you put on the ice must be salary cap-compliant. If you want to go over by $20mil, fine but your lineup better be under the cap. I think that alone would alleviate the current issues without too much friction.

I'm not anti-player by any stretch but I don't think anchor contracts and inflated multi-million dollar deals are good for teams, owners, or the league. I'd like to avoid future lockouts by keeping things in check.

 

[colchar]

I actually kind of liked the idea at first but I see a major flaw

Soccer doesn't have tanking because of relegation

What is there to incentivize tanking teams to take on contracts they won't be able to flip assets for? And what is there to prevent tanking teams from loaning good young players out to contending teams?

Soccer doesn't have tanking because they don't have a draft.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

Soccer doesn't have tanking because they don't have a draft.

same thing

 

[colchar]

same thing

No, lack of a draft and relegation are not the same thing. Same result, but not the same things.

 

[Qwijibo]

The system is fine as is. You mess up on a contract you deal with the consequences. In old enough to remember the pre salary cap days where a handful of rich teams would continually try to buy cups. It created a tiered league and destroyed any chance of any kind of parity. Now everyone has to work within the same parameters.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Make teams be cap compliant during the playoffs.

Pretty simple.

 

[Qwijibo]

Teams that bring in more revenue should be able to spend more, top 16 revenue earning teams should get 1 buyout per year or be able to spend 10% more than the cap

No. You may as well just tell the small market teams they're nothing but feeder teams for the rich markets. Youe model would ensure the rich teams stay on top and the small markets stay on tbe bottom.

Also. The cap is based on hockey related revenue. That's a finite resource. Maybe you're fine with sitting through another extended lockout as the owners and the players fight over allocating those percentages but I'm not. We've had a long period of stability since the last lockout. The system is working for both parties. Why screw with it to reward some teams and punish others?

 

[NVious]

No. You may as well just tell the small market teams they're nothing but feeder teams for the rich markets. Youe model would ensure the rich teams stay on top and the small markets stay on tbe bottom.

Also. The cap is based on hockey related revenue. That's a finite resource. Maybe you're fine with sitting through another extended lockout as the owners and the players fight over allocating those percentages but I'm not. We've had a long period of stability since the last lockout. The system is working for both parties. Why screw with it to reward some teams and punish others?

10% isn't a meaningful amount and the bottom feeders can cry me a river, oh no there is a slight bit of an advantage for teams that actually have fans, how crazy!

Working how? Because bottom feeders get unnaturally lifted while the teams doing the heavy lifting have zero benefits? No cap is as bad as the current cap system which is extreme on it's own.