Sportsnet: NO Grandfathering

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Jobu, Jul 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    Kypreos and Dreger just reported on Sportsnet that there will be no grandfathering and no exceptions made to being under the cap by a certain date for the start of the 2005-06 season. There had been some confusion recently about grandfathering provisions.
     
  2. Tra La La

    Tra La La Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    Ok big Boys. Get out them wallets,you got some contracts to buy out.
     
  3. fcbarcelona

    fcbarcelona Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    what happens if the cap figure decreases next season and some teams have a payroll of the previous year's cap max? how much time do they have to pare down their payroll?

    i'm also curious to know what exactly counts against the cap? is it the cumulative salaries of the team's players or is it the amount of money that a team has paid for player compensation through an entire season? this distinction has important implications because if it is the former, which I suspect it is, then a team cannot ever have a collection of players whose salaries are above the cap max even if they don't intend to retain all of those players. plus, it also means that teams with cap space can't make trade deadline deals for an expensive veteran that a teams would like to unload. i hope there's some flexbility here because if this is the case teams will be immediately punished for having a payroll that was within the limits of the previous year's cap. it also means we can kiss trade deadline frenzies good-bye.
     
  4. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    Presumably they would have to be below by opening day. That is speculative until the CBA is released however.

    Salary and signing bonuses would obviously have to count against the cap. Performance bonusses may or may not. Benefits wont.

    I would guess that the payroll cannot go over the cap at any point in terms of overall salary. On the surface it doesnt seem like letting teams float anywhere, so long as their final paid dollars end up below the cap, but what do you do if a team foolishly ends up overpspending on the cap and doesnt have enough payroll space leftover to cover it's salaries for the rest of the year? Do you force them to forefit their remaining games? Do you fine them? It is much cleaner to state that the total payroll can never go over $x at any point.
     
  5. fcbarcelona

    fcbarcelona Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    If this is the case, then I hope the same holds true this summer.

    If a team foolishly ends up overspending, I'm sure the league would punish them accordingly. The thread of such a punishment would prevent this from happening IMO. Plus, it would be nice to have some flexibility...espcially since the cap is a floating cap. It also is in the best interests of the fans to see some trade deadline transactions to generate some interest. Those days are always exciting IMO.
     
  6. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    Well, 80% of the league has spent the last decade worrying about the financial impact of trades as a primary concern, and the trade deadline has continued to thrive. The other six teams will just have to maintain a little cap space if they wish to be able to add players down the stretch.

    That is why I found the unions $53.5 million cap offer so hilarious. They wanted a $49 million cap that allowed a team to go 10% over on occasion if they needed to add players? Err, why not just stay 10% below the cap level so you have the room to maneuver?
     
  7. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,394
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    You have to be able to go over in the Summer .. You have to hand out qualifying offers to RFA .. Sign draft picks etc .. You can't start buyout players until who will accept a what their contracts will be ..

    I think you have to be legal by season start .. You must be able to use training camp to assist you in decisions I would guess ..
     
  8. I think trade deadline day, as we know it, is done for. What made trade deadline day possible was having teams with enough cap room to take on big salaries in exchange for draft picks/prospects.

    Count me as someone who will not miss trade deadline day that much.

    It got pretty damn ridiculous in the last four or five years. Big Market teams trading away prospects and draft picks for small market teams overpaid paid players.

    In most cases, the big pickups rarely worked, as teams struggled to find chemistry anyway.

    Granted, it was a lot of fun, seeing who would go where. But in the end, it hurt hockey more than it helped.
     
  9. OilKiller

    OilKiller Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I would. I love trade deadline day. Being a fan of a small market team though, I knew my team would never pull off that "big" trade. But with every team in the same boat moreso with the new CBA, I think trade deadline day will be more fun for every fan.
     

  10. No way. Teams that have the revenues to take on big contracts can't because of the cap.
    Teams that have the cap room can't because they don't have revenues.
     
  11. OilKiller

    OilKiller Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    We could still see a lot of player shifting with players having similar contracts. I still say that trades will be around and every team will be able to make them now, not just the rich ones taking on bigger contracts or picking up UFA's, etc.
     
