“Homegrown” cap discount

[member 147413]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

Click to read more...

 

[CraigsList]

Not a terrible idea, however, not every team develops well within their own prospect base. It’d be difficult for those that struggle in that regard.

 

[Artanis]

Ceci, Ottawa , No.

 

[Machinehead]

Not a terrible idea, however, not every team develops well within their own prospect base. It’d be difficult for those that struggle in that regard.

Teams that can't draft and develop are going to struggle anyway.

 

[Bounces R Way]

I like it

The only thing is some teams are trying to hit a cap floor rather than not go over the cap limit. I would also have it only pertain to RFAs. Personally think they should just raise the cap 5 million or more to give some relief to teams trying to balance their spending like a a broke College Freshman. No real reason over 1/2 the league should have less than 5 million in cap space.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Not a terrible idea, however, not every team develops well within their own prospect base. It’d be difficult for those that struggle in that regard.

It should be difficult for teams who cant draft and develop

 

[member 147413]

Not a terrible idea, however, not every team develops well within their own prospect base. It’d be difficult for those that struggle in that regard.

That’s almost the point, teams should be investing more resources into drafting and development. If it’s bad now, it can get better as a result of this rule change.

 

[end]

Drafting well is its own reward. This is just a way to try to limit competition. I’ll never understand why people want dynasties so bad. I guess they all imagine it’ll be their dynasty.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Well teams that own a player rights (aka that they drafted) can offer them that 7th year vs 6th year on long term deals. More term lowers the AAV so if you think about it, the 'discount' sort of already exists in a way.

 

[Chrisinroch]

I’ve always thought this concept was a good way to maintain continuity for fans, but increasingly I’m just not bothered by free agency.

 

[mouser]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

At the end of the day the players are only going to be paid 50% of hockey revenue.

Anything you do that allows teams to spend more money then they can today requires one of two things to happen:

a) The salary cap needs to be lowered to offset the extra spending. (which kinda defeats the whole purpose here)
b) The players are going to hand back even more $'s to the owners via escrow.

The PA wouldn't like it much either as it treats players differently for things that are out of their control. i.e. being traded.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Not a terrible idea, however, not every team develops well within their own prospect base. It’d be difficult for those that struggle in that regard.

That’d be the point though.

 

[CraigsList]

@Machinehead @CantLoseWithMatthews @FishManSam @The Abusement Park

Right, but once the league established a salary cap they wanted parity. This would make a few GM’s upset. I like the idea, I just don’t see it happening.

 

[Shakey Rustie]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

You have to be clear on what you mean by this.

For example, William Nylander's contract has expired, but his rights remain with Toronto (as of now). Even if he were to re-sign with Toronto, under this scenario would Toronto receive the discount?

Furthermore, there is the argument to be made that all contracts expire, and that extensions or re-signing are new contracts (as the key terms and conditions thereof change). Are you stating that this principle is only to apply to those signing contracts during the duration of their entry level deals?

 

[Machinehead]

@Machinehead @CantLoseWithMatthews @FishManSam @The Abusement Park

Right, but once the league established a salary cap they wanted parity. This would make a few GM’s upset. I like the idea, I just don’t see it happening.

Hopefully this would make a few GM's fired instead of upset.

 

[Uberdachen]

Finally, a reason for teams to select good players at the draft instead of the usual charity tubs with good personalities.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

At the end of the day the players are only going to be paid 50% of hockey revenue.

Anything you do that allows teams to spend more money then they can today requires one of two things to happen:

a) The salary cap needs to be lowered to offset the extra spending. (which kinda defeats the whole purpose here)
b) The players are going to hand back even more $'s to the owners via escrow.

The PA wouldn't like it much either as it treats players differently for things that are out of their control. i.e. being traded.

Smart post.

Math is hard to argue against.

 

[FalcorMulch]

The owners aren't going to budge off a 50/50 revenue split so in order to do this the salary cap would have to come down which would essentially defeat the purpose. It would also be a hard sell to the players because it would hurt the UFA market.

 

[hangman005]

I do actually like the idea, but I think @mouser really hit the nail on the head in terms of actually trying to implement it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Potentially dumb idea, but should encourage teams to focus more on drafting and development instead of “paying for talent”.

What if the league introduced a cap hit discount for players drafted and developed by the same team.

The “discount” would then be void if that player were moved/contract expired.

Let’s say Vancouver drafted J.Hughes, he develops well and asks for 8x10. Vancouver obliges, but since he was “homegrown”, Vancouver receives a cap discount of 5 or 10 %.

I.e Hughes would be paid 10mil per, but his cap hit towards the cap would either be 9.5mil or 9mil.

If traded, his hit would be 10mil, now let’s say he returns to Vancouver in a trade, his hit would be 10mil instead.

Am I out to lunch?

You say Vancouver--but your history clearly states you are a leaf fan

 

[Rangediddy]

I like the idea, and luckily there's other people than us keyboard warriors to work out how to implement it.

You could make it possible for the team to work in a home town discount without the player receiving less. Ie: the Flames could pay Tkachuk a market appropriate $8,000,000, but only have a cap hit of $7,200,000 (with a 10% discount). More players would stay with their drafted teams, fewer players sitting out over contract disputes and gives less attractive markets the ability to keep quality talent (less flight risk again).

With teams trying to hit the cap floor, they should simply have the option to not apply for the discount. Doesn't need to be mandatory. If anything, they could apply for an inflation of homegrown contracts to help reach the floor!

 

[member 147413]

You say Vancouver--but your history clearly states you are a leaf fan

So...?

 

[Dache]

Teams that can't draft and develop are going to struggle anyway.

So then they should be even worse? All this would do would make the “rich” teams that can afford to spend millions on scouts do exactly that. You’d almost need to include the salaries to scouts in the cap as they would become one of the most important salaries

 

[Machinehead]

So then they should be even worse? All this would do would make the “rich” teams that can afford to spend millions on scouts do exactly that. You’d almost need to include the salaries to scouts in the cap as they would become one of the most important salaries

The rich teams do that now. Some of them still suck.

 

[Dache]

The rich teams do that now. Some of them still suck.

Oh I agree, it would just become much more lopsided with a system like this, and teams that can afford to pay anything they want for front office staff would have an unfair advantage.