  12. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,096
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    Something to consider - a team might be able to trade for a guy with a very small amount of $'s left on his contract, and fit them under the cap.

    Let's use the Rob Blake situation as an example. An elite level player, (let's say making $6M), is going to be a UFA, and won't be returning to a team (because they are rebuilding, or they won't be able to fit him under the cap). A team that is under the cap and thinks they can make a run could pick him up for the $1M left to be paid, which is the remaining contract obligation after the trade deadline.
     
  13. fcbarcelona

    fcbarcelona Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,876
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    This is news to me. Since when were the Avs in rebuilding mode?
     
  14. Arastiroth

    Arastiroth Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Thomas, KY
    Home Page:
    By the Rob Blake example he meant when the Kings traded him to the Avs.
     
  15. London Knights

    London Knights Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could set an in season clause for rent-a-players. The cap at the start of the season/end of the season would be 49 million. But it would give you an opportunity to spend a certain amount over the cap in the middle of the year providing you get back to the proper level come the off-season. That is most likely how that would have worked.
     
  16. Kaizer

    Kaizer Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Moscow , Russia
    Sort of "2 weeks" report, Imo.
     
  17. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    If I understand how you are stating this right, you are permitting a team to exceed the cap, so long as they release players to get back to the cap once the season is over. If that is the case, that would violate the intent and the spirit of the salary cap, and almost certantly will not be permitted.

    If you meant that a team could carry players with a combined salary over the cap for a time, so long as the actual dollars paid out by the team do not exceed the cap, that seems fine on the surface, but only so long as the penalty for exceeding the cap is prohibative. Hell, if the Leafs were able to carry a $50 million payroll during the season, ended up overpaying by the end and the fine was something like $5 million, they probably wouldnt think twice about breaking the rules.

    Personally, I think if the league would conisder allowing a team to go over the actual cap for a time, and the end result was that they broke the cap rules, the penalty should be the forefiture of their playoff spot. That would very likely keep teams in line.
     
  18. Traitor8

    Traitor8 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,921
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    probarbly just give up a first round pick...not a playoff spot!..calm down...imagine that actually happend? which fans would go see their time NOT FIGHTING for anything
     
  19. Crazy_Ike

    Crazy_Ike Cookin' with fire.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's more likely to be along the lines of several first round picks for a first offense along with possibly a big fine. If the team still tries to cheat, then you start getting into game forfeiting. It won't be something any team tries to flaunt, I guarantee that.
     
  20. Tra La La

    Tra La La Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    A Hard Cap means, no exceeding it in any way, shape, or form.I expect the League will have the Power To approve any contract. And if it would put a team over the cap. It would be dis allowed.
     
  21. shakes

    shakes Pep City

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,404
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Home Page:
    I would think performance bonuses count against the cap.. if they didn't then.. whoa nelly... sign a star player for the league minimum and give him large bonuses for incredibly easy targets.
     
  22. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Home Page:
    performance bonuses will probably be counted against the following years cap, as it is the only way to deal with them, IMHO.
     
  23. Boltsfan2029

    Boltsfan2029 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paralegal
    Location:
    In deleted threads
    I've been reading so many rumors I'm getting them mixed up. Wouldn't this be prohibited by the standardized bonuses? Or is that for rookies?
     
  24. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,394
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Agreed to a point if its contained to contracts that violate any part of the CBA and its rules ..YES .

    However a team overspending by $2 mil on a player that might escalate salaries but within the cap ranges of both player and team ..I would say NO ..

    Even if its bad for business if its legal its approved ..IMO
     
  25. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,394
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    That could open itself up to abuse though ..

    You could plan a Stanley Cup run in July UFA season by offering the best stars lower base and playoff performance bonuses and stack a team .. Then pay the piper the following year as lost cap space ..

    Trust me teams would exploit this .. and fans might even be willing to support it .. One year you go all out for the CUP .. the next you are in prime entry draft lottery territory.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"